crimes are the reason why we are here to keep it did not walk or volunteer or you know laterally decide to incur these costs the government came to a key via and asked for its participation in investigating and prosecuting th case that participation situation unusual i'd say it's actually quite routine where the victim is a corporate victim that would require the assistance of attorneys or other professionals in responding to government inquest like document requests like requests for witness testimony you see this quite often in cases involving these types of frauds against corporate clients the fees incurred and saw under subsection before that and b are a are professional fees are tourney's fees because honor i would say a couple things on the point of the district court making determinations of excessiveness are reasonable to us those inquiries are necessarily relative questions you know whether expenses excessive or unreasonable really depends on what baseline you're looking at and we think that the district court didn't use the proper baseline here it's certainly true that expenses have to be necessary under before that straight from the statutory tax but you know the district court thought that lagos and now it's a necessary standard for gauging whether expenses are compensable under before and that's not what lycos did i think the district court took his discussion of necessary and applied it in a very hyper restrictive literal way to be asking almost whether expenses incurred were literally essential and that's not how the supreme court typically interprets terms like necessary as used in this context you barely think that based on the record you could decide and issue a read directing the district court to award the peaceful expenses because they do fit under the test i don't think you need to do that fact finding with i think it's really appropriate  necessary based on what you say was an erroneous construction of law goes into effect under not you say that there's no way we could conclude it's harmless on the ground that in any event it wouldn't be necessary under the end that's right the outcomes are different the district court's outcome here is necessarily hinged on the misinterpretation of laos i mean to look to certain expenses were excluded as a matter of as a matter of category and a matter of type based on this misinterpretation and it wasn't just a matter of do greet the district court was making wholesale exclusions based on this hyper restrictive view of necessary and i think about at appendix k just ninety nine in a one hundred of the district court opinion that's the district court's opinion it's allowing expenses for the costs of physically compiling documents in response to a class but not for the attorney's fees in reviewing those documents and redacting them things you necessarily a corporation necessarily incurs in responding to a document requests so i think that's a good example of where the outcome really is different if the to the district court was focusing on lagos is line drawing concern you know in lagos the supreme court was only mentioning necessary in the context of a practical concern that arises with private investigation expenses that doesn't arise with government investigation expenses the court said that you know when you're deciding whether or not expenses necessary to a private investigation the inquiry becomes troublesome because when you're asking whether an expense is necessary you're asking necessary to what and you have to know what and objective and when it comes to private investigations the end objective could could really be anything a company could unilaterally move the goalposts and that way but when it comes to government investigations which is what we have here expenses incurred in response to a government request that practical concern doesn't really arise you can largely address that line drawing problem by asking whether the victim incurred expenses in performing a task that the government requests or require so you have that constant baseline here it's in the context of government investigation expenses and so lego says discussion that limited discussion of the work necessary and context a lot of drug problem really doesn't warrant applying a hyper restrictive view of necessary in th know even if we agree with you and that i'm trying to figure out whether the types of expenses you're talking about here really goes to the legal side to your posts or courts that shared view of what necessary mean are the types of expenses that you're asking to be covered for restitution the types of expenses that under circuit precedent necessary has been construed to apply to  that would help us in that regard either in our circle or elsewhere so there's not circuit precedent elsewhere post lego's that's really construing these types of expenses of the term circuit court was considering the term necessary but it was in the context of really the question lagos left open which is essentially when the government asked a corporation to conduct a whole private investigation in lagos let that question open when there's a private investigation expense incurred at the government's request what do you do there you know we're in the separate bucket of these are expenses incurred and response to just the government's investigation we're not conducting our own private investigation we're participating in the government's investigation and of private investigation expenses conducted or private investigations conducted at the government's request for correction were in the you know the heartland of the government investigation expenses bucket just had one last question on the one really goes back to the question or observations as to when made at the beginning about that extent to which this might be unusual to have the private attorneys doing so much work and i guess the practice they were i'm sort of against the practice it just goes the observation you made at the beginning about whether or not and usual for private attorneys to really be conducting the government's investigation for it and i guess the practical concern is it's even if we call this the government investigation bucket if the corporation then has an enormous amount of discretion to figure out how it responds it can obviously there's a risk you can run up the expenses quite dramatically and to some extent the district court could be read to be a little bit concerned about that exact problem and be construing necessary to mitigate that problem so what's wrong with thinking about it that way and i know you say there's a difference in a private investigation and a government investigation but it's a govern investigation in which the corporation's going to have enormous discretion how to respond to it supply those guardrails so you don't have a situation in which a corporation in response to a governor or a class goes up and runs up the tab you know for no reason completely untouched there to the requests just go has a nexus requirement and it's going to supply an appropriate reasonable standard for making sure you're not you know incurring these extreme requests so i don't think the district court's concern about that is you know there won't be a freefall you'd have to supreme court recognize laos even recover i say ninety percent of the time so they're going to be left holding the back of this as a practical matter i wouldn't think that running up the tab is really a concern and the last point i'd just make is that i do think on this very point th concerned more about you know a potential criminal offense individual defendants ability to pay but we know from you know the best statute itself that just records in awarding restitution orders are not to take into account the defendant's economic circumstances the goal here is to restore the victim corporate or individual victim it's not to be thinking about whether or not the defendant can act so unless there are the further via didn't choose to incur these costs they did they did choose to incur these costs they have a relationship with ropes that's a fabulous law firm they're entitled to pay top dollar if they choose to that doesn't mean that all of that excess gets passed through to defendants under the end of the v a it defies logic to think that that is what the congress intended was to pass on eight dollars eight hundred dollars an hour attorneys fees and some are sociate fees for watching trials and some of the other antics that  brother referred to as hyper restrictive i think the judge was very measured in the language of her opinion the word gluttonous comes to mind when i look it's some of the but you know once law goes comes down i think you run the risk they ran the risk of a mistrial here because the judge was concerned that there was a violation of the sequester ation order because associates were interviewing witnesses and you know she she had the government explain whether or not the witnesses were actually being prepped by the government in saratoga this way and we don't think that happened but it  caused issues here for the court and for the parties for it law firm to engage in the new man or of services that that they did and i think like i frankly we made the argument that there shouldn't have been restitution at all because mr chin in particular did not profit from the merrimac sales remember that was that was part of our sentencing our argument on the last calculation as well is that when nice when these shares were ultimately sold they were sold at a loss and he reported them as a loss on his tax returns and there was never any indication that that was erroneous judge of time after the may st announcement but not all of them so you know i think i think what she did was very measured but we still say that you can't  restitution for for something that did not result in a true i just want to hear from the government on their view about this law goes issue in its effect on the act if they had anything to add thank you your honor we we did not