put everyone back to square one and that my client actually may go to trial and they lose may lose more money they just want the fairness that is inherent in being able to actually show up to court for fear evidence put forth their arguments and if we gots to get to trial have the jury decide the dish accord committee error in finding that the service of my client was proper couple fundamental facts are clear service was attempted by serving the registered agent the designation of  there's a website obligation to correct and he errors that an individual user sees on the website and i'm shouldn't the public be allowed to rely on a website and it said that prentice hall was the agent for service of process it was out of date she did look to the in report to confirm and she said ok i see chris also prince hall is probably the right person and she went ahead and clearly my client made an error in filling in not going back and correcting that auto population as it were in the enter report but he did if it had done that we still would have the problem that the secretary of state department states evidence in the record that was affected are you the by the year you report i mean as i understand what happened here factually is that the change of beechen form was recorded were filed with remarkably if i may go on for just a second remarkably in a district court in this case someone from the secretary's case office submitted a letter in two thousand and thirteen telling the court that their web site was inaccurate yet they took an entire amend ok but the actual fundamental requirement that appear in the articles is thirty five zero two and reference there and i'll send it twenty a letter to your honor's so so this it so that's a very important ok so it's an objective test we would conten my agent or having someone say i am their agent you know it has to be done by the board of directors and we show the only evidence as to what the board of directors did was what we submitted to the judge and it showed that that in fact was a point in c t corp about a year the law about whether stoffel is an appropriate rubric to go around the issue of service is not not brief not discussed importantly of course to stop a would require among other things as i understand the general stoppel balancing the equities  intent reliance and also some measurement of what the harm is so for example court could find no harm here is the effort and money spent in actually litigating the case unless a sara lee through to a judgment as opposed to the actual judgment i don't know because i don't know what the law is we haven't gone that but that they did not argue to stop what they instead actually argued is they argue the agent is prentice hall and the court found the agent is practice hall and given that the framework of the corporation long puerto rico where only the board of directors can appoint the the agent and where we went through the procedure and the sector state certified in december two thousand and eleven that the agent you know brief reply order brief order i mean it was very short shorts small number of submissions their argument was the agent that prentice hall is the agent not to that if c t a is the agent you're stopped or not that if c t is the agent you agent so you're in some sense stuck with that they didn't argue either of those two points they argued that the evidence was that prentice hall was the agent and more important the court found that he had jurisdiction and the judgment was not void only and solely because of the finding that prentice hall is the agent so that's what some review here and and the the framework again of puerto rico corporate law so the inevitable conclusion we believe the press if puerto rican law requires that the service agent be identified by a vote of the board of directors and that that be contained in the articles of incorporation and if the articles of incorporation did not list prentice hall at that time as the agent isn't it a matter of and we all rely on websites these days when they tell us not to isn't this kind of example that we should all remember that you can go and find the actual document which according to puerto rico law would be the articles of incorporation which would tell you who the correct service agent is and you know you you act in your own peril by not going behind the website and checking what according to puerto rican law is the definitive word on the wasn't argued in the district court and that wasn't argued in your brief you know you are now telling us that because the change of religious to dejan form which was apparently final in april filing of historical information all right we're not talking about argument we're not talking about opinion we're talking about historical information information that presumably anyone in this room you guys are just my address only a couple of brief points first of all the point that was made by me brother about the certificate of the secretary of state as your eyes correctly pointed out this is not an issue that was raised at all the certificate a one thirty one thirty one was actually submitted in connect in connection with the motion under rule sixty before so it was in the case from the very first day that this default judgment question  include the register you're out of the a couple things i guess i'd say in response to that perhaps the law hasn't caught up with the technology in terms of creating such a duty i would suggest a duty would be one that the legislature would need to create as opposed to the court i would point out that creating such a duty and imposing it on my client there is no accurate record no that's al duty then so the secretary of state took your annual report and put it on their website that's correct your honor but the again the fundamental error here is the error with the listing of printers fall as the current agent when in fact the sector sta they mean for example the web pages or whatever are things other than the actual documents so they create the website some of the there are some places where you can link through to documents but they also the use of those you know sort of information that they draw from the records that were submitted to record here and the problem is that when we then said here's an update here's the board of director changes the name they didn't go and say ok i have to go fix the website and so people looked at the website that they had created still s and that was the cause of the problem here but again the question as to who was be proper agent as the on the capitol says is really a question of state law and imposing common law rules to try to somehow change the agent is not appropriate that's something that's better left legislature perhaps there needs to be a lot of inspector dating websites or some kind of protocol but that's not the environment we have now in light of the laws rico thank you for