aside from that with respect to the challenge that we made so there really is a wholeness of the fee request the panel said that it lacks sufficient information to impugn the overall amount claimed and so it took that amount and was the reply ironmen there was no such show but again in fact of the tribunal set is we don't have enough information and we respectfully submit that say you don't have enough information is ignoring the law that be a reasonable request it was about two million dollars slightly under two million dollars struck rocks and and that was the news with the attorneys working on the other side of the case from the case  the flip side of the same arbitration but because of the success i think they said it was hardly in full so what happened was during the course of the arbitration the respondent changed his position in a way to get closer and closer to what we were asking for on some of the points and so while he prevailed almost for me he given up substantial ground they find that in there if you tell opinion where they find that that's what happened then ownership you know that i'm just looking at the at the the sad of it that says you know that tries to value how much the legal representation was was worth how much it cost in terms of actual actual numbers in terms of hours and so forth so it doesn't seem to be out of line there now you're making a different point you're making a point that they should have been entitle to that that amount because  fifty percent of what's recoverable what's recoverable abstract could only be what's reasonable and so what they did aside we don't have information so decide whether this is reasonable so look cept it is reasonable or recoverable but we'll what they've determined were more fees that were reasonably incurred and so that's why the fifty percent clearly is with respect to adjustments for the moderate success and the recover disregarded the law even though they use the word reasonableness in their conclusion right that's what you're telling me you know these were reasonable mistake really to understand what they were saying well they weren't making it when they use the word reasonable that i think it's clearly not in reference explain why it's reasonable i'm not sure that means they're disregarding the law and they say you haven't persuaded me that this isn't reasonable just say that all the time well i think i think undertow of all which was clearly brief time is up it and you have two minutes rebuttal but i'll give you like one more minute if you just want to be sure the other ground on perjury i think is very clear there's testimony right the words here under the c p r rules you have to consider the overall conduct of the parties and so if they are in fact this perjury that would be material to the outcome of determining whether or not or fees or or the mountain the panel's discretion and there was testimony concerning why mr hurley elicited by mr weener on direct w in fact this conversation was before and not after the call that he referred to and so his entire explanation as to it was done in response to a cell phone call was clearly false i think  that judge nathan said well maybe it was confusing but this was brought out on direct testimony it was clearly false and given the standards for awarding fees and the considerations of the c p r rules that it has to be material it also has to be intended and that's that's the point we're at that's where i'm having problems and how is it material and how is it how was it intended to put it to to effect something that would would is it's when mr vander called my council me clear they plan to use the fact of his domestic violence arrest in the arbitration he called harold evans ski and dina katz to tell them because he did france for twenty years and so on  he explains so the original tribunal that the reason he had gone in and discloses the message violence arrest to one of the company's business partners but not to order records was because he knew about it and he was concerned it would come  false testimony or false explanation like that that he did something in response to that when he actually done it before is exactly the type of information that's been serial to a determination of the conduct of the parties and therefore please the court this case presents a straightforward question of whether there's a basis to overturn an attorney see award issued to a prevailing party by a panel of three distinguished arbitrators answer is clearly no and i know the that your honors are fully familiar with the extensive and extreme deference given to arbor troll rulings in this case that not come close to meeting that standard now on the issue of the attorney's fees a few key facts both sides so what their fees in the millions of dollars pursuant to agreed procedures on the amount of detail to give about the attorney time and hour submitted to lengthy letters challenging the fees as excessive even asserting mr hurley should receive zero fees even if he were found to be the prevailing party e b had the right to seek more detail on city's under the greed procedures and never did so the award expressly acknowledges e b s assertion that the fees were excessive the award reduced or excluded certain fees as being excessive and unrelated to the proceeding and then it awarded fifty percent of the amount and as your honor as noted the award expressly says d quote it was reasonable and appropriate to award those fees to mr hurley now i think the term recoverable fees because they use that actually further supports the notion that this panel of three experience arbitrators knew exactly what they were doing which is they were limiting their award d to recoverable fees fees that were appropriately recoverable what mr stein or anybody have done is try to distort the statement the panel made where it said d it lacked sufficient information from from the parties to impugn the overall amount claimed that is not a statement that we lack information to determine reasonable s it's not a statement that they're refusing to determine reasonableness and i submit the most plausible reading of that is that the tribunal was acknowledging that it lacked the detail time records pursuant to the agreement of the parties to question the integrity of the total amount that was claimed but it is a giant logical leap to read that is saying this highly experience panel simply failed to consider the challenge that he had made to the fees as being excessive and critically the panel had all the information it needed to make a reasonable nest determination under the laws of delaware for what constitutes a reasonable fee the law in delaware is clear you don't need to review the detail time entries they had everything they needed to go through any of the factors that they thought were reasonable of course they had been involved with the arbitration for five months they had seen the performance of counsel and had determined mr hurley was the prevailing party and he was the prevailing party he wasn't necessarily prevailing in fall that's true but he was the prevailing party and yet he only received fifty percent of a reduced amount of the fees which i think itself suggest that they certainly determined they made a determination about reasonableness as they expressly expressly said the other thing is the award says we're doing this in exercising hard discretion it doesn't say as mr signer suggested that we're only doing this based on he was only fifty percent successful so the no basis in the award to say that they failed to do what they should have done and certainly they can't meet that incredibly high standard now the other thing of course d is all that has to be shown is that there was a barely completely unnecessary and the district judge judge d nathan spelled out in detail the basis for why the sheer ward was perfectly reasonable including a very hard for arbitration with lots  stake in a complex case a mr steiner said it was just an arbitration well in fact there were two motions for interim relief that mr hurley had to make which he was successful on both there was a state significance at stake significant amounts of money and there was there was success by mr hurley and his fees were reduced substantially the notion that there's no barely col justification i propose is preposterous so that's on that's on the c's and let me just say for it was the question was asked about the comparison of the fees delaware law does not allow does not say if one party fees are substantially more than the other the other party somehow their excessive that's not that's not the test and there are many reasons why the fees were more significant on one side including this was mr hurley's life he had built this business from scratch and he in his view was trying to be stolen from him by even the e b u also negotiated a fee discount with its firm the mean there's so many reasons why the the the comparison doesn't change the the reasonableness of the fees on the issue of the purported perjury again incredibly high standard  you can't really find any cases where it where an award is overturned based on perjury you certainly can't find any cases where a feel ward is hove or turn based on perjury just a couple of points on that  the threshold question two of was there perjury judge nathan found that b b failed to mutants burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that that testimony was known to be false and made with willful intent to obstruct justice that finding is entitled to deference and even he has the burden to show it was clearly erroneous they haven't come anywhere close on that very key part of this without getting into the  particulars around the purported perjury there was no perjury but it is truly bizarre to say that a feel ward was procured by fraud with the testimony took up literally a few lines in an eight hundred dollars page transcript there were no follow up questions around the timing of the disclosure to the single firm that they focused on and instead the focus was on the scope of discovery to the twel firms which there's no question around the timing of that disclosure that was the only issue the award itself did not reference the testimony the award did not make findings based on the truthfulness or not of mr her earlier his testimony and as again i you know one of your honor's pointed out the testimony was given in connection with the counterclaims on which e b prevailed and therefore was not a basis of the prevailing pages could be considered theoretically be considered as a factor in a few words you disagree with that the law well the st the parties agreement in section ten dollars said that the prevailing party was entitled to but as to rule nineteen dollars which they reference as the commercial arbitration rules we cite this in our papers the commentary of those rules is very clear that what it's talking about apportioning costs based on conduct of the parties it's focused on billets corey tactics and other efficiency concerns not on some assessment of truthfulness of a party and notably when e b was challenging the fees in the arbitration and it cited this rule it contended that mr hurley's false testimony and bad d faith those are those were their words had contributed to the expense of the arbitration that was the focus of it so the issue is not whether someone might have lied or not the issue is did the conduct of the party cause additional expense to which the power should then take count in apportioning the award the fees awarded and forty eight the only other point your honor is in order to prevail on this kind of a claim you have to show you couldn't have discovered the perjury the alleged perjury through due diligence and acknowledges it had the right to discovery it took discovery before the testimony and it was aware of these conversations and if the date of this one single conversation mattered it have every ability to follow up and seek for the discovery to fail to do so so that's a further independent ground on which to affirm the decision of the district court confirming the award right information they wanted to provide the tribunal with enough information to make a determination they chose not to do it they were given that opportunity to respond they chose not to additional information mr wiener discovery this questioning in this hearing was in relation to amended counterclaims that were her three weeks after they were asserted there was no rd party discovery in the arbitration we serve