spanned the class period of four and a half years we have really refocused the appeal to just point out to a lot of the major themes or the statements that captured the essence of the case so with this would reduce the case to a fourteen and a role of c e o the company is currently finalizing its succession plans however the board has determined that it is the company's best interest to terminate miss the u s at this time now the district court said  dollars is also misleading and omitted material facts because the company failed to inform investors of the reasons for the board's terminations or view it that was at least premised upon the scanned investigation and to the because when you read the statement there's two different sentences there st sentences about the succession plan and then the sentence that says despite this not being finalized yet we're going to you know we're going to terminate mr  hewitt because you know he's going to depart because it's not in the best interests of the companies and wasn't that suggest that there's two separate things going on there that it's a succession plan but even though that's not finalized we're getting rid of him now right is not how that should be read investor i don't think so your honor so now you get into one of the themes i want to get to we're on a motion to dismiss and you know law all logical inferences is to be construed in our favor and i think and again you're also supposed to look at what information important in deciding whether to invest and i think it's critical to an investor whether the c e o is going to be was terminated because a big reaches of misconduct both on a personal and business nature that affects the company dramatically and they use the word succession plans and both sentences there's no they could clearly have laid out what the truth was or if they wanted to really keep it separate they really could have kept that two different concepts but they've joined the two sentences together i think a fair reading of it your honor at least again on a motion to dismiss should be the logical inference should be those two and tied together that he is leaving as part of the succession plans which are still being finalize if we disagree with you that it should be read tied together like that what case on your other point what what case when have we ever said any any circuit court said that if a company announces a terminating their c e o is not the best interest of the company we're telling our c e o that they have to give the investors the particular reason or it's a misleading statement but when have we ever said i don't know if that's been said directly want to but what the standard of war constantly is is which this court has said is half truths are actionable there can be statement that have true comments in and true statements as part of the entire statement but it still can be misleading and this is just a classic example of that i mean clearly this guy was terminated the day before they had this board meeting where skadden arps laid out its report getting into all kinds of misconduct they terminate him at that time and then they tell the public well he's gone but we're also just part of succession planning we're findings did not result in a diminishment of the stock price that day i know your argument is that the market needed time to learn all the facts digest the information but it doesn't seem to have supported lot help me out on that oh you're right or i will you take a look at the dura supreme court case and then three cases from the circuit moral law i got the nd one for  intervening event something that centers the connection that the chain could be broken but as this court said your out of such a is a matter of proof at trial and not to be decided on a th emotions of this mess so what came out in your pilot article was simply all the salacious elements of what mr hewitt was involved in but really you see what happens in november december and february there are a six different resignations announced each some the  announcement of virginia it's like your classic tip of the iceberg st disclosure these other disclosures that's come out the tape b m g one is probably the most interesting because they talk about what's happening is the market thinks you would is gone as c no longer can rely on management because you it is running the company basically he's into the car and he's dealing with the franchisees he's dealing with the area developers and there's a press release that press release itself said that he control had control of the class  shares and therefore had control of the board so you know here i am that he could control everything with a class b shares juran are not exactly remember to the investors yes he can control the board yes he owns a class b shares he's not an massive difference between a c e o of a company as you know and the chairman of the board of a company and the director is the c e o is running the company day to day the directors pop in for quarterly meetings and weigh in with supervision and so on that market knew he remained as i mean you're correct but the market thought he was gone and running the day to day operations and it was not and it was destroying the company and led to all these resignations so it all ties in to the your position your position is that even if a company is terminating an executive for misconduct that the disposer does not have to give reasons officially to announce the term nation or say it's screen there is no there is no or right what about the separate issue of control though if for example over time it became clear that mr hewitt was not going to relinquish those class b shares that he said forget it not negotiating very significant dislocation caused by mr to put your eyes in reviewing this and think of the reasonable investor reading that it really is pretty impossible not to think that the terminations is part of the succession planning to an investor a reasonable investor and you really i  would think that reading that he was basically let go immediately would let everybody understand that there was something afoot and out i'm not suggesting that you have no claim here but the whatever anybody is terminated effective immediately it either suggests that they have a serious health problem that's just been discussed right away there were should not against go or not and since it was reported that it was in the best interests of the i think you want to because it's all if they had just said he's terminated and nothing else that's one thing but they have tied it in in two sentences to the succession plan and it was it's not complete it i mean they are telling investors that