thank you we're also at the podium for both sides so we can just have your introduction to be careful we noted that at some point in time this case was before the chancer division the circuit court in front of judge calling for a confirmation of the arbitration was there any time prior to death that the that was decided favorably for the responded and the arbitration sat whether there was any interference by hansen with those prospective  told greenberg we're going to give you the same provision even though we knew that they weren't there and that this is now when they got the scientists because their capital they could no longer i want to direct your attention to them now the the arbitration proceedings had it had a management order did they not yes all right and some point during you filed your your counter claim third party in my version of the hearing plan which was rejected so they actually was no they were not in the original i agree with  had a miner and bill moore on the stand and that's when we found out what had occurred and all of the conversations that having heard with the a general counsel in dallas up to that time and then if  judgment right stated an earlier agreement that had been entered into and i want to say august or september of two thousand and eight with between the two parties when apparently there was why this provision was not in the right and that proceeded to talk about this meeting which was never memorialized than any doubt about the conversation with was oh was it i don't think he said i mean i don't think anybody that is the president of a subsidiary of a publicly hell corporation would possibly  parent corporation saul he is not you know if he was there and it was a wholly owned with no partners and he owned it and he ran it yes he's the same person but that is not  february of two thousand and eight when consent was thinking of purchasing our rights allaround he dealt with a number of people out of the texas office th ellis home office but this was not so as far as the purchases he dealt with this guy dia that they were going to buy the company double off this is a clearing i mean you would deal with the home office  clearing relationship a final number of the board right now i want to clear through x i don't have to go to the head of merrill then you just go to the person at the board of trade who's in charge of whatever the clearing we had to close operation so we were suing for they asked for damages not only the three seventy five but that they did it purposefully to force us to give up our rights to pursue that money pursu was leading to is that what i just want to ask you finally is if if in the defense if in the defense of the arbitration hampshire and the corporation kind of stayed aligned if they didn't walk away that caps they would be in pretty if they said he made the statement and that would only take care of a few of the claims by the way this stuff later has nothing to do with anything but if they would have said yes  this yes but they say they always their position was never made the statements was we knew we always knew that these provisions were not going to be in the contract we always we were told what was going to be nobody misled us w representations that there are in specific instructions from the yard from more powerful of the parent corporation that this is how this task to go and that's the way it's point to go and then there are different representations were dismissed representations fraudulent on missions and other wrongful acts that he committed during the period of what appears to be august two thousand and eight through june fifth two thousand m second arbitration in other words of my claims head off i'm out of the same time period i would up but i know that's discretionary i'm on doubt whether they're going to let the second group then i could refile alleging in this lawsuit are those things arising from the issues that are stated on page nineteen of our brief that analysts said we could not raise regardless if they were on our pleading or not they it equitable and it's basically an equitable backing up mr i've only just pointed out that they attempted to present certain issues issues is there is a joint hearing point and and one of the points about that this case i think the judge blodgett still did an excellent job on his fist sifting his way through the distinctions between what happens in arbitration and what you would have had it been a court said that what happened here is that through discovery and there were depositions but there was discovery pension and i know citations your question there's only one pencil in this case plans is the arguments there's allegations version of the case thirty five pages of telling the story before the panel a year after sorry two years after this case  versus what the arbitrators struck from the joint hearing ok one of those is specifically whether penson fraudulent lee induced l ron to encourage its miami branch office to become a to it you oppose certain things what they call from is our opposition to them being able to argue things that were not front of him they the panel said you can move to a man and he did that's right we have three hundred pages of transcript if you just step because they came in and said it's at the pleading stage we have this order we don't want you to look any further they clearly were not part of the case redundant it's already in there so it's tonight but they may not say why it's not just sits tonight but the case was before of panel it was actually is there any actual transactions involved i'll just take this one example back  allred is also entitled to at least six hundred thousand dollars for its share of the lost profits in a p s g purchase that would have accrued offensive had paid trailers as represented this was presented to the panel after the ruling your honor stocking hate it trailer means or lower commission even though the business isn't there anymore and that's the whole concept of all these acts of transactions just very simple i mean it isn't it in the financial world it's a very let me just interrupt wouldn't joint hearing plan and your version of the case because between the time they files and the time that we tried the arbitration there was no more information no question about it and that's where the put it into their version of the case they had a vers asked to do it what the effect of that agreement is another it's we transfer the accounts on to your books what if yes you transfer them out what are you going to do well we'll go with the what we have to do under the agreement customer one hundred dollars if you don't know who my accounts are that's often as they did bad in august they were discussing what's called a fully disclosed that's part of the f n c f c m and claiming that's just put them on your books and then you'll know precentor fifth that somehow should be done first against the company and if not were there other representations made with respect to other negotiations and because for one thing it would mean just another factual issue it they actually transferred everything and got ate everything up front socked mission situation when they transferred the incident henson would clear the trace of an ongoing commission you want to get out of business issue in the complaint there's a saying is that that hansen did not do what alan expected them to do based on the representations of if you want some kind of agreement for what will happen after the council transferred to p s g we'd better write data he got no response no write why because he'd bought all the accounts for transfer and he'd get paid over there he didn't think people would not transfer him with state pension and he was wrong but he wanted to play it both ways he after they after he did not have any agent it was the defense was the you didn't understand the deal and these were these representations when i may so if that's the defense if the arbitration hearing i think their interests align and if their and others it it's it's throughout the alice versions of its case that includes mr lake and a russian broker that includes miami office because at the end of the day ensign got some in said here's what i told with respect to the trailing commissions for business status that's i said what are we going to do about that and there's e mails in the record what are we going to do about that and restrain wire did it ever get back to you know he did not i think the cases do it right and i think your point there are is very very good record and i think that's why the cases get to where they get that you don't look at any particular pleading you don't look at the cause of action it was actually brought was all contractors all negligence what was it spin for want of a better word perhaps perspective for leak that it doesn't it doesn't isolate any one thing like a pretrial pleading where you don't really know what happened rather the acts over the actual transactions sorry your honor to the answer to your question about  health plan and big issue was not is the health plan liable or not liable because of the representations made by its c e o after that case was over there was a second case and the people in the defen there said you can't trick come after us we're covered by that decision because we were agents of their own that act i can describe that to you and we can't answer that here today but if we had no question here that everything that was said it in the arbitration about dance and everything that was sought to be played against france was said by mr it's not a question of fact whether mr h i mean it seems the it seems to me that this this scope of authority think can he actually be called like a blind alley or a red herring because because if you say well if it's the scope of the already questionable then the up under the law own identity of cause of action looks at the actual transactions look at the action transactions in the in the n f l tradition and you look at them for what was presented to them which is best shown in allen's version of its the point you bring this case against benson and the answer has nothing to do with that pleading that was filed and that with that that the court ruled on it has to do with what was before the privatization panel and that's in this complaint could you bring this meaningless rescue to caught up or shut up he determines issues and we know what issues were presented and what is form i want to address at the issue of equity and i that was brought up and i want to have the one that and let's get an idea as we've said in our complaint where we were at this time or mr hey meyers organization the one thing we and you tell me how any fair judicial or arbitrate of fatah who is not trying to protect the executive vice president against allegations which our man did why what are they going to say you know why i mean they're not going to say because they weren't there and i would point to the fact as to whether he controls the preparation to all allegation was gilmore refused to if we look at page thirty one and read that first sack hey meyer styling cause it's still more that's running the company not him and we're entitled asshole to prove  do is look at the first first the second full sentence in the second paragraph on page thirty one second of all he had that role as we know it on pa on somebody puts out inside what difference does it make if the issue was before that and if the issue was before that and they did decide it why did they lead us to the issues that are stated in