risk that it had promised to cover by pointing to its in shirts failure when reporting a potential claim to provide certain subject detail information called for by the policy even though the company was given more than enough information to undertake its duty to and i think if that's the question presented you with so that's not really the question presented to the question presented is whether you gave them sufficient information under the policy isn't it  as i'm concerned yes that is ok so tell me why here's here's what i understand was provided in the conversation between the representative of the accounting for and the  a call they go on and on in their policy that what makes us stand out is that we are there to protect you so if you call us up what you know that we are saying you know but what if there's some little piece of information that missing and even now just so claimant why isn't that been well i think there's there's more missing than that because the of those three categories of information that they're supposed to require the rd one is an explanation for why there's a potential claim and why it may become a and we have we have a lot of circumstances here that ok these are kind of generally circumstances where we'll get sued but they need to explain how that need to so they should have to the extent that they had the information available to them they should have provided that the names of the investors that they thought could potentially sue them they should have provided so it's right if they're making inquiries into bankruptcy if the information isn't available to them they're not required to provide it that's what the policy says this is if available so to the extent that this information is available to them and we know it to an extent it was because they were in this local business organization with several those people presumably they knew who those people were or could easily second they need to say who was involved who were the wh the individuals at the accounting firm who did the work that you think may be subject to challenge here those are the people that the that are going to need to be interviewed those are the people who you're going to have to look into the particular work that they did that information they give a a ballpark number about the size of the company but they don't say here's how much of here's how much is outstanding to investors none of that facts in the lap of the insurance company saying i got something bad going on with the client i don't know what's going to happen you figure out what are the potential claims that may be asserted against me in this scenario it's like a law school  well sure you have to defend a frivolous claim but i don't think that you can reasonably that the standard for a potential claim is that you have facts or circumstance that might reasonably lead insured to believe that a claim is going to be asserted against them time at that point time this had not yet been converted into a liquidation bankruptcy so you still had the the client involved in in running the company they were going to try and work it out very soon after th that that was an alternative ground of alternative holding that the district court relied on in making its ruling and said i don't find that the notice prejudice rule applies here but even if i did even if i accepted the version of it that not be applied to clinton policies however it made this hold hold and california law i understand that and so i'm just trying to figure out if policy and it's not binding in that it's obviously applying california not oregon law we do have the oregon schools case which obviously is also not binding because published but i think the reasoning of it is highly persuasive the organ would come out the same way tha reported by jones and roth in the september th two thousand and twelve communication and then and then beyond that so and then also with respect to the description of damages i think investors getting their money back