another stockholder who was a personal friend of his and he actually approached special devices special devices did not solicit his interest in the company its company has to hold patents design patents and has intellectual property first meeting which was held in the summer as a set of one thousand nine hundred five corporation do not even have a structure up at that point it was under construction they were operating out of a large tent if you will and it's a very young company that was devoted to technology and not  was kind of it was an experienced guy and right so that was part of your argument but i guess when i consider both of those arguments i mean the court essentially had to make a judgment call and sort of make a factual determination person was on notice on that particular point about when he was when he was on notice is that the standard or are you sort of difficult for you there because that was a factual determination essentially as a factual determination but i think there was sufficient evidence presented at the trial to indicate that over a period of time mr bosley had the opportunity to make that decision that he had noticed if you will so i guess what i'm saying though is that sort of looks like there were arguments both ways and if the court had gone the other way i think they would be in a difficult position to go against what the court found the fact you know when he was on notice just like you're in a difficult situation as the court you know there there were a number of things the court had to weigh and there wasn't there's not one statement that says you know i knew at that point that everyone agrees on so you're saying these events wasn't knowledgeable investor he professed to be a knowledgeable investor and he also professed to be an experienced businessman and that he can offer his talents if you will to special devices so that he could start to market its product and i recognize revenue  but again the facts i think are pretty clear from the evidence at trial that this was a young company that did not have the revenue stream yet that it hoped to and the information that was provided to mr bardsley when he first became interested in special his initial contact as opposed to a business plan mr possum's testimony was that he relied on a business plan that was provided to him at that for initial meeting in i have a question in terms that just assuming for a moment that the court decided against you on all issues for the purposes of responding to the motion for sanctions what do you think is your strongest argument on  no deliberate action on the part of my clients to defraud mr bhansali you know you have to be a deliberate intent they never had that intent to cause any harm to mr bosley he still retains his stock he has not lost any interest so there hasn't and obviously accept any questions as they come up with regard to whether or not mr bosley was aware of the fraud that been perpetrated on him prior to march of ninety eight the evidence is not as through her opening argument are the various and numerous misrepresentations are made to mr bosley first and foremost this was focused on by the trial where the misrepresentations regarding whether or not five million dollars in two thousand he was given two to three pages of the one nine hundred ninety five financial that's it as you only financial information mr bosler was privy to so despite the fact that he was at the site on occasion that he had meetings on occasions that he was attempting to help guide this company forward he didn't have the information necessary to know that he had been completely  know it's clear that the statute of limitations defense was a frivolous defense there is no evidence that shows prior to march of ninety eight that mr bosley knew there were no patterns that now even the fact that saying let's just say you have the better argument all right if you had lost there still is evidence there would still be evidence on the other side for the district  to come to another conclusion the district court could have found that he should've known sooner by virtue of they didn't mention certain context so i guess what i'm you're saying ok so if it was basically a factual determination and there's some evidence that goes one way there's some evidence because the other i don't agree with you that there's all your side and not on the other side or whatever then how can an appeal i guess if you're saying it's frivolous because determination and there's evidence on both sides taking into consideration what the standard of review is does that make your prevalence or not not necessarily and i can see a case where the evidence on both sides was was close what you've got a pretty you know a frivolous appeal there it's not an easy it's not an easy held a klein just like when i told her she had a tough sell to climb on something else what's your best argument on that you know that's you know i have to say sometimes if i have to spend a lot of time trying to understand something then it starts to make me think maybe that's not prevalent i believe in this case the  it might appear that there was more evidence than there really was in favor of mr strong on the statue of limitations but if you actually look at the evidence that they present it's loken mirrors your honor it evidence was that they were they were valued at eight dollars a share you know in addition to he had one hundred fifty thousand dollars or so equity in his house he claimed to have two patents one of which  worth one hundred thousand dollars so the largest chunk of his net worth was obviously the shares ok and punitive damages were awarded the amount of hundred fifty thousand dollars which is a very small portion of that three million and it's  those purchases of two hundred fifty four dollars a share were also being based on the company having value in terms of valuable patents that it had and it didn't have any so clearly the value of the stock that he purchased is not stock is worth more and your client about fifty one percent correct what's the problem with the punitive well it was interesting  you know how's how is that what's the problem with that punitive well it's going backwards as well just indicating saying that on the issue of fraud that there were no patents in place if i can help the court out a little bit here but can't you take inconsistent patent technically didn't expire it just sort of went into a limbo status until that maintenance of the issue was perfected and patents can be patent pending there was also another patent that had been in place was actually owned by