in every jest the aiding and abetting case is whether the complaints allegation satisfy the claims general awareness element this court going to single building on its prior decision the windy that the complaints well pleaded allegation imprint that quoting the bank was generally aware that by providing financial services to a client it was there by playing a role in the violent or life endangering activity in the court went on to say that mere knowledge of the client's connection to terrorism is not sufficient the district court here itself recognized the need for guidance to miss court on how to apply that standard with a motion to dismiss  information relied on by the plaintiff to satisfy the general awareness standard rather the district court adopted a lesser standard that it terms while the bowl knowledge which  opinion at page twenty two as whether the information triggered the duty to investigate not whether the bank actually knew the information and other courts have held that a plausible in principle actual knowledge is require issue is before the courts in the hummocks and group of cases as my friends on the other side have noted but the disagreement among the lower courts will not be resolved the court decides only those cases because they involve unusual allegation not representative of the overwhelming number of cases in the lower courts and there are better dozen of them most of the cases are like this one with allegations of various pacts and or media reports about particular bank clients some of which happened before and some after the transactions or the terrorist act issue and the question is whether those allegations support a plausible importance that the defendant was aware of the information and then whether the information th quoting were either undated or were dated after the last of the attacks and the district court said the one exception by itself was not sufficient so there is a significant chance that this court in that case will address the rests significantly on the bank's own conduct its special treatment the particular counts such as exempting document requirements generally applicable to large capacity positives and other information  you thank you will hear from mr ocean good afternoon your honor and may please the court this is gary olson open l l p on behalf of the tank and me we believe the we general awareness elements of aiding and abetting under our stamp the welsh allying on circumstantial evidence including publicly available information i'll just add briefly that this was the central practical matter after the discovery of terrorism and their families do not ordinarily have access to conclusive evidence that bank officials or compliance staff had actual knowledge of various red flags that something that comes in discovery defendants do which the district court summarized is that planets are required to plead with specificity that a bank read or was actually aware of information and mentioned a moment ago it's now known or caption ligi or recruiting purposes lebanese canadian back the fact that rubin decision is almost certain to resolve the control in question of law traditional sense again deciding sort of by question here would not address any issue that has not already been fully briefed and argued before multiple pan is that the complaint test to satisfy and i think that's shown by the fact that both men and the kaplan cases in the district court in that way was required was plausible important information that it should have inquired further and that's a critical difference and for the reason that i said earlier the particular facts of the two cases before the already before the court make it unlikely that those panels are going to resolve them expedited briefing schedule so basically you're here looking for an expedited opportunity to be heard you're not asking this panel to make any marriage decisions no i that is open to t obviously certified the question what's the what's the prejudice to you or your client if we were to grant this request thank you just called and i don't think there's a prejudice in granting the request itself least until that time any briefing would in practice the referencing district court opinion and you know to paraphrase that to arnold would be ignorant armies clashing by night i think  pinkas given mr olson the response what exactly do you want if we grant this petition without consolidating that would be adequate as far as you're concerned is that right granting the petition supplemental brief to the extent that the court decided to hold to treat this text the way the punishment panel is treating i mean and in your view if we were to do that something like th