the national futures associate as the british point out that is a self regulatory by them for the futures industry they have their own rules and their arbitrators are supposed to know that in fact one of the remarkable things about this case is when you read the authorities regarding our tray should awards look into whether the average traders know when applied the correct law there's always the and every one of the freak issues that we have in this case was specifically i dressed in that manual yet each time the losses and compensatory damages which included the commissions check and in each one of these areas the arbitrator's absolutely disregard put in another ten thousand then he put in another fifteen thousand or so and at that time he was making a little money losing all of them but he didn't make any money and he didn't make any money  well yes when you say you guys as i point out in the brief while this is a joint several liability the way the industry operates i see gene did not get a great amount of those commissions somebody somebody somebody did something got a hundred thousand dollars more then he lost that is correct that is correct but that but that was all this close to them and yes the briefs pointed out this standard in the industry the standard that the c f pct sets the standard for the federal government sets in this industry is the amount the commission is one that is fully disclosed and understood by the customer it's a it's a private agreement between that customer and the house you point us to somewhere in this manual before you get any case off somewhere in this manual that says that the arbitrator the two hundred forty that he had paid fees and commissions still ended there with no fees and commissions charge she would have never made made any trades and that is exactly by the way and that is exactly i believe the only case that was to give back the commissions fees whatever you want to call them that were part of the work or well hype believe that spending and page twenty one of our brief where we list the faces including the c f d c cases where it says the calculation of damages should focus on the out of pocket lost there's the calculation of out of pocket was all right and the only case betty conelly s come up with that seems to have some disagreement with that is he cites the i believe it's pronounced my case and  they said you can include some of the commissions but you can't include all of the commissions because that's unrealistic and that's and that's the point that happens if a commission was never char finale would have put it this what came to be one hundred fifty thousand dollars and it would have been one hundred fifty thousand dollars at the end and what that and what we're really looking at here is not one of these cases where a customer put his money in they should be entitled to in essence this court that's correct we've said that are free and i think that's what the case law is consistent with it's consistent with the measuring this because don't forget at one time in this case traders were not all that impressed with the conduct of your client one conversation with mr canal which we weren't even required to give all we gave him all the required men dated federal disclosures as to the riskiness that he was getting involved and he in trying to make here is that case less clear that we have to give a lot of deference to an arbitrator's war and even more than a trial court's award and under the facts of this particular it appears when all three unanimously agree on each is usually one or two would disagree on one of the issues but here it's unanimous in and that doesn't mean that all three of them can be wrong cannot be yes under their standard the hundred fifty thousand dollars is arguably off the table but the other two are especially attorneys fees especially in terms of how  arbitrator sit and say this is arbitrated under illinois law the contract provides for there was no contractual provision for attorney's fees there is no statutory you you're real pros there was no problem with this how can you take it that there's now bad faith for somebody the fendi were they referring to the lawyers who conducted the arbitration more than the parties i somebody brought an arbitration against this we defended it we gave them my defense we lost we posted our file as we were required to do which is still law how the next step and correct me if i'm wrong you're arguing that even if we were to sort of forgive and forget that mistake then there's no basis shown in the record here for have faith in  years which of sort of just said except in it demonstrated review the circuit court has jurisdiction over anything that the legislature creates and that those kind periods in the in the in those and this is the concurrence which they say is questioning the supreme court it says i find the majorities reliance and in radio somewhat problematic relying on that case the majority states  constitution and that said i don't i think it is no longer appropriate to say that the legislature made the find a just fishable matter in such a way as to preclude or limit your thort in the circuit court that's seventeen could even save administrative review the way and so i think that as i would urge the panel that at least a great majority of the arbitration award should be totally disregarded all the supreme court cases that have been within the last ten years and started sending to you from cases back from the eight hundred fifty s and then a response to that when they tell us billing and it deals specifically with what is the scope of the arbitration agreement what is the party specifically submitted to the to the arbitrator and our position on this is we would have won this argument from the i got concerns with punitive damages because he understands under illinois law there has to be which is distinguished from what other states there has to be an express and under the f a a only different set of presumptions when it comes to illinois law and the best my best answer is look they were stuck with rubik but my case is right and r look at this bridge and we want we calculate it by the damages that you see and include any claim for punitive damages the problem with deadest it's not say here's the  relief that any f a a arbitrator can award number one and it doesn't mention anything in terms of whether the parties agree to have shame on you for not or not to  like you know i would argue that we could have sued him and that we don't think that that was fair noticed but which i'm sorry to interrupt but just what should they have done in your judgment in order to preserve their right to problems here and we've argued it all both in our break which is not in this qualifies as an expressed agreement certainly under the analysis brian we just expressed need to express it's got to be we want you arbitrators to to get back to your question what if they had submitted this in their original state of play and then we could have a sort of a break then we could have brief this issue and this would have all been fleshed out but we didn't get the opportunity to do that because suddenly we're in the middle of a hearing and they're asking for for the first time so there is that pressure so our position is look we think that the the analysis of crime controls trial courts instincts were right that there are problems with punitive damages and perverse that part of their work and i'll rely on my brief and the arguments that you've heard for on the on the other issues except let me just say one thing we do and my position is look enough a rules put the burden on the arbitrator's to make the disclosure and it's their obligation to do so we got a late disclosure  that there's an f a a rule that this involved here he didn't comply with that and it didn't prejudice us because under the n s a rules it's hard to get arbitrators ticked off this isn't like picking a jury where people would prove their point and you can only disqualify them for cause and under his disclosures we didn't really have a lot of cause but we think had we known the truth we would have and we could have made that so that's argument mad expose on initial calls and then at the start of the hearing the parties are asked do you accept the composition of the panel they accept mr maddox as an arbitrator without reservation and without doubt question so not as familiar as i sent here about his background so i may have many evenly balance absolutely which tell us why you believe that it was appropriate for the a in tell me where in the the record there was some communication to the other side here between the time the two fifty claim was filed and the time that i don't know for sure counsel stood up and said first claim were your client asked for two hundred fifty thousand dollars and when the arbitration hearing itself start when he makes the argument and what i mean is what i mean is how much time passed closing argument no so the two cases that they came up with saying that they should get all their commissions back don't even support so i against submit to the panel that this discourse of an argument is just incorrect was oh we're going to get it for some of the commissions in excess of what's the number the work here one hundred thousand because they're claiming to fifty out of pocket one fifty and then two fifty total quite so we're thinking ok somewhere in there they're going to point out where we did something wrong to match the specifically commissions that's what we don't get we get all of a sudden another hundred fifty on top of that which is every dime it's been ever paid in commissions and a lot of it misrepresentation high pressure sales failure to the spro disclose risk failure to supervise unsuitability omissions of fact failure to head mismanagement excessive commission failure to comply with industry rules have held against us there was no suitability requirement in commodities churning we could have been guilty from training we didn't have discretion over the over the accounts high pressure salesmanship there is no such charge against us we weren't the salesman excessive commissions as i pointed out the f a a says the commissions are negotiated the ball between the customer and that and the house side you think they just made it up in