investigation it was the court assumes the somebody can make a fuller requests and that therefore and that information could have come out earlier and therefore there is no loss causation because that information in some manner may have been brief and the last page that exhibit concerned information the market is deemed suno that information that's not a realistic view and actually doura makes very clear that market process is different from mission in different ways very much impact requested or what was released it in but i think correctly if i'm wrong about all that's absolutely correct there is no evidence other than the three that we allege there was a foreigner inquest there's no evidence as those were requested for close around the same time that the has reclose for the new york borough supporter as to what information was in contains in the closing and there is evidence allege in the complaints that a prior four request made by prince column in two thousand and sixteen did not reveal the information regarding the wasn't released of course in that example that doesn't get us to where we need to be here and the question as well is publicly available and yes it's lightly different question this is a matter of like if you could ever hypothetically want but it strikes me that this was publicly available right after we know that have signed that or the new york port post disclosure we know that that's how many become publicly available of course on the question is is there's no evidence and it had become publicly available any moments your view we're going to hear from the other folks is that the whatever it was that was released was publicly available some time earlier yes and then treating as if it was actually public yes that the dishes were makes to two weeks or one that the in any information somehow is publicly available without a shred of evidence makes an assumption and be the course says then what's publicly available is deemed public and i would say both there's no there's no  related to the golan a sloan were disconnected from reality and the court properly ruled that that was false because there was a seven million dollars that's that's false statement false even b is the company with a new york post in march thirty one  something the new york post says the company has received no indication of and has no knowledge of regarding such purported money laundering investigation was it's when there's a new york post article that b p state the only by some other company the company made a statement to the that's the later on the coming the next day denying that there is a loan from both natural price fluctuations of the company the record shows that the company's stock price fluctuated between eighteen dollars thirty six cents at one dollar and twenty seven dollars fifty eight cents and if that's the if that's the issue and that's something to it's a it's a replete in front of the district court because that's not why this your court ruled against us in this room ruled against us because a sense that the information was already somehow publicly available so we want to remand that point that's didn't and the record will reflect that and i would only highlight that mr hart actually left the company before this loan to go ahead us ever took place based on the information in the  those corrections of the record and what's on appeal i would like to focus if i could on the question that i think is on everyone's mind here which is the lack of connection between the  alleged corrective disclosures and the statements they purportedly try to correct and and in that regard this court's decisions in metzler and in oregon public employees versus said although disclosure need not precisely mirror mirror early representation in order to have a corrective effect it must at least relate back to the misrepresentation and not some other essentially saying that by centrally dima by saying they were disconnected from the reality of a highly performing business and and it keeps asking and it asks investors to to do their own investigation as well even before you get into the fact that it's all publicly available information you have to get there the fact is that article does not render false be advised statement that their hearts allegations which have nothing to do with the london class are or are not connected to the reality of a company that has never had a compliance issue that has never had an unforced action and that was highly performing and by the way those allegations by earhart made five years ago to this day there is still no one force all investors know all information some constructive knowledge is a concept that the information hungry market people go to and look for information and trade on it and then it is imperative that the stock price in the alpha article did it was to put together a lot of information which if one spent a lot of time with all the commentary and the notes to a financial statement might have been put together but seeking alpha article pretty and the correct of the skull sure is that when on such a kind a company we don't we don't lend to criminals we don't do any of those things and here if we had where you may be legal in lending to a criminal but you didn't answer the question are you lending to a criminal and that was a question that was hard to discover in terms of the transaction that's the allegations i guess from the  it's in addition to the hard work that goes in there he's the additional expertise and by the way the hard work isn't just doing basic research into public sources the presumption says that investors are doing that already that the that professional investors all the way to people betting on a hunch are relying on the market price and the presumption is that investor that even a professional hardworking investor from day one annoying be standard yet and so what do you have until it you have not just a lot of you have additional expertise on top of that combined with a whole bunch of other corroborative disclosures from additional source reality of a highly compliant and well performing business it's not should not cannot and could not fairly be perceived by the market as a guarantee of we will never have a compliance violation we will never lend to a person with who has a criminal background goodness knows we if we said that that would create some serious discriminatory issues for us you read i think that the plaintiffs are instead why reading compliant and well performing business those two facts can exist in sac in the same time and what we know from ron coming vantive and other cases from this court to demonstrate falsity there has to be a necessary inconsistency otherwise the state of affairs using brody is a highly compliant business  specific issue that you have i was denying we have no knowledge of what was that did not know i was there was no such investigation we are we have no knowledge of a department of justice led money laundering bear in mind that the the nihil of knowledge of the d o j led money laundering investigation was specifically in response to the new york post report of did it the company know of any laundering investigation still there's a to this day three years later still no no indictments no one forced one actions nothing no actions taken by the government three to five years later still nothing that i don't think you've answered in question where you're answering it that there hasn't been any action in response he's asking whether there was any knowledge by the company of a sixteen month investigation right counsel and so and this is why although your time really is ticking down in fact now you can back it up but that is why the district court found that denial to be misleading and it's taken quite a lot of time to get that out i'm going to ask information that is subject to disclose to be truth treated as disclose i appreciate that once it's disclosed weeps in the market is very efficient but if this junction i'm trying to get at sure principles of basic in the front of the market theory which is again it's not it it's premised on the idea that the mass of investors out there no one can be investors who go to dig up information trade on it and impounded in the stock price just easterbrook and schleicher different context of course goes through that i think pretty well from the perspective of  e the the way that the theory the seven strong theory has professional investors people digging for information and trading on it before it's disseminator disc it is publicly available all triggering a the a burden on the other side to demonstrate to rebut that by saying even if it was publicly available it was too complex for the you have to get two minutes ok thank you and then i'll use my two minutes make three points one is my adversary said that there was no money laundering investigation that's incorrect by october t  teen the f c c was investigating loan residential mortgages needs to nonresident illions which which on the new york times had previously stated was raised n c money laundering concerns you thousand and fifteen that's my point zero three is that there's been a lot of scutcheon about basic publicly available versus public and let's let's just see was very clear it's clear that basic in halliburton aren't speaking up publicly available disseminated in basic in how grim you find those statements in those decisions more than a dozen times that's an assumption me and if this court would then work on his marriage st impression on the issue regarding publicly available versus public this is the wrong seen regarding loans to criminals and regarding this the asians that was and starting the new york times articles we've seen that was a raging question regarding both the are you under investigation are you making loans to criminals are you a dirty organization and so the time that that the state is the company itself nick's saying that we are hearts allegations regarding those criminals false it's clear that they know about their loans to go on his glasses associate with characters who are