prejudice st the district court erred by making of it ensure rulings on a motion to dismiss the district court found that the apple e's evidence was persuasive the a palance evidence was unpersuasive and that by the greater weight of the sets forth no statute of limitations or fixed payment maturity for the repayment of mortgage notes that's article three hundred and eighteen of decree three hundred and seventy finally the gist or court relied on the superior court of justice decision as if brazil a civil court civil code jurisdiction followed star activities with compliance with the statute of limitations and that the district court likely had jurisdiction but it was right to say it was nevertheless and if that's true then we don't even have to rate reach the active state doctrine problem issue that's that's at least where i have been coming into this d looking at this case perhaps you'd like to tell me  that's not right why agree with certainly part of what you said which is your honor which is that the statue of limitations issue is underlies both the active state and the foreign sovereign immunity act  rulings and that the district court found that because the statute of limitations had passed that that's why there was no direct effect of the commercial activity in the united states and that's why the act of state doctrine is implicated because as the district court found the the act of state would essentially be the fighting that the statue of limitations had not told that the brazilian court of justice superior court of reckitt as just addressed in the briefing that these are laws with specific subjects that therefore would not be governed by general law and that the brazilian supreme court could certainly come down differently we're not asking this court to determine the camelot he was wrongly decided merely that there's no starry decisis and even the penultimate paragraph of that opinion which is found that docket entry nine dash thirteen page nine says that the day issue could be resolved differently if different arguments were made and it does not put peer that mister camelot he or certainly not addressed in the camelot decision it does not interpretation of its federal laws and i'm hard pressed to imagine a more persuasive source of authority for r and r now or office  even if it doesn't have the force of precedent it sure is a powerful statement from brazilians highest court about how they see this matter and if i'm not going to rely again that the cut camelot decision itself recognizes that it might have come down differently based on different arguments that's the penultimate paragraph of the opinion and i do agree that it's powerful persuasive evidence but the district she was not specifically re you forfeited that issue well as addressed in the reply brief though there was not specifically argued that the brazilian supreme court could resolve this issue  and you didn't even list the brazilian trans jaisha and the table authorities so for the st time we get any real inkling that there might be some constitutional provision in brazil implicated here is it is and your reply brains that's not i believe in it's plainly for good well i believe the opening brief does talk about the a potential constitutional dimension of general versus specific law i do agree that there is no there's even in the reply brief there is no specific there is no specific point of the brazilian constitution that the constitutional dimension the what what was argued in the opening brief and the reply brief is that there might be a constitutional dimension to general law versus specific law but i certainly agree it is not there is no specific point of the constitution referred to in  camelot he came with its own expert analysis of what that means and we requested that page at footnote thirty six dollars of the response the motion to dismiss an opportunity to obtain our own expert if the court was going to make these evidentiary determinations on the motions dismissed and so we should have been often given that opportunity and we would submit and request that the court reversed to permit us the opportunity to at least have an expert come in and explain why camelot he is not the and the end of the discussion in brazil i take it you would agree that the complaint itself that's laid out in paragraph thirteen of the complaint as well so there's really no reason why a court there's statute of limitations  defense on a motion to dismiss is there you know i would disagree your honor and that's because the notes themselves that are attached to the complaint do not state a fixed payment maturity this is agreed in both sides of of translations docket one dash to it page forty three dollars and docket nine dash nine at page two all that is listed on the notes themselves and what is attached to the complaint is that the notes can't be redeemed for the st twenty years in other words the time to redeem the notes doesn't begin until nine hundred and seventy seven the notes themselves do not state that there is a fixed payment maturity of twenty years after that and so no i would have to disagree that these determinations can be made on the on the complaint itself which pleads that there is no statute of limitations issue for the that very reason that the notes themselves do not contain fixed payment maturity let me ask you just a quick question sort of an offshoot of this other district court considered and we may consider not only the statute in the case law in brazil but any affidavits that might have been attached to the parties pleadings and the motions you have the opportunity to expert opinion you already well we believe that this was a motion to we believe that and so what i'm saying is it happens all the current motions to dismiss when we're looking at the meaning of a foreign sovereigns law to submit expert testimony in the form of an a to the question of jurisdiction district court would be free and you would be perfectly entitled to submit materials of that car the only answer i can give your honor is the one i've already given ok thank you about the direct effect on of the foreign sovereign immunity exact and to look at the subverting of the government expectations in the act of state doctrine so i think in the what he described is the unique scenario of this case i don't believe that was there but i also agree with your honor that affirm and some of the statue of limitations is sufficient to affirm this judgment and you wouldn't have to address the act of state or foreign sovereign it would be a  would be the district court was wrong about jurisdiction and but right to dismiss the state dismissed so would it with prejudice based on the statute of limitations that a merits decision as opposed to a dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction that's correct ron no i think it was actually he gave three independent bases certainly the statue of limitations on the merits i believe the others are kind of belt and suspenders rulings which the school or even address of it affirms on the statute of limitations and and so really as i think the discussion today has demonstrated this is a case that as planted in the complaint turned upon a question of foreign law brazilian law brazilian law  in the complaint the instruments were attached the instruments talk about the payment becoming redeemable after the lapse of twenty years as judge marcus pointed out paragraph six  paragraph thirteen of the complaint also talk about after the lapse of twenty years and interestingly the complaint also alleged that there is no statute of limitations that's applicable or if so then it has been waived or it has been told now as the district court properly pointed out there was no evidence introduced ever that there was a waiver or a tolling of the statute of limitations and so the only question is whether these instruments lasted in perpetuity because there was no statute of limitations and what's really striking about this particular case is that even though all parties agree that it  governed by brazilian law there was no resilient foreign law expert who was consulted even prior to the filing of this case much less after the motion to dismiss was filed and indeed even after the dismissal i mean mister sampson's pointed out that in but not thirty seven dollars of their response they said well if you're going to consider this then we should get an expert and we need thirty days now of course that was never brought to a formal motion such that there's no ruling by the district court on that request you need a ruling in order to appeal it and if there would be a ruling of course that would be subject to the abuse of discretion standard but all that aside after the judgment was entered rule fifty nine dollars would have afforded plaintiff an additional thirty days to vacate that gets the very same thirty days they ask for get a brazilian district court by the plaintiff in response to the motion to dismiss there's a twenty one page response file two pages address the statute of limitations and the overwhelming majority of that two pages addresses the conversion issue which has been withdrawn in the reply brief here the only mention of the merits of this statute of limitation appears you know footnote limitations here and so if i could the so that's all there is there is no statement from a larf our affidavit said that's not a correct interpretation of decree three hundred and seventy dollars it talked about camelot any  experts reply affidavit missed while a genie who spends about six paragraphs talking about the jurisdiction of the superior court reverses the supreme court and even if one were to buy the i also think the translation issue was forfeited as well because that was never challenged in the district court there was no post judgment attacking anything the district court did hear much less attacked with a lawyers affidavit but to create three hundred and seventy eight of eight hundred and ninety doesn't say there is no statute of limitations even if you were just to accept their translation what it does actually which implemented the law in one thousand nine hundred and fifty four which created this colonization portfolio allows for drawings to be used it says nothing about the statue of limitations  counsel references and again this is all american lawyer talk about brazilian law which wasn't addressed in the district court is a mortgage no it's do not have a fixed payment maturity they can be paid by drawings that's the significant import of so allowing for draws is not the same as saying there is no statute of limitations moreover on their face and plan of some complaint it is they allege there's a next payment maturity that after the lapse of twenty years these became payable on less they were chosen for a draw so the district court understood the difference here and set the statute of limitations began began after the maturity rate passes so when all is said and done the allegation of the complaint completely unsupported by any brazilian expert that there is no statute of limitations by virtue of article three hundred and eighteen of decree thirty seven dollars of the translation issue even if the court were to say that it warrant forfeited that was never any outcome determinative issue if mister sampson are arguing that that should have been a fact finding matter well if it's fact finding then it would be subject to a clearly erroneous standard it's not subjected to no boast and or that obviously is even raised in the opening brief so it's forfeited for that reason alone but there'd be no no basis in which this court could find the district court even if it did determine that as a fact which you didn't to to be clearly erroneous in light of the vast little difference in quality of the evidentiary submissions by the parties on the subject of brazilian law and the moreover the v instrument attached to plaintiff's complaint actually uses the phrase on it just as our translation did colonization portfolio and so an any translation difference is completely immaterial and moreover the court wanted addressed our fs i e argument that it wasn't a commercial transaction in finding that it was commercial like into these instruments to a mortgage note indorsed in blank held by a bank so the court essentially treated it as if it were a mortgage and the only significance that coun know doesn't say anything about the statute of limitations it's silent as to the statute of limitations and so for that reason alone doesn't support their argument as well so i think i think for all of those reasons most of the arguments that were advanced here in oral argument have been forfeited there is no reason for this court not to apply the superior court decision in camelot eight the only reason advanced by plaintiff was two decisions again they were not explained in any pleading by a lawyer but they were attached in response and are supplemental reply affidavit demonstrates that one of them was reversed the other  issued by a lower court and it doesn't address the statute of limitations much less the enforceability of notes whatever so that that's the only reason it was ever proffered below why the court shouldn't effectuate kamelot any and i think the district court was quite right in again is that it was not specifically raised with with the word constitutional dimension are not there that is that is true i would point out that mister pollard argues again just as done in the bank's answer brief that there was a vast difference in the quality of the evidence that was provided that's an issue that shouldn't have been determined on a motion to dismiss if what he's referring to  evidence on a motion to dismiss rock missing something again the argument is not that it was wrong to submit it but this was not when the district court started making rulings on which evidence was was superior and what was persuasive and what was on persuasive we should have been permitted the opportunity just to obtain an expert and it is clear from the face of these notes that they are governed by to the motion nothing except that it was on a motion to dismiss it so nothing from prevented it we asked for the opportunity to provide an expert if those