chose to take the life and the court has to look at the timeline of the but her stated reliance first off those representations by the attorney of record who was not made worse follows one that there was three options is twelve cents a share the options were restricted and there was no market to buy or sell the options now each and every one of those statements was correct and the trial court price was five dollars and sixty cents a share so the court took a lesser value the trial court did take the lesser value but the trial would utilized information the only information about two dollars a share was this failed stand there with and he had this information concerning a prior failed bid two years prior to the entry in the judgment and there was intervene by the financial crisis which there was testimony much more drastic in this s that they went from zero to whatever it was there was a realisation if there was a sale where it was her stock options it was a publicly held corporation wouldn't be affected by a lack place but if we she's between a rock and maybe a squishy place she's aware that there is risk she chose to misplace even cash which without the benefit of hindsight is a perfectly reasonable business significance of that if in fact those are factors that would have affected her decision because i think she testified that her decision peep different if those factors had been conveyed to her such that she would have known that there was a possibility or probability and again she might realize that new family and again that goes to the benefit of hindsight and we have knowledge of general electric's interest or involvement until well after in october of on when she finally executed a letter of intent and the documentary evidence the robber was into the working group how would you characterize this again the letter from letter said the it's in i think in the letter was an explanation of the other situation disclosure statement disclosures to put down the number of options destroy the price and multiply the strike price by the option raise which would necessarily have taken half her fifty two percent thirty six thousand dollars thirty six thousand dollars she would have done what she would have done to follow through with her with her subpoena she wanted to oppose the other by guys find out what the status of the care about diligence when there's that level of fraud going down does that apply here yes or it does again it's the it's what he didn't tell or he told her just enough to get her to to induce her to do the deal the way she wanted to do it to get her to take the cash there was on her on her his attorney's letterhead there is currently no market for the judge in this case made a finding that heat means the value of car is greater than on or ours at least to me that doesn't mean the two years from now the value could be changed and so to say that the value two years ago where it was incumbent upon cindy to produce evidence of the influence it was very specifically asked to trial is you sit here now after two years of litigation do you know what the value of the options were when the judge rules that her and her interim judgement that she was diligent with there was an inducement what is it that robert did to get her to pay for taking cash is opposed to taking the options because the trial court certainly didn't rely on the representation that was the recommendation but it except in that recommendation on may twenty first of two thousand and ten it was cindy with no evidence as to why she did this who sent a letter saying we want to change the recommendation