simple case or fundamentally just two statements there we have raises issues we've broken them down a little bit within the complaint and some of them are repeated more than once in the proxy but the statements are fundamentally that which is  projections but that the board determined they get them on some recent performance and this is really the key the recent performer clearly suggested the case the projections overstated amman's long term prospects and th what they call the nd statement is related to that which is the more generalized statement that the board determined that the merger was fair and in the best of the store holders and again they did that based upon the investment bankers ways in which statements like this which are a mixture of both opinion and some currently or current or historical statements can be found to be false or misleading under federal knew that liability and rest not only if the bigger did not hold the believe see best but also if the supporting of basses is supplied or untrue and again the supporting facts in this this statement was that things were so bad in the rd period in the rd quarter of two thousand and seventeen that we now need to shift from what was our agreed to plan and on a mentally drop out or plus one billion dollars of revenue and that if there are omitted if bass that would undermine that that would call that would so that there is a lot of basis for that believe again that would demonstrate that those statements were that are accessible at least at the  have so far is that the company consistently said that they have long their long term prospects were where they were saying that they were continuing to accelerate at anywhere from thirty two to forty one percent if they were growing the rd quarter itself the very order in which these or or the belief is saying things got bad they were saying that the bookings was increasing with the strongest that they've seen in the last three years that means while the revenue was not com in the source of that revenue was going up be on where it ever gone before and that they have a good deal of confidence in there so again we're undermining both the belief and in fact the support for that belief we also we also know that just some softness in the nd and nd and rd quarter would not be enough to really justify that as they may as well because again their own c e o and this is a paragraph eighty one of our complaint made it very clear that the company did not look at a quarter by quarter basis they understood that revenues may slip and slide between orders in the us who were the bookies of the growth and that therefore the business was not quarter by quarter specifically that they continue to use the case b and that the case b was discussed and the board met at least or times between this purported softness and the adjustment where they never adjusted down to case b and they only did so when the buyer elliott who had bought into the company as that was the best or made it best and final and they needed a forecast that reduced by that four billion one hundred million dollars in that would actually undermine that under army care and we said they did they will mitt the fact that they were in the midst by the time they actually did the reduction they were in the midst of a record th or a th quarter that would have made up for publicly never proved produce there is all we have again because we have to draw a reasonable inference is in our favor is their own statements that it was a record or order that they indicated  that those the highest order of growth in the months entire existence that was a quote that came from them in a representation to the public markets so we don't have those loads of data that representation that in the say the defendants don't challenge the allegations as we may try to make another argument which is fundamentally that the facts of this case are different than what we say that is directly contrary t ground of a motion to dismiss in this case because we're not supposed to do that here by the defendants make the argument that this is protected by the safe harbor and that is significantly problematic they do statements and current statements that you still have that those are not protected here we are talking about the current statements of what was the comp and these are and believe what was occurring or  fourteen statements if there's predictions of revenue and earnings over time and those on board we don't know whether or not those projections were borne out other than in the th period d we go things were good but that's not the is the issue is did they have the value at the time and finally i think what is most important and also comes from all of us systems is that the if there are cost near the language it needs to be breast size and meaning as quality systems noted as you know in order to in order for in order for that to work you fundamentally have to do it in your own violation in order in order to have a meaningful cautionary language in what they did here was provided really is forward looking because the fairness is that in fact i believe this is going through it's the same thing when when someone makes a forecast they don't include in that and that statement is the belief that the forecast is going to come true  same thing as saying i believe this is a fair forecast the same harbor really isn't written a statute to mince words about that and what really distinguishes this case from all the systems that counsel referenced is that there are me address that and go to address the objective and subjective falsity because there are some facts here that are absolutely not in dispute the company's results for the four quarters leading up to the merger are not in dispute and they were poor company that's objective and not disputed going in which is a rapid decline in the business and let me just thank you for point that your honor raised because there is no evidence that there were thank you or record that was different than what was projected by updated and that is that is a valid but that is not the that is not just because your numbers don't remember the way that results in word and deed that its c e o said that this is not an industry in which you get all the money and at the same this is a fairly mess and you can't say it was a devastating for them or the or their order because that eight isn't what we plead and be it what it was something that wasn't made up and could have been made up in the th quarter by the end of the year but at the meeting stage you have to accept our allegations you count it said mr burns argument because if that were a case you could never get because they would just flood the record with