of fraud and various were pressuring and your honor if that case i realize it has to apply here a j sold the property for less than three percent of its fair market value and that about a supreme court has said where the in adequacy of the trust beneficiary appetising the foreclosure was taking place later the service being transferred to u s bank but bank of america as part of this case as well even though the of direct misrepresentation necessary to set aside the sale but he disregarded the other ones for the mistaken belief that because u s bank was in a party to that case that therefore that representation to the lender doesn't push it over the edge to be acceptable throttle affairs are question and there are a lot of subsequent out of supreme court cases that very very consistently stick to that position and that adding on the  if you look at shadow canyon the court listed five examples that could justify setting aside to say oh and three dollars of those concerning direct mistreatment of the lender there is a misrepresentation that the deed of trust will survive trust might be extinguished and say oh that's required by law is that's correct i'm just saying that their notices don't share the problem of the misrepresentation to render or cure the problem of the misleading season in ours given that i'll have a few seconds all say a brief word about our alternative claims against they show way the district court so reasoning for dismissing the claims was its conclusion that only to obtain equable relief the party challenging the sale must demonstrate that there was an inadequate sales price make a showing of fraud oppression or unfairness that brought a bag out the inadequate price and that was citing shadow wood and shadow canyon as its rule of law so reiterating that shadow canyon bears that requirement so well mr parsley says that no part of nevada law requires you demonstrate a connection to the price based on your unfairness alleged that is absolutely incorrect the very case they are relying on for their argument presented here requires that you demonstrate some form of big chilling in the problem and the reason why you want to ignore that requirement or have you someone write it out of the rule is because they have no evidence demonstrating that there was actually  specifically the two things they allege that causes you the unfairness are the mortgage protection clause and the private stone field arbitration as judges who just brought up there's plenty of unpublished decisions indicating that the mortgage protection clause you know itself does not constitute unfairness and that's adequately briefed by ourselves as well and regarding the stone field arbitration as i say was private and in this circumstance it those types of arbitrations are not publicly available think i think it does especially when he's sitting here arguing that that's a direct misrepresentation made by a lessee in this case which there's no such thing exists there is no representations made by a lessee and or the association in out everybody to that arbitration agreed that the super parity portion would not arise until post bank foreclosure which left the arbitrator to answer two remaining questions what is this you prefer the amount made of like as in how much is it and when pay it that was all it was but even at the end of the day they have a shot a canyon challenge they have to demonstrate that the stone field arbitration somehow brought about the allegedly inadequate price and that's where they wholesale fail here there's absolutely no evidence presented by the bank that potential bidders did not bitter did not attend the sale because of either the mortgage protection clause or the stone field arbitration and that's the reason why they want you to ignore the very critical factor of shadow canyon as if it doesn't exist because they have absolutely no way to prove it so that's why you steer is completely clear and the press him on the issue because of the fact that he cannot tell you that there's that the requirement doesn't exist and that's recourse reiterated that that is required  know you're not not in any respect whatsoever and in fact that argument was never even made in this case so the bank tries to argue that later be entirely waived but even in this circumstance where i said there's did they fail to meet a canyon there's there's no fraud unfairness or oppression specify as to who but it does indicate it was sent to other entities in addition dies on had a finding a vigil and it was right in the order in and of itself which means it found unfairness in it connected that unfairness to the price paid such that it is set aside the shale sale under shadow canyon so in that it has from court sites dies on in the footnote in shadow canyon it again is reaffirming that those are the two requirements that must be met you have to establish both and even if even if we get into the discussion about shadow canyon and if you think the bank actually met its burden which i think they undoubtedly failed on all accounts even in that circumstance as recognized by them as from corn shadow would equitable relief will not be granted to the detriment of tell you that price alone is not enough to set aside a sale also there's i'm not aware of any decision out there published or unpublished that tells you you can presume big shilling based on the price because that would fly in the face of what i just discuss they didn't know it was going to be extinguished i guess i'm not understanding what that would be no and if you're referring to it in the context of the lender it would have to that i don't think that would get there but what you would need is testimony from any of the potential bidders or bidders who appeared at the auction indicating that they did not bid any higher because of the argued misrepresentation and in that circumstance your honour's as my time is running down i'll just sum up real  quickly in this particular circumstance the bank is presented you know evidence or argument that would change the lower course decision in that respect you should affirm and even in the circumstance you believe the shadow canyon analysis has been met by the bank which it has not as a far as  you are so i'll get back to the causal link requirement that seems to be the core of our dispute here the shadow caning case only says this is a own must be affected by some form of fraud unfairness or  oppression does not translate that into a direct bit shelling wink and indeed that wouldn't make any sense given the sorts of examples the court set are sufficient to constitute fraud affairs or russian all of which concern y know that the zyzzyx to opinion just infers that these type of mistreatment was enough to show been showing it's inside out any sort of specific testimony or evidence from buyers coming in and saying i would've been interested in this property had there not been a do you trust and there there's not any such evidence in any of these cases like sam florentine or lars family because that's not a requirement of the nevada supreme court is looking out the expert report which is in the record their expert appraisal report road there was no title company of southern nevada willing to issue title insurance foreclosure sale the typical buyer would have been aware that in about a understood that their days of trust might be surviving and it's very safe to say that positions taken by many different age to a trustees and an arbitration as well as c c and r s were part of the