clearly needs that standard this court said we should look at the formation of contracts we should look at the where money changes hands and we should look at location of the party and when we do those things we see clearly that a domestic transaction occurred every single act activity in action of the seller of the counter party which is a seller occurred within the united states and that is just that is that's that's actually put in the st complaint to amend the complaint the nd in the complaint is further clarified and then when when when just bourbons finally found a rule that was insufficient we did need a more precise detail how every single activity in action all of the other seller occurred in the united states not only that we allege that all the monies were transferred to pay for these bonds from bank accounts of plaintiff in the united states and they went to the bank accounts of the seller in united states again one of the  title passes mike correct that you are primarily relying on the location where the seller is that is the broker dealers in turn liability that's absolutely correct and  proposed thirty minute complaint which clearly gives precise detail as to how the transaction occurred but the personnel overlook and we need their addresses we made it clear that the purchase of what it was made to a personnel sitting and located in the united states and that the states during the united states when mr lieberman this is the this is just really just as a follow up because i'm having a little trouble understanding and maybe you can focus the specific allegations which were supposed dollars in the post there are many complaints and go through each transaction it makes clear that when they agreed on the price they were bound to the transaction that is the reality of the broker dealer market very much like a market maker when you make a deal to sell stock or the market were merely in agents they have the power to bind whoever else owns secures the transaction and that's clear from paragraph twenty seven dollars complaint it's clear the broker dealer is the one once you set a price and quantity with a broker dealer the transaction is done there's nobody else in the over the counter market market there's nobody else to talk to and so by your securities from other than the broker dealer and if further amendment needs to clarify that then let it be and we can certainly clarify that with both information  from some plaintiff transactions and just information that the market generally that's what we're missing and that certainly can be rectified and we don't think it's missing you think if you look at paragraph twenty seven of the poster and i complain it's clear as day that the  here in particular as the court was questioning opposing counsel with regard to actions by the seller this court said an absolute activist that the location of the broker dealer could be relevant to the extent that the broker carries out tasks that irrevocably bind the broker to buy or sell securities and when one looks at the nd amended complaint and the relevant allegations which is are which are at pages four own nine  record you see absolutely no allegations whatsoever of any conduct by any broker dealer there's simply the allegation that they are are located in the united states and lead plaintiff in a securities fraud class action represented by a premier firm with extensive experience also self described the standard as playing the facts are with in the plaintiff's knowledge these are traits that it allege conducted it alleges the conduct with counter parties and it has never pointed to the kinds of fact that this court has repeatedly recognized are necessary in order for plans to meet its burden of showing facts plausibly alleging u s transaction and again i go back to absolute activist in the context of amendment which was mentioned in my counsel opposing counsel's argument in absolute activist itself a relatively early case following the morrison standard from the supreme court the court needed to decide whether leave men would be granted and what animated the court was that the plaintiffs are there said that you could come forward with underlying transactional documents currently not part of the record in the case what significant event should we place on the distinction between a broker and a dealer following up on their a commentary the district clear in response to questions from i believe was judge there are no allegations in any of these complaints none of the three leading up to their complaint which is the nd amended complaint nor the proposed rd amended complaint that in fact any of the finra trace automated system something that i'm a little familiar with the tracks u s domestic transactions or at least that and i wonder that it seems to be word d would make a difference but maybe you can help me out with that yes judge i'm happy to address that the trace to the allegation is that some of the secondary market transactions i will note just just on that one point that plaintiff allegations are the same with regard to their regulation as initial market transactions which are on questionably foreign that's that exception is only available for  transactions conducted outside of the united states and they make exact same boilerplate allegations with regard to their secondary market transactions which going to lead you to master a coming to trace it simply in the case of the district court found below that a u s broker dealer was involved in one way or another with the transaction there is nothing in this record and nothing in the decision cited to this court nor any decision that we have found that says that the mere reporting of the transactions t trees shows that that transaction was domestic it is an question that the reporting takes place team minutes from the time of the transaction it is also not disputed by pointing out that the relevant broker dealer has not designing a compliance program for a decision that has to be made within fifteen minutes of the trade would be inclined to over report rather than under report and again with respect reporting cannot be the end of the analysis as judge rate fou the petrobras case when looking at d t c settlement he said st of all that's not the meaning of the mine it's not the actual transaction it's something that takes place after the transaction is complete and that unquestionably is true trace reporting as well and think that that question needs to be asked it is plaintiff's burden to come forward with the clause about allegations here they had they are a sophisticated plant as represented by some of the most sophisticated boyer's doing this kind of work it's incumbent on us it is us again your honor we're talking about a subset and it's it's only about i think seventy percent are probably less of the trades an issue that will reported to trace yet again plaintiff uses the exact there's no reason not to believe that the plaintiff to say that they engaged in these trains have access to everything they could possibly know about the trade including the specific counter party how it was affected whether by email or phone on which states at which prices they have the trading records they have trading tickets presumably and they have their own trading systems but they've never come forward with those factual details which outs with activists requires thank you thank you  a proposed thirty men the complaint and paragraphs twenty seven dollars provides for each transaction a real list of how this transaction occurred and the role of the seller in those transactions and makes look i don't know that in the o t c bond market there is a clearing broker and there's no evidence that there is no defense has been raised that there's nothing in the record that you can says there was a clearing broker in the fraud or misstating this is an allegation regarding where a transaction occurred so clearly there's you know the default is rule it applies unless you feel the categories where ninety should apply to clearly absent defend