madoff correct that's that's right your honor and for the record in this money a just b c earned a lot of fees tens of millions of dollars in fees as the administrator and the custodian to facilitate this enterprise  used new york's bank accounts to direct money to bernie madoff in communications received by our client we were specifically instructed to wire money to a us dollar bank account held by his b c bank usa one of the defendant is exactly this use of new york bank accounts is precisely the type of deliberate delusional and repeated contact with new york that constitutes the transaction of business for purposes of the c p a law three zero two a one certain hold and said oh we've lost a whole bunch of money they made a separate purchase in other words out claims of inducement we purchased and when used to purchase because we received follow summary reports received morning your honor so tom maloney on behalf of the ages b c defendants and and and in the court below there there were only three rationales for the decision your honor one is the personal jurisdiction opinion which applies to the eight foreign i of the us the defendant but i would posit as we put in our brief all three defenses were ploy to all the h s b c defendants so in some ways the path of least resistance is the third defen which is stashing limitations which is that they waited six and a half years after made up fraud was uncovered to file this lawsuit they did not plead to any type of hole in their complaint but they've argued in their brief that this should've been a fiduciary tol have standing to bring anything other than potentially negligent misrepresentation claim and if we lost in that argument they don't have standing to bring a claim for economic relief not monetary damages which is your only remedy they could get so even though we have three to three i think that the context by the age of specie defendants were not purposeful in the sense that they were all were collateral to this really contractual relationship that the service providers have with the funds their p the funds certainly but the but but if we were just carrying out their purpose and therefore they were not purposeful that would be my first argument i would also my second argument is that i think the courts move the way they could  the second argument is a clear argument which is i think the constitutional overlay has moved the second argument much closer to proximate cause if not there and sending the money there was not the proximate cause of fraud but were made of stealing  and they claimed in the sixty day that they received some reports in october two thousand and five a company two thousand and six and december two thousand and seven they talked already that their investment started two thousand and two so that the idea that we as a were pairing member not appearing as the investment manager and not appearing as the fun promoter would be administrator and custodian and based on my experience i've never in forty years on wall street never heard anybody investing in investment strategy based on who is putting their site their pleadings contradict that their pleading show that they made these investments when citibank was the person they were dealing with which is what he just told you when he stood up before you so once you make the once you determine that we are suing for direct inducement climbs then the question is have to defendants established an actual conflict of laws in the absence of any law about what the direct inducement claim paragraph hundred ninety seven a sixty eight paragraph two hundred one the negligent misrepresentation claims to be paragraph two twenty five on page a seventy three all the way through to paragraph two thirty two on page a seventy brains and so the people who actually don't without clients with the administrators and the custody and they were the face of the investment at all stages of the lifecycle of the investment for example in the solicitation to  when it was time to read the money it was ages p c and they had a lot of this question a lot of power and they own judgments as to whether to pay assets to pay out from the bank accounts they could appoint agents and they direct contact with us at all stages and we say that the fiduciary relationship with h s b c never terminated until august two thousand and fourteen we explicitly allege that in the complaint and those because there was still communicating with our clients as of august two thousand and fourteen and i think you know