to take those in order the st is jurisdictional discovery and the trial for decided to lump all five plaintiffs together all twenty two cause of action together and apply the new money is cayman island exempt company as well as rolling to and r c m ltd and for the borrowing statute to apply you have to find that all twenty two causes of action are outside of the state of new york and here without breaking down claim by claim we submit that was error for instance and for example counts twenty dollars twenty one cents were clearly we submit occurred in the postpone the start of the statue of limitations i submit this is really the heart of the case it's the heart of this appeal it's on page twenty one dollars of the th quarter it states this is at appendix and seventy six dollars in this case the court concludes the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the dozen discovery rules suspended the accrual of the statue of limitations so let's not forget our timeline time fines are shows that we didn't dollars lumber our rights we're being proactive they just fundamentally to understand that there is a ponzi scheme diverting invoice business fraud and there's a polaroid for we did start a lawsuit and on longest state one of the longest days in the history of our country eleven years it was a state against any discovery mr potter's so if you sue that case and it stays in the receiver was not appointed up it up in minnesota up and so there never receiver and all the noise is just went away but it was state and so we have no right to any discovery we couldn't get mr potter's e mails we couldn't get any knowledge or any facts to support or aiding and abetting it is one of fact and we can't be held in this case the point this out i think is one of our central themes we can't be held to knowing the inherently unknowable there key i think of the analysis is there's two frauds and if you understand the discovery rule we can't be known we can't be held one to a standard knowing the inherently unknowable and concepts it's a question of fact not a question on make and this is my one of our biggest you know errors we believe that the trial were made he never gave us that chance to show all the diligent inquiry we engaged in before we found these facts now we have and when you're having a six week criminal trial which happened in december of nine nobody is free flowing of information isn't happening now rely on the arrest in the indictment but the court also went into that diligent in during the criminal trial would reveal the nd source of this injury and we were never given that opportunity in our case because the criminal trial was within our five years and so we are we were able to show that even if we had mind of the criminal trial we could have discover and so there's all these jump off points it's not two thousand and eight you could say the criminal trial put you on notice of aiding and abetting fraud that's two thousand and nine within are five years you could say that while the trustees sued j p morgan in two thousand and ten didn't that give you some knowledge  and this is what happens in a discovery rule analysis in the state of illinois which is where we are the burden is on us to show that we couldn't discover and if we are given that chance i it's not a you know if you just because you didn't know that defendant doesn't mean the statute didn't start to run we're like that's not the standard it's whether you knew of the cause of action it we know e statute of limitations issue and particularly the a cruel of the claims and with regard to the cayman island entities can you tell me whether the record shows where those entities held their assets in specifically the bank accounts from 't use the words principal place of business we use the state of incorporation but if you would allow the scientists of the injured on the situs of the injury i would tell you that the cayman island special credit for instance is a cayman island exempt there was a there i'm sure there was a bank account in illinois but it's not if you ask it's on the record it doesn't say that and we don't have to you know are we don't have to plead in against an affirmative defense which is why we believe that reasonable inferences should be drawn in our favor we stayed where they are incorporated you know and the other lead that judge the trial for me was that special credit does not have an agency relationship with r c i l l c special credit that means we can't get subpoenas we couldn't get his emails we couldn't get the inner workings of how this loan worked and we didn't know about richter being the install or way we didn't know about round trips with block accounts we didn't know any of that what other things are that are beyond our control we pledge legal disability i've never played a legal disability in my life but there is the legal disability in this case because of the stay the criminal trial the appeal abstaining all of these courts did everything that they could to marshal the big bankruptcy the the trustees case against j p morgan the motion to dismiss was under advisement for four and a half years that means it just sat there with no discovery and we couldn't get it and this is why applicable tolling should apply here equitable tolling should say and it's consistent with the discovery rule is let's not policy in the state of illinois no applicable stop well it's more of their conduct and j p morgan was not exactly volunteer information about what they knew prior to us loaning the money my client three hundred million dollars positive my client was a was a client of j p morgan at the time that they were paid off through these loans and investments and we tried to get subpoenas and there were protective injury it's a fact question as they were wrongfully cost there's all these cases that talk about how we can break all that down into fact intensive inquiries and to just summarize these all right mr turner please the court alimta from some something like representing the j p morgan defendants i would like to focus my comments on the statutes of limitation issues which mr o'neill address if you're honest have any questions regarding the brace submitted is to apply the rules that were applicable in the original court which is the court in new york that court would apply the new york borrowing statute and that is why the district of minnesota correctly applied the borrowing statute here to  necessary in order to find out where the facts relating to each cause of action occurred but the borrowing statute and the cases decided on to that statute expressly say that the court does not need to do new york then the borrowing statute requires the cause of action to be timely and to both the limitations period in new york and the jurisdiction where the cause of action are crude now the case law under the statute uniformly holds that a place where the cause of action are crews where economic injury is alleged is the principal place of business of the plaintiff's counsel in that regard how can we conclude from the record that we though that may exist there though is timing we know that in from prior pleadings where they claim to have their place of residence but what about at the time the claims accrued in two thousand and eight how do we match those up because we can't just plaintiffs did not ascertain the facts regarding their aiding and abetting claim against j p morgan until much later but the illinois discovery rule does not require that a plaintive know who allegedly miss yes against i thought ok which is a very narrow exception and has been very narrowly construed by the illinois courts it is where the course of action was quote unknown to  and the fact is their words that a patient in a hospital who had been injured in the course of a surgery did not know that one of the injuries that they had suffered had been caused by a particular piece of equipment because the science had not developed to link that piece of pursue whatever steps it could take to file a claim down now mr o'neal says that they didn't have the ability to plea that cause of action on day one that's why under the statute of limitations they have five years five years to take whatever steps they need in order to be able to complete a claim they did not do so here i will have to defer on the questions of equitable i think not thank you down in two thousand and eight and those claims are just richmond and fraudulent bans and with respect to the statue limitations issues that we've been discussing i just want to emphasize what my friend said about the discovery that the plaintiffs don't have clear on that and with respect to both of the causes of action against us in the case of lenders that i mentioned there's no question that those causes of action sort of were accrued in late two thousand and eight as of what they knew at that point matters had been arrested indicted p g w n p c i companies that were affiliated with him and also been indicted had gone into bankruptcy or it had gone into bankruptcy and also the ritchie entities themselves filed a suit in late two thousand a acknowledged their burden to alleged facts showing these extraordinary up with friends that would pull the statue limitations for a period of time with respect to equitable calling the plaintiffs have to have been prevented from starting their rights in some and protective orders in other cases but as i just report court pointed out here a plaintiff doesn't usually get any suit discovery and so the fact that the plaintiff here because of a court order couldn't get discovery that they wanted in another litigation  allowed them to gather some facts is not enough free of any kind of extraordinary circumstance here are from that's the usual circumstance is that plaintiffs have to investigate their claims without any discovery and any kind of official work receiving and with respect to e that's again the act of prevention of plaintiff filing st of all there are no allegations of any kind of syndicated lenders engage in the conduct that would have prevented the plaintiffs from bringing their claims but even with respect to j p morgan plaintiffs are focused on again all that's alleged here is the j p morgan didn't comply with a subpoena and exactly the way that they most would have liked and then a court entered a protective order and that cannot possibly be enough out has active concealment of a claim or any kind  of misleading of the plaintiff that would have prevented them from filing and again as a disappointed i hear plaintiffs filed their suit the suit that we have before us without those materials that they were seeking from j p morgan and so it couldn't possibly have been necessary for them to have outside the cayman islands where they cannot be cayman island if you put that together with the things that the cayman island companies have said in other cases in other pleadings including kind of related cases about where their princip address in illinois that they gave when they filed their proof of claim bankruptcy all of those things in a situation in which it was well within plain us power to plead this and they didn't plead it are enough to demonstrate that their principal place of business can't be in the cayman islands must have been and they alleged in these other cases that their principal place of business was an illinois and so i think we can infer from their own statements which again the court can take account of at the stage of the case that it's based on their knowledge of where their assets are where their right thank you very much and i want to touch on or point number one in the most recent study by mr o'neill the reply where they come to upgrade our role in this entire situation and actually said in the dollars of the the the and a complaint the current complaint and were not mentioned the the actual complaint doesn't support the allegation and then at paragraph one hundred and ninety two dollars of the current complaint there's a chart where they lay out who knew what when and when they get down to knowledge of the bettors fraud and my client rector we don't know so the complaint doesn't support that allegation and i think without that we are we are further away the nd thing i'd point out is that in the back to court we argued very strongly that in this situation who what where when how is vital those details of what we did what we supplied what we gave to them how they were like that stuff is critical because in this world where you have no contract you have no business relationship with any of the betters we've never met any of them we didn't do a transaction with them it in as anything for our services in that situation where you're trying to manufacture duty or reliance on rare situation you need to have a lot of details about what really happened margins behave with respect to each other you might impose that duty where they have do it themselves now it's ironic that mr o'neill says they didn't even know about yes one of the reasons they did it was because they never heard of a well if you lied or ask you know if that's your  actually came to us and said we're going to trust you we're going to invest or we're going to loan based on you they would have known on day one who we were and what we said and they haven't alleged it given as to today and the search for my voice  circuit flat out says the what where when is vital and without that you have no claim and you don't get passed a motion to dismiss one of the place where i think they upgrade themselves without any facts as they say that my client victor must a ratified ratified something that the other defendants might have done and again that's exactly the kind of word that it would say is a legal conclusion lawyers and judges know what that is ratified means something to you he said in the meeting we heard what the from my client in the whole complaint where they really have words from our mouth it's us saying richter the consultant on cashflow saying the polaroid business is not currently viable that's the one thing we say that is not a rallying cry  pleading and the bankruptcy court but the question directly to mr o'neill which is do you have anything going directly from director to richie and he said judge if you understand the law i don't need it he's wrong what where when you need to have it and without that we're not going to manufacture duties or find reli thank you very much  i'd like to with all due respect great question down whether or not you need to know the identity or the cause of action i would submit that case law establishes that it is about the cause of action it's not a particular defendant or the particular actor and that's our point is that it's a very interesting dilemma we have here when you have a knowledge of one source of your injury mr potter's we have one source of our injury in the ponzi scheme frog we have a separate source of injury through the polaroid for ah which is a different frog all of our february notes are related to the representation that we're going to be the new senior secured lender and we're going to have a security interest in the polaroid assets that's what we were told and that's what we loan the money on that doesn't have anything to do with the fake invoicing scheme and so and if you i would submit similar to mitzi is ok and they say it's an outlier because it's scientifically unknowable remember mitzi is met now claim product liability claim later and they allowed it con is said your clients had the limitations period to to discover to make inquiry and discover what what all it occurred and you know we've had this in the in the area of requiring significant inquiry on your client's part your honor limitations on the nd source of our injury on the gating in a bad until after two thousand and eight because we were prevented suspicion is not enough us versus cooper record supreme court case talks about the cause of action talks about the claim and so i don't believe it's fair under act would be to say that since he was arrested then everything thank you for your arguments this morning case is submitted and we'll try to have a decision so it's possible