please the court patrick or her on behalf of the apple and i would like to reserve two minutes of my time for a bottle there are many issues the that are presented in this case and i'll take a few minutes to lay out what we see is that as the key issues but i did want to want to give a brief chronology to start out of the bonds the bearer bonds were issued in new york with the signature and seal of peru's foreign minister when issued they were required to be paid in new york when p failed to conduct the drawings the bonds became a debt with unstated maturity only until paid but still payable in new york this was all of peru's making there was no forum until two thousand and four when  decided but even then there was a continuing violation you couldn't student well we could have well we we had the ability to choose our forum in the united states the bonds were halal in the united states when you said there was no form there's no form in the united states i'm sorry until two thousand  four but even even in two thousand and four there was a continuing violation and we've found the most analogous case to be the new york court of appeals decision or a bill that extends the accrual date or tolls that the bonds prevent presented for payment by an illinois corporation in two thousand and fifteen to the peruvian embassy in washington d c the lawsuit was brought within months of peru's failure to honor the demand the strongest evidence for peru is no evidence at all a century statements in the ward no because judicial notice is not appropriate when the facts are contested we want to clearly the facts were contested when i said why aren't the statements in the or betray  sure admissible for their truth and statements and ancient documents why don't i don't you know three sixty but that's not really what that's not really what the court did here the court took judicial notice of the our point of course is that the arbitral award actually if it's considered is in our favor and that's i'll and that's i'll go on now to my to my other points here there are five we think critical points  here there are many more points but five critical points first the bonds were never paid the district court finding to that effect based on the arbuckle reward was clear error the district court said quote throughout the redemption period c c payment on the bonds the arbitron ward said quote the only question that therefore arises is whether the certificates are now paid but this entry specifically shows that the actual depreciation which is to say provided f peru's funds or from the proceeds of the sale of guano has not occurred the arbitrator's the arbitrators concluded that c c g could could partake in the funds that had been set up for the creditors and that was in essence  payment of the bonds went but the amount of the amount that they were the first of all the specific issue there was was how much would they get of the chilean deposit in the bank of england which was only about six hundred thousand dollars it seems as if it were in the nature of a bankruptcy proceeding a liquidation proceeding and so the creditors including c c g were permitted to part take to a certain extent but the intent was that that would resolve the debt well no i don't think it was the intent of that would resolve the debt because the or at least that's what the arbitrator's so found well the average traders actually found that this was an unusual arrangement and they said that basically the issuance of the certificates was a type of back up security for the for the debt and if the if the proceeds from the sale of guano or other funds from peru were not sufficient to pay the debt then the certificates still were valid due and owing and that is actually what the arbitral award stated and they said they said this is an unusual situation but that that was and that was what was set forth in the eight hundred seventy five says that the right where i was referring to in appendix four at four fifty the only question that therefore arises is where this is whether the certificates are now paid and it says the company has been unable to obtain its payment so i do understand that i mean and this is why quite frankly we say you shouldn't consider the arbitral warrant at all because peru made a very big deal about the fact that it was only going to participate in the survey trace and if nothing in the arbitration could be used by it could be used in a subsequent proceeding by a creditor and now peru is attempting to use that this was a situation in which they were trying to figure out who was going to get how much of the land deposit in the bank of england but but it's very clear here that the that the arbitration panel found that the bonds had not been paid i'm sorry well maybe during during your adversary's argument you can find the proper site so i haven't really i apologize if it is it is a direct quote from the from the from that i see that my time seventeenth floor and this is page a one eight one on the seventeenth line of the bond it says not that there are only bearers in new york but the bond actually says that either the guano company which we call c c g for so we don't always keep saying guano the guano company called c c g in lima peru is either going to be the holder or there would be bearers in new york so on its face the bond actually never created new york as an exclusive lease of repayment in fact the bond expressly recognized on the third line of page a one eight one and on the fourth line of page a one hundred two the bond expressed we recognize that it was paying off a prior contract between c c g and peru so the fact is this bond never set new york as the exclusive form for repayment and recognized that c c g itself might always be the bearer down in p of these bonds in effect these bonds protected c c g in case it wasn't repaid they could go to new york issue the bonds take that money walk away and peru would have to deal with barriers but we know from the arbitration that that never happened and that allowed on the face of the bonds that or is crucial and deflates most of the case what is left of the case falls apart when you realize that the bonds actually did have a fixed term on page a one eight one the bonds were to be called in five tranche is but the crucial language says that any bonds not drawn by march one thousand nine hundred were to be redeemed quote as if they had been drawn so redemption and by the way any redemptions have to be published if they weren't published that would have been a breach of contract and so there would have been a media to ability to sue on the bonds had they ever been actually circulated in new york does the bond address suppose you know eighteen march one thousand nine hundred passes you still have these things do they address whether you can just hold onto them and accrue seven percent interest until you decide you want to turn a man they actually do because what the bond from and after the day on which the principal shall become payable principal becomes payable either the day is not one of those bonds where you can just hold onto it indefinitely and accrue the interest because interest ops that is precisely correct i have done many sovereign bond cases this is different from every single one of them this was a very particular bond issue tied into a very particular project finance deal involving the mining of  in peru and they were just trying to there had obviously been disputes we know this from the arbitration there had been disputes between the company and the government over the consignment and the export import of wanna which was a pretty hot commodity back then and the and you who knew who knew but the fact is it was it was like quicklime it was an incredibly important mineral and these companies this company in peru had a history and this bond was simply a way of securing to the companies some some ability to know they were going to get money either from the government of peru or because they could run to new york and just issue the bonds in your brief i think you keep referring to the it's not clear to me from the arbitration is a statement in the arbitration that the bonds were paid off i don't see the statement that says the bonds were not paying a loss but i don't see the statement that you would otherwise rely on that the bonds were paid off i agree with you there is no statement specifically to that effect but i think you get to the same place by through a two step process the first step your honor is we know we have the arbitrators making a specific finding that c c t v held onto the bonds made the credit and took debits and what we also know is that there were more than just the amount in the bonds between these two parties c g and crew had a whole bunch of claims between them they were all being more betrayed your honor is correct that at the end of the day there was a net amount of interest still calculated and by peru to c c gee if you want your money you must surrender the bonds to prove because what we're doing here is we're truing up the accounts and you must give them the bonds back and we know that this money was never collected by c c g and we know they never gave the bonds back so what we have your honor is we have bonds of fixed term so the orbital case is of no help here to them we have bonds of fixed term we have bonds that sees paying interest if these bonds had ever been circulated in new york then six years from when they weren't redeemed or published as to be redeemable or when in eighteen eighty they should have all been redeemed and payable six years from the either way this case gets dismissed and that is why you're right and we didn't actually need to make that a fundamental issue in the case the fact is either way these bonds were due and payable between eight hundred seventy five and eight hundred eighty it appears that c c g still as of ninety no one was holding on to them by that time all claims were precluded there is no other part part of the c p l or they can look to for help this is a standard breach of contract case and what's most important longer owed money on these bonds but i still have a bone to pick with you peru as to certain interest calculations and certain other monies he wode i do believe at that point as a matter of contract law you've got merger and you're done because they've said we credited the full amount and then we took these debts so i think c c g did that work for me and i think the district court got that right but i understand when we presented this to the district court the reason we were looking at the ar is because these go to jurisdictional facts the order to award in effect is like a megaphone it magnifies what you see on the face and it brings clarity to what you what you see on the face of the bond which is that these bonds never circulated in new york did anything happen in new york and things were could have happened in new york but so did anything actually happen in new york it appears that at least one thing happened in new york we know from the arbitration that a payment was been printed they had been sealed and certified a payment had been made to the agent c c she had the comfort of knowing it could run to new york put the bonds out there get money and walk away circulate it could circulate them precisely  because the capital markets of new york but that seeing a veiled i guess there are two problems i have with his reliance on shapiro first you had an underlying u s contract as opposed to a contract between a peruvian guano company and the government of  the second problem is that you did have actual it wasn't they weren't just following on the face of the instruments there it was undisputed in the case that the notes at issue had been issued in new york and that then there had been a breach true and hence there was never any jurisdiction never any breach of contract here and never a right claim that anyone moved on in the right amount of time thank you very much three which has the language that i was quoting to your honor it's the third full paragraph beginning where it says but this entry specifically shows that the actual actual depreciat which is to say provided from bruce funds or the proceeds from the sale of oil has not occurred and that the company has been unable to obtain its payment ok now the idea that we were talking about knowing peru admits this and mit's the full amount of the bonds was doing nothing and that's the one nine hundred seven document much has been made about the servicing even the district court talked about the servicing being simulated this was a book keeping thing if the funds were not sufficient from the sale of guano or some other source to pay the certificates there's a chair for gets we're still doing away that's clear now cutting off of the interest but the principle is still zero even if we do not take into consideration the idea that there is no fixed what is commercial activity in the united  executed in new york the eight hundred seventy five agreement says that the bonds would be issued in new york the arbiter award so that the bonds were issued in new york and so it's the issuance of the bonds in new york and that's enough under shapiro shapiro says the very presence of such highly transferable instruments whether or not the initial holder successfully discounts them in the country suffices to satisfy the substantial contact requirement of the statute that's it the direct effect is the decision outside the united states to breach the contract and the contract that breached causing a financial loss in in the in the us and land to holds that a financial loss of a us and to t is sufficient but i do want to mention one thing about the drawings here there's no fixed term here these are these drawings were at the time of payment but the decor obligation was bruce obligation to pay when proof failed to conduct the drawings that threw this  into an entirely different situation and crew is not allowed to benefit by that the district court felt this was it the drawings were a condition preceding they were in a condition proceeding we go through that very carefully the