present to you short statement of facts i'll give you them the reasons for that and then point out some areas in the record no want to get on the oral argument perspective where those place on the record and then my plan was to just step through the judge they have expertise and learned a great expertise and develop in how to find out where coal bed methane is in the wyoming cold to gas scenes they had worked for many years had great expertise and they decided to take their expertise to australia and they arrive in australia the wildest the sex hold of their company goes from zero to start to over thirty five million dollars of revenue at that time it was valued close to one hundred million dollars while the battle school and company in the united states for small start up companies when they arrived in australia they do decide that they want to get and they want to obtain some secure  production solutions is also related to that and he has a friend campbell smith who's a lawyer there over on the western side of australia on the eastern side of the australia in perth in the st instance we have ashton won and then we have ashton too d and i think you know he need to have some understanding of how action one comes about and how come up and why we don't have ashton to with respect to what's happening is that as the company gets right well and all of a sudden the venture capitalists all over the world are taking a look at this company and then you go from the angel investments and you move into the mix of investors the what we know is a beginning in the summer of two thousand and sixteen well dog was required to roll over and do some physical changes to their dead  the parent company and the shareholders in australia and their shareholders in australia have both debt that they have loaned the money to and they had shares of the owned in the company at some point there have one both of them both george yours have determined that in fact the debts were not properly called that there was no debt all by the parent company to the subsidiaries we know a lot more about x we have documents that were compelled to be produced in this year that are not in the record we looked at whether we could supplement the records of no provision in your rules to supplement the records for the documents that you've discovered after the trial and so we were proceeding forward on the facts that we have but we have some bias because we know that there's a bunch of facts that are a mess and before you what's happening though isn't the at the  problem that everybody's testified that in trials but more importantly it was the agreement of the parties that they would offer participate in the general security freeman is that  s company and was serving as the city the secretary and a member of the board of directors of the subsidiary responsible still to the parent corporation he signed it and then as soon as the general security agreement was signed there are a series of defaults after default after default you will see in the record and simply not well understood why these defaults were coming from the people that had said look if you give us  the general security we will work with you instead the fall comes after the fall and the numbers were astronomical and you do not have all of them in the record but we  litigation walk on their computers and they discover in there and email which is the deceptively st two thousand and sixteen email describe it appendix volume nine page ten the twenty eight and they had this fake press release describing how they were going to reorganize and the australians were going to end up with the australian assets and in fact because of all the various sequences of the fall and the what we're also have it is time of the same folks in australia are sending notices emails to the us people that are investors including shell technology ventures out of texas shareholders in  texas and houston and trying to persuade the americans shareholders from putting more money in to cure this default so they're trying to sway it we also know no one out of the record that they also  go to other things dismissal for lack of minimum contacts dismissal for improper service dismissal performed on convenience dismissal for no jurisdiction  those are the issues legal issues are presented are those the things you should be addressing instead of this long historical fact of how this whole deal came apart your honor i  process we were serving people with process in australia it's been more difficult as you might management think we were sending e mails by registered mail we sent a by regular mail to make sure they were to ask for the motion to dismiss but we had not accomplished the service we are still trying to accomplish the service of the parties during this process when the chief judge made a decision to dismiss th had to stop all the process and we call the process servers off because you'll if you look at the end of her order she always also talks about sanctions while we believe that she was wrongly believe at that point we had no business trying to further accomplish the right there and i think when you're analyzing all these cases you should keep that in mind and let me give you an example with respect to pro x it's a basic fine in that we had a there was a contract between  no question the interpretation of that then becomes a question of law when the judge interprets that basic finding that becomes a an ultimate finding and a conclusion of wall that finding is binding forever and if you look at all the cases on these issues when you see those cases where there was a contra the contract was interpreted and it says there's a form selection clause and it says you have to litigate somewhere else when that decision is made you've now have a contract basis finding you have all those facts so with respect to pro x we agree with respect as soon as there was a contract sure that time you have the right to refile you on it if you look at the record on the what we call the international it's the it's a document called international plan of restructure and there's a line through it and then it shows well by p t y there were two parts to their plan there was a part of the plan that was directed towards australia subsidy or there was another part of the plan it was actually directed towards g s t see that we don't discover later now we suspected that there were similar bags but the judge never found those facts it couldn't because there's been no determination on the merits she dismissed it without prejudice there was no findings with respect to the g s t he's a component of this case and when you begin to look at her decision you will find the decision with respect to for example the state was a you cannot use group pleading if you look at these e mails now that we're able to provide we see e mails on these all these pardons they're all in these record the same time so you see them emailing to each other they're developing this plan they call it a plan they call work with the aid of four people they steal the money out of your checking account and it's gone you sue them because some of the people that you think took at it and the judge comes to tell us what happened i can't tell you what happened i think they and let me let me just address a couple of questions that you had in a couple of issues that my co counsel opposing counsel brought up that i just want to make sure the record is clear the complaint that was filed in state court didn't fact include pro x was not a defendant only in the caption and only after the case was removed when this case was really filed in the united states issues i direct the court to volume one thousand beginning at page fifty three where we provided to the core a side by side comparison of the two complaints and you will see that it is every bit the same case and while they claim that that's what they say and we've got a credit that that allegation however a couple of things st is they asked for discovery in action one and the judge  rather than appeal that decision and on appeal perhaps a reversal where they would have gotten more discovery on the conspiracy issue more information to plead their conspiracy  about the same conspiracy that they complained about in the st instance it's the same case in fact mr pope one of the principals a chance to see states in his declaration that these deals confirm dismissal goes further and says that it was for jurisdictional reasons and without prejudice then is is do you have case law that says that that that's a viable verdict for purposes of issue while he may have not appeal didn't appeal they have lost the ability to complain about any faction which were expanded before the decision was made absolutely and they but they're not without a remedy because they can bring all of that  counsel but that's not the point the complaint this is not argued that if you look at the complaint on it's about the conduct that took place in australia and the demise of well dog the australian subsidiary so the on the case that you're talking about and the allegations that they made are simply not supported by the record there are no claims in that complaint either complaint that talk  follow up on some of the questioning that i heard in the prior argument in terms of the cases the cases that i would cite to the quick or would be this court's decisions and eat and park late both of those decisions hold without prejudice whether or not the judge says so in order i haven't actually gone back to look at the eaton and park lake decisions and see that you two words without prejudice or use but what that means when it is used is without prejudice to a consideration of the merits of the case so in this case the dismissals were without prejudice to consideration of the merits of the case but they were not without prejudice as to the issue that was actually decided and for example circumstances and both he and park like this court held that that kind of a decision will be precluded and that the it is produces one issue decided in that case the issue being personal jurisdiction and partly the issue with rightness and even nashton one came before the filing of ashton too so for example hypothetically this did not happen but if my client mr mctaggart had moved to wyoming after the dismissal in ashton one and before the filing  ashton to that would be a new jurisdictional factor but not in a situation like this where the issue was litigated in ashton one it was decided to nashton one other case that point the others to isn't the case is a matter of some two which is referred to in our brief and if you look at the last footnote in that case the court addressed a very similar argument about the lack of jurisdictional discovery in the prior case or discovering the per case in what we don't want for preclusion purpose is to have multiple continually re filings of cases you file your case you litigate your case you have a fearful unfair opportunity you would have gauge your case all of which happened in this case and then you get a duplicative case and that flies in the face of the judge's earlier ruling as to both or monthly payments and personal jurisdiction this case is ongoing in australia can be tried the issues can be tried  they never contested that it was improper and they never took steps between the filing of this case the insufficient service and the dismissal to correct that defect and then they don't argue it on appeal i think that that issue is process those dismissals were never appealed to this court there's nothing in the opening brief that that thing in the reply brief the st we've heard about it is that in the opening argument in this court that's too late and they did have an opportunity  pair opportunity for many many months to correct what they knew and frankly i think with regard to meld them admitted were defects in service they didn't do it so for all of those reasons we would ask that the court  affirm all of the dismissals this this in this case was largely decided in ashton one the remedy if they had a problem with that would have been to appeal that decision to this case this court not to file a new case and try to appeal it the