say anything but once they spoke about that incident and their decision to shut down feel they're obligated to tell the truth now at the heart from an actual breach of tears network is much greater it was all potentially compromised until they complete their investigation and figure out exactly how bad the damage was and how it is you know there's the fox we have the hen house in aden in the number of they spoke at all was because they have an obligation under the law and notified her to well st they were suspending operations so everyone was going to wonder why you should bring down here right and that they needed to explain why they knew they had to say something with the base soft the soft pedaled it because they did they wanted they didn't want to give out the bad news because if they said an undetermined number of customers  had potentially compromised the market might have reactance more strongly and they were hoping to buy some time and find out exactly how many customers i hope it would be a much smaller number they were unsure  ahead is caught is is is prudent but it's deceit to tell you have companions that there's a bump in the road ahead when you know the grand canyon is is really is just just a little bit away so customs well because if you say there's a polar bear but we're fixing it implication was that it didn't meet their standards or they were shutting it down and they were going to bring it up to the standards that was the implication of the press release and here's a quote from the judge a nd opinion specifically said that he understood this to mean after they had a serious concern a customer data was in jeopardy were already compromised that's where and this is the senior systems administrator at your networks and have meeting and say and explain to them why there's suspending operations right and this is you know this is not like one of those long you or your your lawyer counties schemes where there's many moving parts this is the defense of the state of that right and it's extremely believable that they would bring the employees in or explain to them compromise only appear anywhere in whatsoever none whatsoever and similarly to suggestions that everything that was subsequently just closed on december st was known of was there a breach you know trading down the did someone access the system and of course the theory of the entire complaint is that the company which was under no obligation to issue this press rule is putting aside what state law obligations or might have been to use there was no law to say anything they took the high road they just closed the fact that even older just spent two hundred and thirty two million dollars on this acquisition disclosed the fact they found a serious issue they were shutting it down completely not making any money from what's in it they were chaining cyber security experts to help them figure out what was going on they were going to notify the authorities and they were brought up in the future and they were very careful to say those of you who use the paper network don't worry your data is secure because your system the paper system is not integrated with  nothing about the ts system nothing about the cio data no warm comfortable words to cheer users to suggest that everything is fine here the fact that this is supposed to start  after intentional misconduct intentional knowing or deliberate recklessness and it defines deliberate recklessness as quote an extreme departure from the standards were very care in which presents a danger of misleading buyers  it's data being stored if you if you leave your door open to your house if someone walks in you breach that's not the issue and all the former employees do is say some walk in the house not one of them says that data was stalled right it's what's happening here is a power which again volatility is going to the market and shutting down the system is saying you know what we've got a problem but we don't know the extent of it but far from painting a rosy picture that everything all are willing to concede that this was a false statement to the extent that it's they that that there was only a vulnerability you know your daughter your honor i think and you're under the brody decision it plainly was not because it's not so on is the fact that we're debating it here literally there's no explanation of why they did this whatsoever and we submitted a decision to the court that mister putin's and the defendants were bent on committing securities fraud they would have done what mister rosen said they could have done which is not disclose the the facts on it every day sold their stuff a week later notify the authorities as they learn more information and they should just take them somewhere to there's no logical explanation why this would happen and i think if you go through the analysis and we did this the papers of what the former employees there's three of them none of them can speak all the efforts being taken to shut it down i mean the headline of the press releases shield networks suspends operations to protect us if you differentiate between what's happening to the data on the paper system and the tears used and i didn't read this to ninety four you one thousand and ten that case was about a company that got a press release that gave investors the misimpression that they had a product a new did now the motive so so course we don't have to be the motive but the motive would be it's very common for people to try to buy a little time so that they could minimize the negative  adverse effects of bad news i mean people who gracious do it people do with their family members because they don't want to disappoint people who want to minimize the company yeah it's a little bit different than a soft landing and i'm growing at the end of the day they'd be shipping the company but still at the end of the day there were investors who purchased in that three week period who purchased at a price