is correct your honor i believe couple months ago in early august judge adkins proved a class action settlement for twenty seven point five million dollars and in that case they are scheme our clients specifically asked about sixty million dollars in net net cash cash invested less any redemptions than that that they had a risk most basic pass which in this case turns out to be to detect a blatant fail afresh for which mr bell the originator of the at at the end of the day your honor i don't think it is i think it's a case between shareholders who were reliant on the right it's to me or at risk were directly addressed and mailed out by the orders communication between your orders and the shareholders direct communication the shareholders had to rely on the or august when you're dealing with a hedge fund like this there is no other way that investors have any outside unbiased view of the value of the investment except by looking at those at those already everybody knows that you couldn't raise a penny for it from like this if you didn't because the act after it does not apply where the rights of third parties external to the corporation are issue that's right and that generally speaking internal affairs stacker and only applies where the defendant internal management of the corporation out your opponents are going to say that it is an internal affairs act well it's a case really and that's and that's that that's kind of a leap the reason that i think it is not again is because diminished in the belly of the shares nor your honor i mean isn't that really what some of the cases say when you say oh it's because we we were misguided by the accountants who try to tell us everything was fine so that's why we invest is the seventh circuit recognized as a complete is a complete fraud it's just that it's it's it's nothing it's not a legitimate operating corporation i think this is this is quite a critical this is not a case where the managers of the corporation screwed up if you're talking about a hedge fund with a bad scheme case rather boring and that's the primary case you would say would suggest that there's an exception for yes ok so so just briefly how do you just how do you explain or tell me how be the wall reflected loss is different manage its affairs lead certainly when it's an operating corporation with the corporation deal with its own legal problems and legal claims without interference from as a direct claim and it and it can proceed and i think that's that's you know generally the rule under american law believe that the thing about the reflect the best doctrine is that it sort of coombs our of about a dozen or so cases from the british former british empire or the commonwealth and generally reports in those there is actually a case that is really on forward with this one where the shareholders are thrown out in a situation where the company the you you have to look you really have to look at the merits of the case of the of the companies case because these cases and see whether that's a good case or not and the defendants say the case because litigation here we have exactly the opposite situation when we look at the merits as the pretty ok says we do when we read at the merits of the action that the t mitchell right right so we had two different judges in the same division one saying the action should go forward it didn't go forward and now it's all been resolved and then we have the plaintiffs in this case who opted out actually made the same claims in this suit and another judge said well king immediately jump to cain law and then he said to reflect the last doctrine does not allow for this now have is a wrongdoer to start is there any question about that that the fund was a wrongdoer hasn't the bankruptcy court and the court of appeals haven't they all said the fund was held wrong too or yes present kind of bound by goodness how would you ever i mean is there ever then a situation where one could adequately plead that losses due to being told this is a great company to invest in everything is clean as a whistle you should you can invest we're getting our in from our ok how could a shareholder get maybe you're going to tell me the shareholders would never say that my losses are if i invested number one based on representations that were made that were false and two i continue to invest because the reports kept coming back clean so that a shareholder could never ever really complain because the company has the same kinds of losses but in this case the company is taking in all that money to its own that shirt it to consider that would be to bring  quite right but we meet that's what i'm saying i'm asking you you're saying there is no such thing that a shareholder could never ever claim that they invested based on fraudulent or negligent complaint what is seventy three pages nothing in there that talks about investing and continuing to invest me aren't you really talking about a pleading defect when you say that the amount of the damages is equal to the  like that because that's actually very near it is that they lost their proportionate share but there's no reference to any damages that and we lost all our money when we invested that type of damage is reflective that type of damage is  legal argument under which this court can afford an alternative ground and dismissed their claim with prejudice they don't need to go back to the lower court to repleat because they're looking to replete because there is no successor babil of the under cayman islands here is and i understand why they want to argue it is that there is an absolute rule that orders are completely from s from liability if they fail to discover a fall and the reason the reason that i say that is that and discovering a floor was one of the principle reason that obviously while you place it is still it also the dressing in the context of setting frames rather than affirmative recovery and it pointed out that if the company bad offset against the claims that the order was making against it and the plaintiffs were out to sue that would be true double recovery for the exact same wrong and that is one of the things we're trying to avoid by the fact the rascal again we don't have that problem here because the company section three zero two which council is what's important there is that as they acknowledged on one page continue their brief the internal affairs doctrine doesn't apply talking about to the shareholders have standing and we're talking about this illinois have a more significant relationship to the state in the western according to them than the cayman islands and i would say the answer is clearly ye company had no money and this goes to the point where counsel said you're trying to recover the same role that is wrong your honor i think you correctly pointed out to the extent this seventy five million ninety million the worst category of cases where the would be under the underlying conduct that is the fund managers or is the worst that's where we immunize the auditor from recovering and in claims against them all right thank you very much i want to thank