we think it's important to know that the last time we were before this court the trial court had already found they called a pretty key elements of this not typical ross causation case first that the p i parties had made a material misrepresentation and omissions to call and conceal the existence of a business integrity commission investigation into he ice ties of organized crime and this happened when he when they were still in the countries where he was  actual chain of events that led from the from the nondisclosure of the the of the proceedings to the ultimate outcome of that proceeding which was the ban but i would like to address your question about the reliable you could you know your deferential standard and we understand it that's the case however if you look at the testimony closely and the questions that were at posed they were all the weighted to tests of none of the investigates organised crime said no you can't turn it in you have to now that you turn in and we're going to continue with this proceeding investigate what's what's going on and the outcome of that particular proceeding is different it's different those are years when there was a major change in the economy for many businesses that were in the sector and where this business continued as a going concern through that period applied the wrong legal standard i am what you say the court did wrong legally the court when evaluating the evidence wanted our expert and mr you left out substantial damages that your earth at the suffer had suffered because of litigation expenses exceeding twelve million dollars completely left out of his bottom line and house and those are things that seemed to me that investigation was fine you may have seen the year two thousand and ten and by then the stock price was zero at seventeen cents a share whereas when the deal was made it was a par dollars a share there is are both not typical loss cases they have to show two things one is they have to show the true value of the shares at the time of purchase the second you're on or under under the cave and following through the supreme rejected in judge fisher your berkeley decision was based on the summer ranko case which was cited in the supreme court your case rejected that you could merely show that by an expert or some other means that the true value of the shares were less than what you received you have to show two things the true value was less and that ultimately the lost was caused by that specific mission and representation even setting aside the experts testimony here why isn't there enough on the record to question because because judah only had income of thirty thousand and twenty thousand dollars their expert completely ignored it so yeah it has an impact if they gave back a license which which they did it would maybe make three thousand or twenty thousand dollars less a year but in this in that's what the record shows but in the scheme of pure which was a company that had millions and millions of dollars of revenue that's nothing and what they did is they changed their business model they went from using the it juda to using the brokerage model and their expert and again this is their burden or mr call none of them were able to offer to offer any evidence whatsoever that that that had any impact on their business  the contrary the district court's explicit finding its number its number fourteen as in his opinion he found that the wast that that was caused was caused by the other factors of this caused by the recession it was caused by the the york city it was caused by the change in the pricing of the business because of economic pressures it was it was caused because they couldn't get financing and they had to get financing where the interest rates were twenty percent it was crossed because the financing required them to use factor and their customers became aware that you know that they had a factor which you know told the market that they had some economic uncertainly it was caused by the the litigation that this is record express they found there were cases had told mr call that about his investigation he would walk the walk away from that year but that's not lost cause he still has to show which he didn't that the true value of the shares were less than what he had he had nobody who cuckoos in it who knew anything about pick it was nobody who could say you know what if the market had known about this in one thousand in two thousand and seven that we would have discounted the value of the company because we all know from until it until it's completed and here's judge kraus i think noted that it was a gap of two and a half years where they heard nothing so who would know what was going to happen unless you had an expert with a crystal ball was able to predict what happens with pick investigations so that's the point one they never offered it there was no evidence that judge davis found to be credible on the first stage that the crew value of the company was less we're dealing here with a particular t investigation and one where it is eighty nine of his opinion judges davis recognizes that the significance of the big investigation into organized crime in this particular industry given its history new york and in says the information concerning the big investigation was clearly important to the ability of p r i to operate in the new york city market given that and given that it's almost a commonsense with that the background that the district court lays out the disclosure of that investigation would have had some impact at the time and the value of the sharon's why should we look at this a get the decision but you typically have to have an expert who's who's who's who's going to look beyond under under the securities laws just on a commonsense you know conclusion so yeah there's an investigation both judge process and i would say yeah that should that should have some impact but how much impact and you have you need to have a an expert as qualified expert do that and don't forget this the impact wasn't the loss of the license they gave the license how can we say that that's not in it reasonably foreseeable consequence of this investigation and i know i'm not supposed to be the one asking that question so i'm doing this roughly this question you say and in in in march of two thousand and seven that it was predictable that the company would be banned from doing business in new york in june of two thousand and ten and that there would be two and a half years of radio silence where the big allow the company to operate could anybody have predicted that there would have been a ban in march of two thousand and seven that's the question but i don't think it would be better to answer and and my answer is unless you have an expert ok who knows something about pick the answer's no nobody could have produced there's no evidence that somebody could have reasonably predicted that would have been the result and listen if it a month later that's what would have happened we'd be here in a very different circumstance as mr call perhaps would have been able to establish that the company failed because of because of that ban but unfortunately what happened was in his chief judge davis found in again paragraph fourteen the company failed for other reasons and under the two cases mckagan and berkeley they think they missed the connection they could have brought a case they could have said i think for forget which of the judges in june of two thousand and ten when the decision was made public the value of the shares were seventeen cents they could have made a case based on that value and whatever the loss was over the next sixty days they chose not to do that they chose to go for the seven million dollars instead of i don't know one hundred thousand or whatever it would have been that was a little geisha decision that they would not but i you know you didn't you did not introduce any expert testimony on your existence of intervening causes did you i didn't have it valid for you then to be able to and that the big investigation wasn't substantial factor in causing the stock car or first of all it's not my under berkeley it's still britain to show the proximate cause and second i don't need expert testimony to do that when the record of this is based on the testimony of the fact witnesses which was accepted by judge davis this is the company fail for economic support in the record that the company failed by may june of two thousand and ten for these economic reasons and interest likely their expert their own expert when he did his report he's in his little graffy said you know there were four well the judges has excluded these these three factors because of the integrated sales contract but tell me from your report what were the reasons that the stock declined from you know the five dollars to seventeen cents and he said i asked if you report is correct sir the decline in the price of the shares cost by the misrepresentations from five dollars or so in february of two thousand and seven the seventeen cents as of may tenth two thousand and ten was caused by the other three misrepresentation right answer that's findings that they were caused by economic reasons or they're experts admission that the loss was caused by these other reasons there's nothing that supports them winking the omission of the damages something some of those k whose testimony judge davis also rejected and so that's not what happened that's not what the record reflects the record reflects that they gave up the license and i don't know a poker of two thousand and  seven and they change slightly change your business model and the reason that the company ultimately failed was because of the recession and their expertise judge davis noted you know gave that no consideration whatsoever and this wasn't you know do it whether it's round one of the companies that call thought i mean that your father's report was based on or the real companies that he based his report on you know this wasn't a fortune one hundred company this wasn't you know widely integrated you know waste company it failed because of a procession that took place and its key market in new york and judge that's what judge davis found and i'm less you were to find that he used his discretion and accepting pursue pursue that so the fact of the matter is that the company fell for reasons unrelated to the big investigation and therefore you know under he there's no way to say what those damages would would have been sorry i think you just have a few points to make and response first is that we need to look at what the third circuit did in the prior opinion with respect to how you calculate damages and let's just look at what the value of think that was alluded to earlier we need to emphasize and that is that the trial court itself had already found that what p c i brought the transaction was worthless there's davis credit with that testimony a as i recall it was a recent failure to register the stock and that in berkeley any connection is not is not enough and under the standard we're lying we need to see it as a substantial actor and one thing that i would add with respect to that is that you have a situation where after the big proceeding was disclosed the public and after it never had a chance to recover other key other