these are of particular be difficult to prove and much of the proof of that lies in the united states the the amended complaint is very very clear about the fact that most of the acts that were committed at least in part real witnesses are the key witnesses that are located in japan we actually have taken place here but that doesn't mean that's what the place is going to be about i think that the court here in two areas number one many of the acts of which of any clear indication that there was any settlement any specific settlement that we know of which we have the exact parameters before the settlements in the court the digital s that's our position so that while we agree that there may or may not be that the the question of whether there was the interpretation of the judicial settlement the question for that was a settlement defense i believe that in that case your honor we have to err is the act the our complaints have to do with fraud and misrepresentation primarily the witnesses here and i'm just mr america well there are other people involved in the case who were not necessarily cooperated there were members who other software companies or other people involved with other software companies other and then the banks themselves too and some other subpoenas that we need to you're out of there this is a very if you unusual for an on communions case for a couple of reasons first of all in virtually every forum one communions case there is either a u s plaintiff suing a foreign defendant in the plaintiff's home for him or there is a foreign plaintiff so in the u s defendants in the u s defendants home form that's not the case here in this case all of the parties are citizens and residents of the same foreign country japan and all of the parties agree that the courts of japan would provide an adequate forum for this case in fact they've been litigated litigating against each other in the courts of japan for a decade so  before it could find in the plaintiff on any of its claims it would have to rule that what is essentially a foreign judgment drafted by a foreign judge written in japanese and governed by japanese law is invalid and that's precisely the sort of issue that as a matter of com two just the balance of private and public interest factors way in favor of dismissal such that the plaintiffs choice or has overcome the plaintiff in this case concedes that your pant provides an adequate forum and therefore the only issue is the balancing  opinion which relate to the public and private interest factors first that's this court directed the trial court to do in the gates learjet case the judge the leak considered not only where the witness was located where the documents located what law might apply but he also considered the materiality and importance of those witnesses those documents and the substance of legal issues to the issues in this case this case is not going to be about whether may transfers between these two companies the issue in this case is whether one he had authority to make those transfers under either japanese corporate law or under the first settlement agreement that's a disputed issue but that's the first key issue contains a mutual release of all claims prior to that date and both of these issues the two thief's in the case will be decided exclusively by japanese witnesses japanese language documents and japanese substantive law the second overarching theme that runs through judge silly civilian is the nexus of this case in japan it has an overwhelming connection to japan and the japanese courts and a minimal connection to washington as a site argues that there are japanese side four markets have been litigating against each other in eight different suits in the japanese courts and of course the strong interest of the tokyo district court in ensuring the scope and validity of its own judicially drafted settlement agreement which has the not the type of reason which the euro gauri court held was a good reason to choose a particular form the plaintiff has conceded that its primary reason for choosing the us forum was the availability of third party discovery and more favorable discovery rules in the us that's not the tough the good reason for choosing a particular form such as a real connection of the case to the form and this court does not even need to address the deference issue on the second circuit circuit itself held indeed and who  me that we get the same rights or we get the same things and that would have to be a consideration that the court would have but only the question discovered there is an element of private in the accessibility witnesses and access of proof which goes before you get to that there's a question of whether the judicial settlement would be invalidated because of problems prior unknown acts misrepresentation and fraud and in that case i think that the district court could make a have been an adequate forum in india because of the time constraints and they've actually sent it back to be put on this on a suspended calendar so i don't i think this is basically picked in their faces or i'm we believe finally that the court really did not ask the court to prove its of their burden of that station and no pressure that they had in this case it went straight to the believe also that did not give deference to our feelings in the case in point we had the important stuff our points of fraud in this representation so are there any other questions or no thank you thank you very kin