what the funds raised are going to be used for and there's an intention of fraudulent intent to use it for something else and example of those facts would be the one that gave rise to that th statements were false and misleading because they are based upon fraudulent accounting practices the company used an accounting method known as percentage of completion so it seems to me that that's the center of everything if you are if you take out the percentage of registration logs you and that they are fraudulent ghani correct how can they be fraudulent for one accounting practice for one cause of action but not for another if you said that the accounting practice excel which goes across the board for all kind of  move around when you base your complaint or sound in fraud by saying this is the act that business of recording your in your revenues that business of showing work in progress violates gaffe it's roger you'd say gee i think it's kind of confusing you said it's fraudulent so if that's the basis of everything that they did which is what your complaint says i think including all of the witnesses saying how they did this to pump up their earnings so they could pump the stock i don't know how you can remove that maybe it's my misunderstanding of how this and it's very long complaint is just that when you say answer when we're focused on the accounting practice very focused all of the facts really thoughtful accounting practice that makes no sense your honor i don't think a lot i don't like making sense means anything i'd ever thought the internal revenue code made sense or any other that you made sense it's what the last is and what we interpreted to be under constitutional law is there so making sense doesn't make any sense to me well right there because i don't understand it anyway i mean it why they do these things they did and they told you what you had to do a rule not raised as something that i mean i'm going to do some more reading on this because you challenged harm looking at  private securities litigation reform but both that case and that legislation were aimed at preventing the same thing and that is the time side since that is with what you said there and i understand how you want to look at this in application but i'm still having trouble if this complaint towns in fraud and if as a district judge found that they allege that the plaintiffs allege that the company reports in public statements are false and misleading because they were based upon fraudulent accounting practices and if the only accounting practice and i can find in this case is the accounting method known as percentage of completion and the fact that i see in the witnesses statements in all are that they pumped up and reported revenues at a certain time when they should know because there were no offsetting expenses and then they had an offsetting account for accounts reese for work in progress etc and if that's the fraudulent accounting practice and if it relates to everything they did and that's the only thing not conspiracy  plans but in the context of thirty three and clients and this court decided in the stack electronics litigation case that in fact the same ninety two clarity requirements that govern business executives business leaders publicly traded companies to be the talk and perhaps even the form of having to respond to a complaint that alleges that they engaged in some recheck to make sure i'm not wrong what if another section said scott i'm going to put a section here now and i'm a big maybe this isn't fraud maybe what it is is that you're you're misreading blah blah and so but provide a lot of detail and a lot of books that do not give you the specificity necessary either under nine thousand ounces for purposes of the thirty three or thirty four act or the heightened level of pleading under the reform act for purposes made with respect to the percentage of the conclusion it was follow excess revenues book to work in progress and that her that occurred i don't think anybody's taking any any challenge to the fact that those statements were made or that that in fact alleged by the plaintiffs in this case shows that there is a certain disparity that is there's a difference between what should have a then recognize revenue and what was recognize it as revenue then one  example just to see if i get this right i have a pending contract than i anticipated certain revenues so i call in twenty percent of the revenues first time i use the work in progress to offset what i have a really receive and i do this consistently but i'm not intending to fool anybody and it's right on the state if you can read that i've got so much work in progress just going up like crazy my receivables are going up like crazy and my revenue is up so anybody can analyze this thing wait a minute i don't like the looks of this but i didn't do it distaste that isn't true it's very true that the work in progress is there it's very true that if nobody said that the numbers were wrong they said it's where the numbers were put now which are you saying that once you get to that point you see the numbers that you then have to particularly say what the fraud is and tie it into into the representation to sort of absolute and are you saying that they didn't particularize any transaction within the work in progress within the revenue areas and find what your position so is long as it's there and you don't plead why it's there that equals fraud then there's no fraud particularities with regard to nine b provide your position that is correct for us and the thing about this is that they were given an opportunity to do that to please the numbers if you will and what was what is important here is if you're going to infer the previous statement was false when that that is in the prospectus we said we follow the percentage of completion and we book the excesses work in progress and in fact all that's true but later abuse of that percentage of completion try to be specific because i can't there's too much there but i understand the general engagement in the argument in the lead in the film in the briefs to be that the family owning the stock did these practices deceptively pump the value up and dump their stock and there is a science or maybe i'm misreading that but that's my feeling as i read this just clearly shows what they were doing was trying to deceive the public practice a fraud on them and they made matter of fact i think this court has affirmed certain cases that in fact can be stated have to focus on graphics but it takes a lot and it takes a lot of work and that's exactly what congress intended under the reform act and i think that's what you were trying to get at ten years ago mandatory nature of the review by the lower court after the case has been dismissed and what we said in our cross appeal is that judge will rent should have to apply on his own without motion decided  determine whether it's from those who don't follow the most practice or tended to rule up for example you don't have to follow a motion you don't have to follow fifty nine need request too many judgement none of those are required under statutes quit congress judge you will it's mandatory and we set forth the legislative history to show exactly that that is a mandatory review without the necessity of a motion we did not follow motion but that's because we didn't have to be or defeated the proper all if you have a percentage of completion method that itself is supposed to be grounded in frock and in fact there's no evidence of that fraud because they can't allege the difference between what should have been recognized and what was the case dismissed how do we handle that allegation about the one hospital where they had booked the revenue and i'm not going to say it was forty whatever whatever the booking was and then they never got the kind of the contract now how do we say that if that is improper in a pleading under what you say has to be like this if there's no if there's no contract in the book that what difference does it make there's no income was improperly booked right how much was book abused then the magnitude of that abuse is going to allow a court or trier of fact to infer that the statement was made that we're following a percentage of completion method in a certain way was in fact false when made but we need that necessary without the lethal men because if you've been given the chance they've been told the way to go and they've been given the chance to imagine what these details and there are repeated in seeming inability to do so or at least failure to do so does that we don't think the way we once not understood your honor and i can certainly in this climate understand why that is but in this case the fact of the matter is there's no indication that anybody had a second thought that what was transpiring was wrong and the interesting