establishes a presumption the court didn't basically recognize that that would that presumption can be rebutted by any showing that severs the link between the misrepresentation and the price paid or the decision to trade that defense comes forward with the evidence parco and halliburton to say that the district court is required to weigh the evidence and make findings and race to court they're not going to do that here yes i understand but i will make sure express it really addressed that argument which is the plaintiffs principle argument in support of the district court here and it and i think in essence what it comes down to is this it isn't a question of the nature of the evidence that's being presented it's a question of the issue that the evidence is being presented for therefore i am jack and the court concluded while materiality was certainly a central to the presumption of reliance it was also in the sump the central independent element for any claim for securities fraud so for example even if the individuals have to sue for securities fraud in a decertified class they would still need to show the syriani therefore everybody rises and falls together but on reliance as  to the court said defendants must be given the opportunity to present that evidence and rebut the presumptions at the classification stage because the presumption of reliance goes directly to the predominant requirement unlike materiality which flows through to the merits and even though it also can be relevant to the availability of the basic presumptions it it isn't essential to that presumption in the way that price the nd was that formulation for calculating damages on a class wide basis ok let me just go ahead i'm sorry we didn't make an argument under comcast about that methodology and out with regard to the damages methodology and with regard to ask you about a good case management issue that i hope plaintiffs also address and that has to do with how discovery is healed because for decades now federal judges have been trained in dealing with class actions to consider bifurcating class discovery from merit scholar in this particular nisha of federal securities fraud litigation it doesn't seem like there's really much of a distinction we there was no bifurcation order in this case and in fact we were proceeding with merits document production at the same time that we were doing class discovery we took depositions of all of the representatives plaintiffs and the representative plaintiff financial manager there which there were many reconsideration order based on new evidence change that season and certify the class but in reaching that decision the district judge examined this exact question how do you reconcile amgen truth on the market at the fact reconcile that and she said it took to like the idea that things can be separated into neat boxes the evidence over here is only evidence for last place and then this evidence over here for price impact or this evidence for materiality is unrealistic in these cases this evidence could be relevant to all of those increases or to damages too and you can't neatly segregate those issues nor convert it to said can you artificially limit the defendant the evidence that the defendant can present any showing that severs the link between the mis alleged misrepresentation and that price paid or the decision to trade it is sufficient to rebut the basic presumption and ye it's the defendant's burden to produce that evidence and convince the judge that on a preponderance of the evidence standard but any evidence doesn't mean you must use economist you must have an event study it means any evidence and in and specifically the idea that market makers knew what the what the alleged fraud supposedly concealed is one of the ways you can rebut basic those depositions that mr clark you've argued in your briefs that we should decide the price reps in the st time we class actions brought that that kind of rearranging of class representation has long been pretty routine trying to agra tech didn't say anything about that practice directly and what concerns me that i'd like to you to address is that it would seem to make it very difficult or kind of randomly difficult if we were to adopt your extension of  issued but they didn't say that even if they're wrong on tolling the claims relate back so they never made a federal fifteen argument which would be one answer to that concern and but that argument is wa we're clear on your if we were to adopt your theory you know the class action is filed a week before the statute runs there would essentially be no opportunity to fix these sorts of problems to subdivide classes right well your hon i would have to think that through i think that the answer is there may be a relation back argument in the st book in the st place but in the nd place as the supreme court recognized in time after attack there's no there's nothing in the federal rules that says you have a right to bring a class action forever routine case management procedures we're on i look at it a different way might the way i look at it is that american pilot changed a statute of limitations rule the statute of limitations is a statute american pipe used equitable principles to say we're not going to hold you to a statute if you're an individual who's represented putatively in a class action and we're going to protect you by extending that out now it didn't address whether somebody else could assert class claims on your behalf but it said you're protected  choose to opt out for if the class is not certified you can then bring it and this time will count against you that's an equitable doctrine your honor and agra tech says that equitable doctrine does not extend to the right to bring claims on behalf of limitations which i don't think even had expired at the time excuse me arguably expired at the time that providence proper claims i don't think you need but i guess what i'm saying is i don't think you need american pipe i don't think you need tolling if you have relations back and there were fifteen and right i guess the answer is maybe we could have our made the two arguments in the alternative but we didn't think we needed to in this case your honor suggested earlier  it's long been the class action practice to allow intervention of this type to add an additional class representative for example and one of the authorities that defendant cited conflicts with that longstanding practice the district court correctly applied the current controlling precedent of amgen and let me try to answer the primary question i think the court has been interested in which is how do you square an engine and with halliburton two and it masquerading as a rebuttal of price impact and defendants don't even agree that what they've asserted is a truth on the markets offense but as articulated by the district court that district court said defendant proposition is based primarily on the argument that the market was well aware of all states efforts to grow its auto insurance business including softening or lowering its underwriting standards thus leading to an increase in claims frequency that's in the record at channels you know since we're considering the supreme evidence at different stages of the case i can imagine it drives litigators or syria crazy it's obviously been driving saloon judges in the district and circuit courts a little bit  impact so reconcile not over the i i understand the court's concern and let me let me suggest we have a line drawn problem here here is where you draw the line so in number let me give you four problems with defendants argument here number one is that halliburton two not surprisingly discusses amgen at length and it required to prove or defendants be permitted to disprove materiality before class certification and he goes on at length and ends up with because materiality is a discrete issue that can be resolved in me appropriate evidence of the classification stage however they may not entertain a mini trial on the issue of materiality because that would be an impermissible end run around and then i understand that but i can't imagine case the defendants argued that during the class period so after the misstatements the truth went came went on the market in several ways but including in a new york times article for example and there was no stock price reaction to that new york times article that we would submit is a proper truth on the market argument and importantly the nd circuit in that case st decided that the defendants were that is a truth on the market defense but there are other ways in which defendants can assert a price impact argument as in the goldman sachs case or as in the great case that opposing counsel mentioned just a few minutes ago however importantly in full the goldman sachs case the nd circuit and in the gray case the district court st determined that they would analyze defendants price impact evidence only after explicitly deciding that the defendants in those cases were not asserting the premature truth of the market argument that that i would suggest the gate therefore as a goldman and grey we believe that courts should consider price impact argument evidence arguments and evidence only after determining that the pendants are not in fact asserting an improper and premature truth on the market defense which is impermissible under district judge did not engage personally with this over the ins to the extent it addresses price impact what do you think should happen on remailed what should happen on a is the courts that remand with guidance there i believe the defense will fail because it's entirely number one based on mischaracterization of plaintiff's claims the defendant premature truth on the markets offense but all of these arguments were before the court there was a battle of the experts both sides submitted their expert reports but the district court did what we submit is appropriate by number one determining whether or not the concealed truth in this case as your honor pointed out after the final corrective disclosure in this case when it turned that all states claims frequency and persisted for three consecutive quarters and importantly in response allstate was tightening up those underwriting standards again and there was a ten percent stock right drop in all states shares so you know which is significant evidence or price impact obviously it was the largest one day decrease in the past ten years by the way plaintiffs have met that dependency price impact argument makes no sense because it's entirely based on the idea that before any of the alleged statements that omissions all state where she explains that she found there was no price impact because contrary to claims claims the fact that all states new business growth would cost higher article in frequency was expected by the market prior to the august rd corrective disclosure and continues i expect explanation she segregates the expected decline which was impounded into the price of allstate stock with the unexpected decline which resulted from the disclosure of non