because they never followed through on the investment strategy strategy is the term objective while i think the complaints a strategy on mentioned in the described in the perspective so what i think what i don't mean is that they promised you seventy five twenty five and instead they flipped the proportions they invested seventy five in the covered securities which turned out to be women bonds that were worthless all right issues and my colleague will cover the broader major issues that stem from the repeated failure of the appellant's challenge below the motions to dismiss with respect to the application of su so we submit that the  plaintiffs made one you know only one argument against the application of salusa below and that was in connection with the motion to remain and that is that susa could only be a clickable if the shares of the fund that they purchased were covered securities were based to quote the district court plainest do not deny having alleged in their complaint that the defendants misrepresented omitted material information about the funds investment objectives level of diversification anticipated investments the court further noted that these misrepresentations related to various covered securities plaintiffs do not contest the court's holding in that regard nor do they argue that the defendants alleged misrepresentations did not sufficiently coincide with secured that one and only argument was quickly rejected by two separate district judges below both before and after the supreme court's decision in the troy's case it is clear that the purchase of a covered security by the plaintiff is not a opinion and choice the second circuit to turn in that's loose apply to claims of investors in a fund which had invested with made off even though the shares of the phone were not themselves covered securities the situation in troy's was very different than the situation in harold and the situation in this case in troy plaintiffs there purchased fixed rate c d s the players investment was in no fashion an attempt to try to invest sufficient to satisfy the in connection with requirement because the diversification strategy included various covered securities now for the first time on appeal of parents appellants argue that the in connection with requirement is not satisfied because the alleged misstatements omissions underlying the action do not sufficiently coincide with the purchase of self covered securities  misapplication of the materiality standard in this context by counsel for appellants the test under under sluice or and as choice makes clear is that the decision to invest had to be material to the purchase or sale of a covered security it doesn't say that you have to regarding the funds investment objectives and fundamental investment strategy and policies those so allegedly fraudulent investment objectives and policies provided at the fund would pursue a diversification strategy that included investments in several categories of covered it's clear there's no dispute that that is what the prospectus said in fact the district court in denying the motion to remain observe that a plane reading of the funds prospectus reveals that the funds anticipated investments included various covered securities that's a page four of the order rather than pursue the articulated investment strategy set forth in the prospectus minus of the edge that defendants fail to disclose that the fund managers fortunately pursued a different strategy one that caused the front to abandon the articulated diversification strategy involving covered securities by investing in toxic lehman assets and not not investing in the in the in the notes that counsel for appellate mentioned earlier that is directly contrary to the diversi strategy involving covered securities that's laid out in the prospectus just as in the harold case recently decided by the second circuit plaintiffs here advised that they were fortunately enthused to invest in shares of a fund by misrepresentations and omissions about the funds case of instituto versus merrill lynch in which securities were not purchased even though the the defendant in that case was alleged to have represented that they would purchase covered securities and in that case given the arguments made below given the language of choice in the recent decision of the second circuit as well as other decisions such as dab it and the instituto case and by the way the supreme court in the choice case made clear that data was not modified and it's clear i think based on the nature of the allegations and the findings of the district court the lupo construing those allegations that the in connection with a requirement here is satisfied and we believe on that not they have been sad that if their ruling on jurisdiction the case shouldn't be dismissed they'd conceded that but what they've consistently maintained is that is that this case what t none come in securities ten percent would drive you would be the same as your argument rests on the fact that such a substantial amount was non covered claims to defeat the in connection portion that my argument those have to do with the seventy five percent