union the n c u a came in under a state order of the state agency to act as a conservator under state law but i agree that that's the way it entered but that's federally insured and you're in front of them because of something you've done with your federal insurance they have the right to act as the agent see and essence to take certain steps that is not the factual situation here  about it seems like they are the ones who are supposed to initiate things and then cordon it with the state correct and that did not happen in this case just plain and simple if you think about it in the neck in a bankruptcy analogy the state necessary and the burger that gave them that didn't rely on the federal credit union enacted rely on federal insurance there's nothing in the state the agency that says we think there's a problem with how the federal insurance is related to administration of it under state law so that then takes you to where the federal credit union act doesn't apply here if you did it would apply to everything we wouldn't have any state acts in court the district court based far but the district court i mean we can affirm the district court right but if you go to be five proceed here that doesn't apply because the be private procedure again analogizing it to a bankruptcy have the right to appeal so you submitted a claim of the five process they denied it as on time or because you received notice your response was i don't receive notice but drop process gives you a right to appeal to a farm you know a lot but in this in this case by that time by the time they do it there's the notice of now it's untimely is sort of and after the fact what we did was we proceeded under the there was no notice that said you this matter needs to be arbitrated so that's exactly what we did and there's nothing in the clean strategic that prevents that from happening there's nothing in fact if you look at the at the access that there are claims that you can make a claim or and then they get just charged and the creditor tries to collect you can't say well i'm always bankrupt and i just charged on my debts you didn't include with me and that's what happened with mr printer he was not included at no brain which were seems to me to say you're supposed to follow the federal procedures would not incorporate because you're talking about the receiver order and this happened under the conservator order well fair enough but they're completely different language does not appear in the conservatory with that but then they became a receiver in december of two thousand and fourteen correct but his claim had already accrued in the action had taken place not in the receivership but in the that once the receivership happened in december of two thousand and fourteen that immediately triggered the federal claims process so even if before december two thousand and fourteen you would have had that argument that state volatiles you to do so even even if it were to have triggered it at that time we don't think those are the processes to which they're relating we think that the state court receivers order provides for such additional things that are different from federal processes that the clip that the  receiver ordered did not intend to include the b five claims procedure but even assuming that your honor you are correct and to go from that point at that point if things changed it was incumbent not upon my client but upon this side to say this is changing now you need to take action and they did not do so and what's very important here is what has preceded here after and this is clearly a situation of waiver because you provides for claims for damages for doing exactly what they did when they repudiate is for them to say well the contracts that we for p d i did that it doesn't eliminate the claim for damages and it doesn't be eliminate the weird recalls how they were appointed if if if if this was a federal credit agency and the federal credit agency had some type of arbiter arbitration clause in a contract with an employee i would think the repudiation principles of which you've got a subject matter jurisdiction issue here the court said we don't have jurisdiction because the federal action trails the federal credit union controls we don't believe that's the case but you may have an issue here where subject matter doesn't apply even  case they may not even be subject matter just stiction to start with so that that case it even makes the provision of the federal applying a federal credit union act to a state credit union on these kind of good morning your honor how many places on behalf of the national credit union and ministration board as liquidating age and in its corporate capacity with me at the table is robert an attorney with the national credit union administration i want to start by reminding the court that the district court reached the right conclusion in this case it went for the most consequential issue that was presented in the briefs and that was the question of whether or not the court had jurisdiction to entertain the pla argument there's no jurisdiction but you're the one who removed it we did as a federal question there is a federal question the plaintiff disputes that federal law is it strange it just seems strange to me  claims with respect to claims were made after the appointment of the liquidating agent and i think that plaintiff has presented her claims in the position of these are claims that arise from the appointment  conservator so claims that would predate but i think that the district court reached the quick luzhin that in fact this it is a claim that arises after the appointment only liquidating each and therefore when you look to the statute and you consider the question of whether or not the court has jurisdiction the court finds correctly that it does not have jurisdiction to review this claim that this claim like any claim that is presented  follow on section to the contract repudiation procedures specifically addresses service contracts those being contracts that are entered into between a person and insured credit union another very significant term because what we're dealing with here is an insured credit union the act at this point is not distinguishing between a federally chartered credit union or a state chartered credit union it's just an insured credit union address that in the in the alternative because it at st determine that it it did not have jurisdiction to further review the question of the enforceability of this arbitration award that mr parnell and didn't have jurisdiction to further review the modification of the warrant which most importantly mr requested because he essentially got an arbitration award against a credit union that no longer exists that's a problem  which is that this claim review to enforce or modify the arbitration where it is itself a claim against the credit unions asset which is a claim because it was made after the appointment of liquidating agent would have to go through the administrative review procedures of seven hundred and eighty five dollars b on the other hand other courts that have looked at the question have determined that when you consider that the purposes of the federal credit union act particularly those provisions that go to the liquidation of a credit union and you look at the way in which arbitrations are conducted you feel tension between the two acts the purpose of the claims review the administrative claims review provision in the fair meeting of the credit unions liabilities amongst its various creditors and if you have people going off to conducting private arbitrations and you completely undermine that federal preference for there  uniform administrative review of competing claims by creditors who should remain on equal footing during this process and so the courts that have looked at this including the northern district of ohio have it would be if it had invoked its own powers under seven hundred and ninety dollars i question whether even if a state insured credit union would be subject to this act  the trigger its own powers that only came in because michigan department of insurance credit union was in trouble and we need to find a conservator and we can pick all sorts of we could pick a private conservator we could pick any conservative we want but we decided to conservator on behalf of an insured credit union and that's the provisions that we're addressing here over and over and over is this is when they are stepping in as the conservator of an insured credit union irrespective of how they were appointed they have but they have any other rights might arise under state law and that really the idea behind the statute is that the n c you double a board when it comes in an access conservator or liquidating agent has the power granted to it by the federal when you're acting on behalf of a state insured or federally insured state incorporated the right to credit union following state law you interpret it as we have all these federal powers and any additional state law powers but i'm not certain i think that in in congress's authority is to grant through federal legislation certain federal powers if it wanted to append certain state powers automatically onto the agency it would need to do that through the statute and i believe that's what seven hundred and eighty seven j achieves is that appends certain federally created powers and rights state powers and right it's so that the conservator or liquidating agent is operating under the st scope of the laws that would be available to it in the jurisdiction in which it is operating both state law and federal law and if there were a conflict between state and federal law then federal law would would prevail and i think here with me when it comes to the conservator which is essentially that they've determined that this action is in the best interest of the credit union so certainly when the conservator took the action he did he rooted in both his federal statutory rights a is saying that that is actually a question of federal law not state law and the federal courts are an appropriate venue to take questions of federal law for decision it is a matter of federal law that the  let me follow your question here just for a minute the i don't believe that that that it is i don't i don't believe it as and again as i stated earlier we have alternative basis for jurisdiction here and it was also the fact that a federal agency is a party to the the lower court made it a party to the suit so in addition to federal question and i will stand by the argument that i believe that even the plaintiffs claims though they are cast as if they are arising under state law actually arise under under federal law because in order to determine whether actions taken by a conservator the n c u a being appointed as a conservator or liquidating agent actions that have to be measured understood under federal law and not solely under under state law so i think that that also addresses the jurisdiction question thank you thank you state law that's all we ever alleged under state contract but there is no federal contract law it's still contract law to the issue of repudiation they keep talking about that they have the power to repudiate as if there were no consequences but the very act that they say that the judge correctly applied applies for damages in seventeen excuse me the actual statute says except as provided in that doesn't apply the right of the conservat fashion in the orderly fashion as the p five claims process everybody brings their claims then you look how much into t v how much money it has and you defeat up among the creditors you kind of went outside that process and now way after the fact everything started and you're asking for money from the funds that no longer even exists i wish it were that way around here but that's not how it happened because that that be five procedure doesn't doesn't trigger they were required to give us and here's your last day for a claim well they're claiming that there's no evidence in the record that they did it and they never claimed that they did that none whatsoever never sent a notice to him as a creditor so now they're talking about we