situation in which the form the home health or you can see the application testimony showed that mrs risk are the plaintiff in this case her involvement was limited to providing eleven thousand five hundred dollars as a capital hang that group looking at these letters but those letters you quite frankly you know there are attempts to maybe resolve the situation short of short of all sort of litigation but i don't think that's inconsistent with the position that richard talked not going to provide a contrary characterization the letter is very short and clear and it says although the exhibits were not included in the record the text can be found elsewhere and it says mr and mrs ranchero desire to purchase your share of the alamar home health care and upon receipt of this letter please contact me so i unfurl you additional documents figure execution there's only one way to read that letter exactly what it says it is a for the sake of argument because it doesn't make one difference whether it whether it's five years or not will accept it because it makes no difference now just because a present conduct may have occurred even a full five years even outside  wrongful acts violations of the statute within those four years and with out and the defendant successfully argued up in the supreme court that's all the plaintiffs could not proceed with its cause of action based on statutory violations outside of  year window but the supreme court rejected the defendant's arguments that the entire action was untimely and said as long as violations occurred in the four years the cause of action can proceed on that and it was timely here participate in the never got minutes of afterwards in two thousand and eleven with bylaws morman it without any notice to her or any any chance to participate and in two thousand and twelve all the defendants effectively reallocated the shares so that they gave heard they all all fall within the schedule mutations period that even the defendants would have us working with so there is simply no way that this claim can be untimely when the oppressive conduct proven at trial that justif award all happen within five years prior complaint being filed i want to step back on this point and highlight how dangerous it would be to accept the defendant's argument on the statute of limitations did there is no cause of action when someone tries to buy your shares you can only say no that's not an act of aggression it's not fraud or illegal that's nothing it happens all the time so not only is october two thousand and four non swimmer cause of action or  they could oppressed miss carl indefinitely for whatever in any way they wanted because she would no longer have any rights to redress even future oppression it is very dangerous to accept any even just looking at the five years prior to filing a complaint we had raised a few theories that would allow for the whole all press of x even outside those five years into a lawsuit like the continuing violation rule and discovered rule totally unnecessary to get there it is there's  be defendants have cited no case below and no case here where someone owns a duty to work for company just because they only share and that makes sense we everyone owns shares in companies they don't work for some of the cases we cited seen that they're trying to press in their counterpoint and we said in the record where they knew that she was working for another company and that that's not the basis of a counter claim but that's not really that can be they were working on it was really that she had to work for eleven thousand five hundred it's that's not a home health care you can see we're dealing with some of the most fragile people in our society and the sooners and what they do is very very difficult so them for them to come in so we're just putting money into apple that's absolutely not this case their money and and at that point they will be whole and moving if we go back to the twelve point five six and confusing all the issues because that's when it started with respect to the last position my client said that she is a shareholder you're a shareholder in it they should have done