standards for evaluating a motion to dismiss the court applied a more difficult standard a defendant friendly standard and in doing so the court failed to accept the complaint specific that factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in plain as fake favor nd the complaint fairly alleges that at least by november two thousand and sixteen which we're now talking about the thirty minute the proposed there are many complaint that it alleges at least by november two thousand and sixte the beginning of the modified class period and certainly by august two thousand seven hundred and seventeen that defendants knew that the their statements regarding the expected one hundred million dollars in revenue from the eighteen t contract were false defendant's statements regarding the that was disclosed actually in august of two thousand i kept the st time in which they disclosed it is a joint decision it was not disclosed in november two thousand and sixteen and it had already been known by the company right after the initiation of the contract back in may of two on user engagement as opposed to manage my position was in august in which it was said that it was a joint decision a joint statement that we later learned was not true that it was not a joint decision but it was eighteen t s control over the contract and eighteen t's main focus was to focus on user engagement the exclusion of monetization and that was finally disclosed in march two thousand and eighteen and i think the disclosure in march of two thousand and thirteen is is is a fact the confidential witnesses release no your honor they don't and i think i think what they don't have to do however is start off in may of two thousand and sixteen when the contract is introduced and promote one hundred million dollars in revenue from the eight hundred and eighty dollars contract they predate that was a that was their sort of banner statement as a result of that disclosure the stock price went up one hundred and fifty eight percent so when the company should the bet is that is the bit that was the up they think that number was was obtainable from the yahoo situation correct and so they could be optimistic that they could they could just simply step in this use of yahoo they didn't say they would could just be optimistic but even if they even if they reasonably believed it at that moment in time even if at the time they made that announcement they reasonably believe one hundred million dollars the question is your are when did they have to disclose the fact that eighteen t had now shown its cards eight hundred and eighty was focused on user engagement not monist as facts that six of our confidential witnesses have said they were aware of that at eight hundred focused on dial back on advertising confidential witness for said he was fired because right to say to the company that their estimates of future revenues were fall were overstated this is this is that i think i if you refer to the high crush case we cited this was a this was a game changing contract this was not just ordinary projections this was a game changing contract the largest contract incentive course history is for us a single customer it was going to double revenues according to according to senior corps and in fact was part of a sort of thirty three billion three hundred million dollars projection or estimate so that this was a focus of the company's attention part of each of the disclosures and what we say is and what we've cited in several of the paragraphs our analysts attention to this contract analysts were quite two sensitised to the contract and several instances analyst monitored the company's statements concerning the contract so that in august two thousand and seventeen when they said it was only delayed analysts took note of that the stock price decreased but analysts said well we're not that concerned because it's still on the horizon it's still going to be coming and that's it and  also happened subsequently in november what you have here is the duty to reveal the truth and the company here did not reveal that they certainly i think it's important that the company had a shelf registration they they announced the contract and in may in november they continued to promote one hundred million dollars worth of revenue then and they promoted shortly before they filed to sell shelf registration then in march of two thousand and seventeen we are they again reiterate the hundred million dollar contract they don't mention all they do is they acknowledge a delay they don't they still say we're on track they still say that we're going to make one hundred million dollars and it march this is in march of two thousand and seventeen within days there after they file the shelf registration they raise twenty million dollars they don't say to people where that eight hundred and eighty dollars is focused on monetization they don't as i'm sorry focused on user engagement as opposed to monetization they actually reassure the rest in public that all is well with the company it's just a matter of the late and i don't think based upon the statements that are confidential witness of said you can draw that any inference other than if you accept those statements as true and we have identified each one of them and i was going to summarize them but largely every one of the confidential witnesses said that eighteen t had indicated said that it was focused on the news or engagement to the exclusion of monetization and that defendants knew that this was the case they were at weekly meetings which was this was discussed simply because they don't produce predict the future with perfect accuracy alleging fraud by hindsight is certainly not enough to survive a dismissal of a securities fraud claim and that's exactly what we have here we have and argue of course is that these are all forward looking statements to the extent that there's any materiality associate of what's being said it's a ford looking statement it's accompanied by meaningful cautionary language actual results may applies to all missions in this case can be affirmed on that faces but but the court asked me a different question which was on the care so i will address that as well although i do believe that tell you why because this is of interest to me this overlap on certainly and i don't think it's a tension i think i think it's just that there are two different ways to view the potential for dismissal here so i'll start by by talking about the  p s l array but i promise i will talk about the care as well in a moment because the p s l are a itself which on the care certainly didn't didn't alter in any way states that any private action arising out of this chapter that is based untrue statement of material facts or omission of material fact necessary to make the statement not misleading so so and then it goes on to apply the standard that we're all familiar with in the different prongs of the p the safe harbor wishart disjunction and i think this case and the and the statements in this case fall fairly and squarely under the st one for forward looking statements accompanied by meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors  for oral statements a pretty clearly says that at that can be complied with if there is a statement that actual results might differ materially from those projected in the forward looking statement i'm reading directly from the statute and of course when a court made the statements it made that are being challenge it says actual results may differ right in the preamble to the analyst conference call so i think that a case like statements and certainly there are projections that can also be opinions but i think the statute project protects them whether there are opinions or not but to the extent anything that center course in this case is considered to be simply an opinion and not a projection for whatever reason and therefore not protected by the p s l rank it still isn't actionable under on the care and i think the plane of focus when they look at on that care is on the omissions piece and that's certainly what the court focused on in its question and i don't think that there is anything material that so maybe the high crush case that the council mentioned is a case where a contract a very important contract a blown up and there was a dispute over whether or not you know renewal under the contract that's in the complaint in the amended complaint that wasn't until after the class period so well instead what we have is a very odd class period in the proposed rd amended complaint and i'll note that it is a rd of many complaints but the class period actually now starts on bad news the class period starts when the when the company and i think george walker referred to this briefly or at least alluded to at the company is announcing that the official launch of the portal is being pushed back from q four hundred and sixteen dollars to the st half of seventy that's the announcement that starts the proposed new class period that's the company doing what it's supposed to do actual impact on us and oh by the way we're trying to get this thing going but it's not going to start now it's going to start later and then eight and a half months later they give another update of this negative they talk about another delay longer ramp to monetization moving at a more deliberate pace they're doing what the plaintiffs say they're supposed to do which is give updates on what's going on or they were wired to say every single thing that's happening at every moment of course not that would be impossible that would confuse the market that would cause the stock to bounce up down and sideways constantly and there's no case that says they're supposed to do that and all we have here are some projections that have  a very clear and obvious reasonable basis the plaintiff has said multiple times in their papers you can't use yahoo as a benchmark that's on reasonable they had a lengthy relationship with a t n t you're a small company you have a premier relationship well had every incentive to keep their to keep their portal successful and obviously they didn't move at the center core so this could fall apart and they could start from scratch so they moved to center court for a reason and the contract itself  would you like i'm still thinking as you speaking about the more fundamental question of how we distinguish between a case that is there are there are many many opinions and i know the court knows this so forgive me for saying it there are many opinions that are projections right including the hypothetical to justice kagan talked about in on the care about you know the resolution of the televisions and things like that so those are opinions and they're not projections but in terms of of is a projection an opinion certainly it often is and it can be analyzed  you did your honor is due to the nd circuit certainly did but i don't think that they had to and i don't think that i have to hear but i think that and i'll say it again forgive me that even if this court chooses the macair route as opposed to the  either way it's pretty clear that there's no there's nothing missing now i suppose one way to try to reconcile them would be to say that a forward looking statement loses its loses its protection if it is truly missing something that is that is significantly material so that the so that the classroom every language can't save you if you're making a projection that has some have reasonable cost in every language but it would be a much harder argument and you would be telling me that that's a that's a material omission even under the p s l are a never mind on the care so i think that there are ways that we can that we can  y make make those two those two doctrines work together and not in tension with each other but here this isn't nearly hard enough a case that we have to to we have to figure that all out today but if we specific contract in which the company said we're getting one hundred million from this contract that is not we're going to earn in the st quarter fifty million we're going to earn twenty five million in st quarter for all of our products we're not it's not combination of of  disclosure of all specific to real risks associated well known risk by the company and in this case the known risk by the company certainly by november two thousand and sixteen was that eighteen t was focused on user engagement to the contract and the focus on user engagement to the exclusion of monetization i think that ultimately what was disclosed in march of two thousand and eighteen was what was no amber and in november two thousand and sixteen and certainly in august two thousand what was known in and disclosed in march of two thousand eight hundred finally and it was material in march of two thousand and eighteen in the only reason why they came clean was because they weren't meeting their preferred they were not beating their results and they weren't meeting the results consistently and there was they had to explain that they would otherwise it's question whether they would have disclosed what they disclosed was going on from the beginning it was a material fact that investors wanted to know and when you look back and i mentioned little bit about investments and counsel for sort of courses  my counsel says you know well that these were just generalized projections and and it's interesting that we start the class period when cynic or discloses a delay in revenues but the statements that sin accord made certainly didn't give investors the belief that oh this is just  delay that this is that that this is ed in fact what they said was our overall financial expectations for a contract with eight hundred and eighty remain very much on track with expected full year revenue of one hundred million  after deployment is complete and and continued and so i don't think it really should really impact what one might be expecting of our revenues from eighteen million two thousand and seventeen percent one point to their duty to disclose this information arise this certainly when they became aware of the fact that eighteen t was focused on user engagement to the exclusion of monetization i thought we argued that we believe in we started the class period it was in november of two thousand sixteen but even if it wasn't november two thousand and sixteen which is the beginning of our class period then it certainly was prior to the time they did it shelf registration in march of two thousand and seventeen and then certainly in august of two thousand and seventeen they did they made a partial disclosure which itself was misleading because it was described as a joint so the so are you suggesting that the duty arose independent of whatever projections it was making about future revenue no i think i think i  think it's the embedded fact that under on the care i think it is the fact that when they said that we're expecting one one hundred million dollars what they were saying was they were not saying that he was going to focus on user engagement as to the flu shot of monetization it was he in bed in fact investors were led to believe that in fact this was full steam ahead just like and there was no reservations concerning the ability to earn these revenues there were no conflicting facts it's true not witnesses said and that's the thrust of our that's the heart of our case your honor it is that that cynic or and why did it do so it's it's sort of it sort of goes with once you throw float at one hundred million we're going to be just like yahoo and it wasn't just a generalize it was about this contract it was about what cynic or was going to do it is contract and then when confidential witnesses disclose that cynic or knew that wasn't happening st it was just a leg but not come clean cheap saying we and i think we've quoted from various investment analysis and i think it's important in two thousand and sixteen lab or galen says that said assuming the company is more or less on schedule the value creation from the contract is unchanged by revenue shifting from one quarter to the other so the fact that it was delayed was not going to nobody said it was going to happen they said or that there was some concern about it what they said is it's just shifting from one quarter to another and i think that happened again in march in which there was again guidance  stated that it was going to attain expected one hundred million dollars in eight hundred and thirty three thousand three hundred one million and it knew those statements were not true in the language it uses the cautionary language cautionary language of generalized results may differ is based on a theory and your argument here today that monetization and customer engagement are conflicting goals are somehow mutually exclusive and that really be sustained though in other words isn't it a business decision whether or not you satisfy the customer's needs in order in order to have more traffic on the website to see the advertising and big able to do the searches in other words maybe soon a car and a t and t did not see it the same way but does that necessarily mean these were mutually exclusive goals and you set a little light on that aspect for us these are these are mutually exclusive goals in this context in all contexts maybe not but in this context cynic or makes money off of advertising clicks and revenue from those clicks so st you have to are out people looking you have to have people looking at it right and they're not going to do that in a competitive environment unless you have a customer what would be call customer engagement correct that certainly you need some custom engagement but when that other you want to have people looking at the app you're still going to services there's no question needed some some custome click world it matters how many advertising pop up is insta some degree there is less user to some degree there's less user appreciation of a site if there's more pubs and more advertising if there's a focus on advertising on a particular site then it's less user friendly or less user engagement it is certainly significant and we believe it is consistent with again is consistent with there with the disclosure in march of two thousand and eighteen in which the company says eighteen to be alone dollars in eighteen tees world which end in two to arrive at one hundred million dollars projection you could had to focus on advertising and not monsters that is what all of the cockleshell witnesses said we were lying and the allegations concerning was where they were and not going to lose much revenue and i take it apart of your argument would also be that the stock price drop steeply when they the