fact that would be required to be stated by a statute or regulation there is nor dispute in this case that a section eleven dream was alleged in the council let's divide it into your security sack we want you to do some follow up testing to determine whether that is the case where they're going to be more injuries with this device than you would otherwise expect to such a level that the f of doing the study to determine how often people were falling and how often the device was failing so that with respect to the idea that the f d a never made any definitive conclusions we are not saying that it did what we are additional obligations beyond those and those by the securities law when i asked you about bag you mediately and went into the same argument you use for the set an additional obligation beyond what you have pled whether you can be excused from having pled that that is why i asked you about the secondary defense which is there was no violation of three of the three or five o three there was no violation of the any additional obligations so can you just give me a two than what the if the impression in the offering statement would have changed the order mix of information ok nd question  is requirement for a post marketing surveillance study terrible terminology but that's what they call it that what the f d a said was we urban terrain which is not at all the same thing so then why question becomes well worded an investor actually think the bad distinction meigs doesn't mean walking outside the courthouse on the street does it it certainly doesn't apply to suburban areas it certainly doesn't apply to who are very close i don't even sure what it specifically meant and if you look at the statements just to give you  and urban terrain and they have non clinical performance testing of the systems puncture the durability i would think most investors would think the f d a they have a classified this is have been know to moderate risk but that might not bother you but if you knew the f d a thought there was a risk of serious injury or death and you want a study done that would partly yes because i think the investors would probably very different claims than the claim that oh the registration statement omitted enough about risk of injury well i think the fact of the matter is that one of these claims fundamentally not we'll have to look at all of this but it's just too easy to you mean common scheme to do fraud and worry the statute of thank you thank you  they're finding that their work attention which is just the same way an elevator can be damaging if it worked at mit malfunction so too can to rewash be damaging if it malfunction but that was warned about what the it what the what was actually in but that's not the point the point is the f d a did more study done to see if there was serious injury or death in a non institutional setting and your registration statement instead of quoting frankly that argument think is quite silly but some would say well it's purgatory bus but in the suburbs i do know it doesn't work at the mall i don't think that's a reasonable people of ordinary intelligence would interpret it that way i don't think that is a reasonable interpretation  i require it but is disclosed that we have to do a postmark a surveillance to make sure that this is safe obviously you're making sure is it safe doesn't mean that there is a finding that it was yeah i mean it's no one standing alone and it's pointed out of the sense that this company someone who really did not inform the market the risks and what the f d a had said and you put the package together and that i think it is not a silly argument i'm sorry you think the paraphrasing is a non issue i happen to think it is an issue it would have been very easy for your client not to paraphrase and so there's some question about why are they doing as they tried to hide information from the public no no your honor i believe that it is consistent with the securities laws to put warnings at the plate to put words into plain english and i think urban terrain is better than saying i am in the institutional and non the let's turn to be exchanging hacked sure your honor so with respect to the exchange act one of the things that i think there for me i know that they didn't want to miss really focus on one of the other one of the primary arguments they've been making is that gellar should actually be permitted to pursue these claims notwithstanding the running of the statue of limitations and they've made the argument that china agra track is not limited is only limited to subsequently extended to cover successive actions and concluded that it would be strange just strange to say that the tolling rule applies regardless of how a plaintive seeks to join a mosque but china average tax limitation on  that rule applies only one plea to initiate a new action that logic plainly applies here further we look at the logic of trying to agra tag especially it talks about someone coming waiting in the wings well gellar here has been waiting in the wings for a long time we moved to dismiss on standing long before together showed up additionally there are and this is good to jerk just a sort of my oars concurring opinion in china agra tak  that she was a named class member brought the case might have some problem with continuing on for the case standing or some other reason would he do so i'd be appropriate thing to do would be to timely intervene  of conduct it doesn't really make sense or all together here for a couple reasons st of all the court has already found that there was no misleading statement in the registration statement if that's a common course of conduct concourse of fraudulent conduct mr y there is no fraud in the registration statement so that couldn't be those statements can't be part of a subsequent action and bushcraft other allegations and it's because it's already pointed out fundamentally the allegations here are a different conduct and different underlying issues what is that the court is that there is that really was built to disclose the status of the back and forth of the f d a interactions and that that was not somehow rendered other famously that is a big difference they are not they're fundamentally different china at protect basically said we want we want to put an end to that right for class actions there are different but fundamentally we're trying to act or attack is recognizing it's a we're happy for people to preserve their individual like we don't want people to feel like they need to take an action aggregate does it says but you can't do that on behalf of offers right that that's a difference it's a different procedure it matters it's fundamentally different and that's the limitation that i would put on it and i think that that the limitation of the supreme court is good on and i think that is by the way that is exactly the limitation that judge kaplan do it is noted in the case that i'll be submitting a twenty jailor would we do with all of those interested in right well i think you're a sailor actually got it right when he said that the difference here in this goes back to the summa fork is is that it's ok if maybe you have there's your there for statements and you're not there for you know three others but that's fundamentally different then showing up when you are there for serious statements which isn't necessarily the case once your sailor has determined that there are no security exactly in here this statement about rai they were going to do the boys market so they didn't study was omitted and this was an edge to the complaint and i think that's powerful evidence of the fact that once things began to deteriorate and get was didn't even want what i think to the extent that you may be concerned about that you don't even have to breach that issue because hugo i believe that she came into the case before the statute of limitations expired and in any having her accrued more than two years before the claim was brought on start before it got it was proposed as a leap but if it was not preserved below in any event all of the elements of the claim were