people who talk on behalf of them so shareholders who invest in those corporations are depending on who talks to when the main issue that comair plane which is never contrary to defend its misleading therefore providing witness to what judge packer had done just as in any other way he said it was an admission of a hacker that's that's what i heard you say did you misspeak well we have no evidence other than a generalized  opposition that yes we have alleged in the complaint that mr packer has not denied those facts in any great statement or form and we do not have as a judge really pointed out a trial verdict i mean the ordered these machines to look at these very impressive that are showing up on the cover of time and are constantly being talked about and this isn't reality and if the person telling us  getting and in essence they weren't really paying five million dollars and the company was giving them extra items in direct other statements did not meet the pleading requirements of the p o s are a well will i will try to cut to the chase here i think i have a picture of what you're looking at there's a couple things that i do want to make clear is kind of a limit on matters one of them is that there's a statement in the briefs i think twice in the brief saying that packer did chase beyond that i also want to point out one more thing about the possible effect of admissions there's no case cited there's no case i know of that says that an allegation made in a prior case is an admission in this particular case so i think that issue is just a non issue the question then becomes as a court realizes are the allegations in this complaint sufficient to satisfy the extreme pleading burden created by the reform act and i think you know the trial court very carefully went through those allegations  every single one of them and i think it's fair to say and we try to go through every single one of them are free except i think the plan is basically a fan did most of the from what i can tell but it's to every single one of those they don't even come close in turn to the hardest one for  happens and then the offering price on the day of the announcement is ten and three quarters that it's really only worth about five hundred fifty thousand well pretty significant difference the problem is that in terms of the plaintiff's pleading and the six to say that it was really only ten percent of what the publicly announced price was is a pretty significant well first of all hold reality i think you're out of the question to a reasonable investor is likely to be whether or not there's somebody the press release did not disclose that the latin american consortium would receive fifty thousand dollars shares of stock options for each five hundred thousand dollars system so the buyer gets to your options to buy fifty thousand shares of the dollar sixty seven a share now the point is your honor that given this very specific pleading requirements of the reform act there's no allegation here that that that the sale was not completed there's no allegation that the five million dollars was not paid there is as to the the value of the option on the date the sale was announced not on the date the sale was consummated so what we have here is we have a claim an assertion by the company that they sold for five million dollars and they got a one point seven five million dollars purchaser had the a it has the right over some period of two years that changed the stock from the company now you can say that it's material we don't think it is we think the trial forthright that it's not material but even if it's material you still have the issue of the pleading requirements you still have to get around pretty you still have some you have to make some affirmative this statement so that there's something to suggest that there's something in that press release that said as i said before that to be misleading to be actionable in the securities laws in the mission must be misleading in other words if you must affirmatively create an impression of a state of affairs that differs in a material way from the one going to actually do it and i'm wondering why if the auction was as generous as it was it's not misleading for the company to claim that it great press release announcing and sell the product and the point here is that i the answer the question is if the representation made in here again suggested that we are now going to outline for you all of the terms of the that there was in fact five million dollars was not paid they're required to say that that they're required to speak specifically what the auction was worth it can i ask about another one of those about the i'm likely to get almost certainly she is not they are using this for each track and field athletes there's nothing that says that it wasn't our equipment i mean give me that it was the breast cancer detection system but the really talking about here in fact a voluntary prayer for after request of you well remember the pleading requirements it's because it's completely consistent with this pleading with a volunteer chiropractor went to the coaches and said i want to get this equipment and the and then it says the coach is invited so it's not even it's not even a false statement if you look i mean if you look at it they're not even alleging any false statement in the league i'm sorry and i'm a little slow i got you so you're saying to submit some more information to show the court and the defendants why that statement was misleading he also says in that same release it's attributed to him quote we are making every effort to have michael five prepared person of missions prior to the end of the second calendar quarter prior to the end of june second quel calendar quarter it wasn't faults at all in fact they say in their very next paragraph paragraph sixty three of their mysteries attributed to mr brennan june fifteenth two thousand and one i am quite pleased with the submission package on its face together as a fairly do not you were statement it doesn't even seem to be material company committed serious securities friday in february and night of two thousand and three and in august of two thousand and three and i target is issued to separate opinions one and number eighty four employer teamster joint council pension tru brought out which i'm mentioned earlier in the first case which is quoted in wrote the ninth circuit said we aren't each individual allegation we also consider whether the total pla allegations even though individually lacking are sufficient to create a strong inference that defendant acted with deliberate or conscious recklessness in this case the total of the allegations show this could demonstrate that during the current period defendants violated tend to be defense counsel has recently recently stated that the matter of the images  but there are other products we're relevant to and when we look at the total mix they weren't just misleading shareholders about the system they were also misleading suspense shareholders about their other products including this imaging system reasonable investor when reading their press release would believe the head coaches wanted these products and i believe when we now have an allegation in there might in time we're have to believe these items now who had requested the equipment but as counsel pointed out that doesn't mean that the head coaches didn't say to the volunteer chiropractor yeah we'd like it if they're willing to go native i think that's what your complaint misleading evidence