were illegal over a period of six years to at least eighty three different customers mr reznor wound up being one of those customers the bank has admitting that the documentation that it created and executed y which included kickbacks and bribes to mr reznor was attorneys helped induce him and other customers to purchase these illegal products why did the bank partake in this scheme and transaction its return on economic capital was three thousand six hundred and eighty one percent the market that the bank had for these products was not the government the bank made no money from the government the bank only made money by pitching and inducing people just like mr reznor to buy it that is how they made their money that's how they got millions and millions in fees contrast they laugh at the stressor they referred to him as the jerky investor and his advisor h e b now claims that it should have no responsibility as a matter of law for what it did it should have no responsibility to mr reznor for any of the millions in fees that he paid under either the u c l or reka we submit that the district court erred with respect to is that he cannot he cannot piggyback on a claim of fraud on the government and use that alone to say aha he has to show fraud on his cell so the court was looking at henry and looking at some other cases to construe reznor one as for closing a plaintiff that has paid millions of dollars in fees directly to the party that is the defendant there is no case like that it was foreseeable and the plaintiff suffered direct injury here we have exactly that the fact that they were whether they intended primarily to defraud the government were someone else doesn't matter reznor gets trapped in that web what we have not amended complaint is that h p v is fraud against reznor causes injury and indeed that's the only thing that makes sense because h p doesn't make money from the government in chief he only makes money from people like reznor and there are a number of cases from circuits around the country that talk about the fact that even if there are multiple victims even if there's a primary victim and a secondary victim you can have multiple victims under california supreme court unanimously held that it's now that that principle is no longer good law in this case and the reason why it might be relevant in this case is because the case was still pending typically retro broader than that we're not saying that every single thing is legitimate just this one or all proponents that contradicted a provision in the agreement we're saying that the integrated documents themselves contain affirmative misrepresentations and  lawful there are a number of california cases that make it clear that that satisfies the fraudulent front in addition we believe that it is very clear from each of these admissions in this case and und maybe please the court more rush hour on behalf of h b big your honour's if i could start with respect to the rico issue and borrow from the great legal this is truly deja vu all over again we were in this court room four years ago in resin or one where in this court emphatically rule as a matter of law that there was no real standing by this  reznor maintained as he's maintained at every level throughout this litigation that this was a fraud by each of you be on the united states so this really is the same old same old this appellate has always district court did what he was required to do he dismissed the rico claim because of the ninth circuit's mandate finding that in this particular fraud scheme there was only one victim i have seen how you can read a mandate into the reversal of the grant of summary judgment typically all that means is that you have to go to trial but but your honor the ninth circuit's opinion in unique situation the ninth circuit held that only the united states was the most immediate and most direct victim and that means gas there is no ego based relief for taxpayers including  dollars of upfront fees to sit sure a seven million dollar loan it's such an irrational investment decision this court held the immediate direct is the united states because this was first and foremost  claim but rico has unique pleading standing and proximate cause requirements we know that from having and from n c there was no cross was room for summary judgment in this group's that's correct your honor there loan is central to the entire scheme because it only makes economic sense it's only a transaction with economic substance if it's a thirty year loan as soon as it ceases to be a thirty year loan and  indeed can become a one year loan then you find yourselves in a situation that resonate resent paying four million dollars in upfront fees for a seven million dollar loan that was fully qualifies by the way to the tune of one hundred forty seven percent rate of interest no rational person would do that and what's key in sussex is well this court said it's particularly on the reasonable for a person to rely on their sophisticated and experienced  but also mr reznor knowingly assume joint several liability for a forty seven million dollar loan that was created on behalf of the shell company we for the purpose of this transaction whose two members were a british housewife and a british accountant neither of whom mr reznor knew or had never met and that's because this was all part of the scam that he went into or injury and that makes sense because that would go against every other case out there in any the reason why that plaintiff wasn't a directly injured because the injury the economic harm was contingent on the actions of a third or fourth parties we don't have that here whether reznor took a tax deduction or not he's paid four million dollars in fees there is no case that finds that this is not a direct injury and it also would make no sense actually a plate of like mr reznor is required to pursue a private right of action first so that is exactly what we're doing secondly rico contemplates different sorts of damages for criminal and civil conduct it's it but numerous motions to dismiss by that point lastly i would like to talk about mr resonators reasonable reliance that was the entire thing that was briefed and that ruling by the court the