this appeal presents fundamental questions about whether congress has authorized the federal government to serve as the world's fraud policeman the department of justice prosecuted same a foreign national for conduct that primarily you current overseas and that was supposedly intended to defraud investors informs your hussein was a british accountant who worked in england autonomy was publicly listed on the mean didn't the defendant actually send a wire to the united states well actually these wires were not necessarily sent then there are several wires seven that are for example th in the united states or hewlett packard came on the scene which relate to deals in the united states but the point here is that this is an accounting fraud case and the issue isn't that deals each communication itself can support a separate indictment count yes or no and isn't it somewhat similar for wire product that each use of the wires can still support a similar  independent wire pride even if they're all associated with same product i think that's correct your honor but the court was not considering the question here or which is what is the focus of the statute for purposes of extraterritor the nd circuit in that best human case and i think your are right we do not agree with the analysis of the nd circuit we think we would win even under that analysis but we think the proper the proper way to look at this circuit seems to be saying as a hybrid position that the wires have to be an integral part of the scheme and i don't think that's really the at different from our view in the sense that in order to be an integral part of a scheme our position would be at a minimum you have to have you know a transfer of money or something are more significant happening wires than what's happening here and  government rely heavily on it and so if the court doesn't agree with some acts for territoriality we would ask for a new trial the court compounded the sever refusing to allow a defense to introduce other seventy eight and three autonomy fired a press company here in the united states to distribute those press releases specifically to us and ministers here  analysis or a different outcome as far as their territory or would you argument that case it doesn't matter he knew what he was doing he intended it to get to that and the fact that he only conveyed it as far as the u doesn't change that our position your honor is that's not a different case if the dissent it causes the use of wires united states or our test that suspicion but i need to emphasize this is a very and no carry on you jack to the elements of materiality whether or not why why it why it the investor call transcript where the chief executive  says that there's been some bumps associated with this acquisition they still think it was out great d l and was just working out some steering problems why why would that not be relevant to whether there was actually a misrepresentation as to the value of the purchase i think if i if i understand it with the court is referring to is a may two thousand and twelve earnings call where the c e o meg whitman says this is a terrific product and i think the emphasis  i also think your honor this is harmless the this hardware emission at the end of the day was one components of the government's fraud case it went to opinion for the restatements the audit opinion itself is just another opinion by a nd on her at the end of the day these financial statements are just there to statements their income statements their balance sheet their state of c  not only one of the key distinctions is that as i discussed earlier the moderator i'm still young refused to sign off on this one whereas in the one in jasper the auditor render an opinion that it was fair in its accounting the court said no you know it has a duty to correct the accounting ringback and of course people get sued all the time for this sort of thing this was very different the circumstances under  iest we took the position that you were a packer subjective judgments after the closing valid evidence because materiality is an object standard but at the same time allow at that point says miners that they had done a fairly deep dive to understand what had happened and why it's ready he said got down in the st quarter after the acquisition and i think all of was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect to that in england and that the case law including the supreme court's cases on as are pretty clear that it doesn't necessarily similarly if there's an entirely form form fraud between or someone posts a document to him dropbox and it so happens that that the document is actually housed on a server in the us unbeknownst to the fraudster or is victim suddenly that's a u s case and i respectfully submit that's not what congress intended and the supreme court has been clear in all this extraterritoriality cases that florida the australian bank and the allegations were that executives in the united states is conducting false valuations and how those in the marketplace in the united states now and we are now concluded for the monday session so thank you everyone tha