an the ninety nine that issue is being litigated in the texas court for the southern district of texas use and presently your honor to answer their question specifically at least at this time it's important to consider the fact that the land so the only order in this before the court is a relation to subject matter jurisdiction and that order is iranian and itself because as the new york convention which is an international treaty that saudi arabia egypt and the united states are all a member involve other countries just records shall have jurisdiction in relation to dispositions on these matters now the district court it's our position error in the fact that it's a dot abide by nine u whether the parties that were involved in that case has to have signed it agreement to arbitrate this court ruled that because they were not signatories to that arbitration agreement that they did not have a basis to suppose that we agreed that we agree with you that the d district court was wrong to view this as an issue of jurisdiction but we also thought the district court was right to think that  you have shown existence of a binding agreement between you and the parties and therefore the dismissal should have been on the merits for failure to state a claim rather than for lack of jurisdiction california case to say that you need to specifically in court the agreement to arbitrate we know that and reading that that case that the court specifically error because the language of the shower says regents case says the statute is jurisdictional the course shall not deprive itself of jurisdiction the court here or the the lower court relied on our culture to which does not provide any jurisdictional basis for which the court to deprive itself country in which the award is relied upon the war in relied upon only the arabic version it did not rely upon the english version so we were strictly in compliance with that section of was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties now the problem was once of course ruling is that they do not analysis saying that we did not comply with the procedural requirements or risk contained within the  composition of the requirements as contained in the concession agreement it doesn't go into the nd part of it says or failing century agreement was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place the lower has become binding so to that effect all this nonsense about criminal impropriety and so forth that's going on here they've never a raised in the lower court the award has not yet become binding on the it were nationalized by saudi arabia long before two thousand and five when petitioners claims for allegedly paid rent st began to accrue and judge kelly with respect to your question about land that if you hear we explain a page nineteen about  section three says that the jurisdiction over convention actions is determined by whether action at all is under the convention so it doesn't use the language that we're used to are rising under which is of course has been construed to be very broad  and because of the fact that when to folks who refers to an agreement to arbitrate and award within the context of the convention it's reasonable to understand those terms to be referring to or even to arbitrate and in a war as defined in the convention arguably rules are relevant and in any event the law is clear including under the court's decision in polymath that even if a rule the rules have been agreed upon our patrol forum can trump the party's agreement regarding