unlike mr sitrick when he made his investment and in reviewing that documentation judge wilson properly affirmed that there were no material misrepresentations made to the investors in th judge wilson did conclude that mr rosen may not have been acting as his attorney i believe that we come to the same conclusion that this case can be disposed of on a motion to dismiss and or summary judgment based upon mr rosen acting turning or not acting as his attorney and then addressing that issue in particular it goes to the issue of reliance that is necessary for the cause of action that mr sitrick has alleged and if we take for example mr rosen acting as mr citrix agent mr sitrick has not provided the court with any case law that supports the position that credential equity group can be held liable for whatever mr rosen did for mr sitrick the cases that were presented by mr sitrick are instances where an agent is disclosed in this instance potential equity group and in the instance where the principal prevention would have known and that mr rosen was acting as an agent in this case we did not know that and it was never disclosed to us or that prudential acted in a manner where ian prudential disseminated information to mr rosen with the expectation that mr rosen would have provided it to mr citron those are the cases that were suggested to provide mr sitrick with the with the was not reasonable under any circumstances and so as a matter of law the court could conclude that mr sitrick does not have reasonable reliance or justifiable reliance on the recession really a sad and  first we cannot be liable because what mr sitrick is suggesting that we put put into our disclosure documents our forecasts and your forecasts of what could happen if this happens then that might happen us that forecasts cannot possibly be actionable and that's exactly what they're requesting us to do is to say well maybe if this happens a worry if if if the market goes down possibly occur with this portfolio and second it mikey if reassurances to investors that aren't possible for example if we say that history's going to repeat itself as he suggests are in the documents we may be telling them that the default rate for the next five years is going to be zero and therefore you're going to make eleven or nineteen percent that would be equally as difficult for an investor to be able to rely upon as what they're suggesting that we say that the market's going to go down the investors in these investments are held to know that the markets go up and the markets go down in either way will affect their investment issue that's been troubl that that kind of documents simply cannot be relied upon well under those circumstances that mr sitrick presents absolutely i say that you cannot rely on this presentation the presentation if we're going to look at what mr sitrick should have been in this document then we are protected by this document by the b speaks caution doctrine which we discussed in our papers and we appreciate does not directly data that if we warn of the investor that these are past historical representation or that they are in any way giving a suggestion of what may occur in this investment s with respect representation the information with respect to presentations you know i don't have anything handy but what i think what i what i would suggest is that it's the investment advisor in every one of those types of cases in the cases where they say that there is an oral represent oral representation would be similar to this presentation in that you know all of the lines of cases of oral representation the courts tell the reasonable investors that they must look at the final offering documents the judge decided to in his opinion in that when you have a reasonable investor and in this instance our reasonable investor is an accredited investor who has made a representation to  that he is knowledgeable in this type of an investment he has done it before and indeed is willing to accept the risks in all of those circumstances but when we look at the reasonable investor it's of the reasonable investor in this particular circumstance as opposed to just some general reason why ask here that's very interesting because i was not able to find a case that talked about a reasonable investor in terms of a five on one offering however when we look at the different cases that talk about reasonable investors many of them give and the brown versus you have one case is a perfect example as well as the  instance that was supposed to be in the brown versus e f hutton case a limited partnership that was supposed to give them income and safety and security the court found that they were unsophisticated investors yet required in held to read the prospectus then one can conclude that if anyone is going to purchase cvo two they must be an accredited investor then what we are dealing with here today is a pool of accredited investors because an unsophisticated investor such as in the brown case would not be allowed to buy c b o two and for that reason i think as a matter of law it is fair to say that these investors because they had to comply with five zero one must be accredited investors and that basis these accredited investors who make the affirmative representation to prevent so that they know and understand the risks are held to a standard of appreciating the risks that prudential has put in the offering documents and there they are numerous as judge wilson points out in his order and as we put in all of our documentation the offering memoranda and the private placement memoranda are littered with the disclosures that are specific to this investment mister weber to explain precisely how would have had equity left but the entire pool of bonds that were put into the investment in the beginning in september of one nine hundred ninety nine the structure of the portfolio which by the way was done by f e m a not done by credential they choose they choose high yield debt securities in the hopes that they're going to be able to provide the investors with a tremendous return rate of return and that they troche is going to be able to be paid their interest and their principal the manager of that pool f e m a leverage is that pool of bonds in hopes to increase the rate of return on the portfolios however because of the marketplace two thousand and two thousand and one in two thousand and two many of those bonds because they were high yield bonds they were secured  by other obligations of those issuers and the market place all of these are the disclosures that we've put in the o m and the p p m defaulted so therefore the bonds didn't have the value that they may have had when they portfolio sometimes they can't sell the bonds because the market has just fallen apart we saw that with the technology sector in march of two thousand if they are able to sell some of the bonds then it's possible that they can't go back in the marketplace and buy bonds that have a high enough yield in order to substantiate the portfolio these are all things that were discussed in disclosed in the offering memoranda as being potential  investment because the bond market fell apart and because the technology market fell apart f e m a was not able to replace the portfolio with sufficient bonds that were giving a high enough yield to pay off the off was left with no collateral left in order to meet payouts to the other classes of the bonds and therefore being investment failed but these were all the types of disclose that were made especially for the rated me the class they were indicated that there was no recourse if the if they couldn't pay the other  the problems of the specific sectors of the specific industries that were in the portfolio are discussed in those disclosure documents so that an investor that looked at the offering memoranda would know and appreciate all the various risks that were inherent in the c b o two portfolio and specifically in the notes but the ino that's where the ones that everybody was hoping would be the most successful because everyone else would be paid off and what hel left would go to the not so you can appreciate that if the market worked in their favor they would be the ones that would benefit the most but they carry the biggest risk as well and those are the things that we did disclose which makes the the omissions that mr sitrick suggests not material because in the totality of the mix of everything that was disclosed in those offering documents the two items that he did not that he wanted in the in the  were were not relevant as compared to all these other disclosures that we suggested that we make we think that the trump case is very important in this instance and one of the most important things that the donald trump case teaches  is that you cannot get to when mr sitrick cannot go back and try to add it are offering memoranda that we made in september of one thousand nine hundred nine in an effort to win his case it's just not right in it's not fair mr sitrick has not been able to show that these two alleged omissions were indeed material when you look at the totality of the mix of the information and no discovery is going to change that what was in those documents is what was there in september of one thousand nine hundred nine we suggest that any amendment is futile and we suggest that any discovery isn't going to change the fact that what we did put in those documents provides the investor with the information that they need in order to make that investment decision there on their own we also suggest that the statutes of limitations are run in september hundred ninety nine at the time that mr sitrick knew or should have known the relevant salient features of this investment he chose to bury his head in the sand he chose to rely on mr rosen who said it's mere boilerplate provided the investors with all of the relevant salient information that they needed in order to make an investment decision thank