this time of year martin versus quartermaine sampling program and whether or not those were actually false and see the court ruled that they were correctly but ruled there was a c n c or the court correctly ruled of these statements were false misleading because the company had stated that planning was underway with str alter the program when in fact strathcona had disagreed with all they ever altera they did alter it absolutely alter the program they had drilled down it was a public fact that they alter the program they stopped they had they had to drill down disk i mis understand because as i understood it the bulk sampling program was designed to try to assess the viability of the project and there were projections made by snowden as to what what it what that sampling would produce and ultimately then there would be projections as to the commercial viability of the mine that's correct yes and so now and at the same time that they were actually excavating rock and getting ready to assess how many ounces of gold came out of every ton of rock that was crushed and then refined they were doing additional drilling down with regard to examining samples of the strata within the area in which the book sampling was occurring that's correct and as a result of that drilling they found the cleopatra vein which was of an extraordinarily rich vein of pure gold or gold approaching more substantial qualities of a that's correct and that and they are announced that and that they continue to do drilling with regard to that because it was a deep vein but that that they did alter the for the sampling that was done with regard to the sampling i wrong about that there was no there was never a plan the bulk sampling program is a program as to what you're going to drill down on and so there was alteration in the program to change the program to continue to drill down on that intersect and so that is an alteration of the program and  there was there was a statement made by by the company that the plan is underway with strathcona to continue to drill down and focus on that intersects the only problem was as part of the bulk sampling program to see whether or not there was viability that that was a done that's a very material fact they're the ones overseeing the program if they don't bless the results of this program there's simply all the results shouldn't be issued they're going to be the ones in a sense or they're the auditor of this program and they disagreed with how the program was was being run now because they because they found this very narrow vein and their view was it was a too now ravine to be representative of the rest of the of the area was already disclosed that therefore that they're focusing on the cleopatra vein and that that had not the strathcona had believed those unrepresentative and had actually turned out a sixty percent of all the gold in the entire valley of kings came from that one cleopatra vein and so the stress comes view was you're going to focus on this very narrow sample which actually isn't the isn't capable of bulk bulk mining and we don't agree we don't agree this is a way to to do the bulk sample and they're warning them we don't agree and the court actually correctly observe that that was a material misstatements the court ruled that the court ruled that they knew it was false when it was made and that the court correctly ruled that with a court ruled was you don't have c enter because they were they told the public about the details of the cleopatra then which were accurate previous correct right but the issue is whether or not str they're nothing it let's say let's say there's an order to be occurring if the if the richest vein is right there then it seems to me perfectly sensible to concentrate there and that's what that's what was disclosed if you actually look at what an say we did we were we disagree with the fact that planning was underway at that particular time they say is that what they say is that we were that they did not agree that that was an appropriate there that there was an appropriate method a plan  standard the standard is if you make statements or no only false that's it novak says that's that's you have say answer on that statement but there's another issue that the where the clearly made a mistake in our view your honor is that the court is saying these results are confirming the feasibility study and the two thousand and twelve resource report they're making that statement now the question is whether or not there's a question whether or not these are opinions or not opinions let's assume for the moments from that sound like opinions let's assume we're talking about something that's still in the ground let's assume for the moment so let's assume for the moment they are opinions that no problem under on the care if you have contravening information the that that that you're aware of i'm if you're making a statement the you have you're under regulatory compliance with your attorney your in house attorney is compliance with a regulation is not something that has to do with something that is unknown and in the ground and subject to competing analysis i mean there could be gold under this building ok and then so the sex name is whether or not is confirming the results whether or not these whether or not the sample was confirming the results of the feasibility study and the two thousand and twelve resource reports there that applies under obamacare the court held that they they agreed it's not right to characterize it as they had an opinion about what was going to be produced and what it would show and they had another expert that had a different opinion and then all they need to do is disclose or that exercise opinion was it was not to this not just another expert this is the this is the in the pen expert on the books sample if you're making statements about the bulk sample and its viability and you have the only expert that's going to be signed on to this telling you come clean it's not viable that therefore you have a duty to disclose that and so if they want to keep their opinions to themselves as to viability have every right to do so but once you give information to investors to the market you have a duty to be completely transparent so you can't just selectively think what you think the results are when you have a expert telling you act the results are completely false and so if they wanted to they want to be completely transparent they could have given the results they could have said we believe that these confirm the study yet are independent expert believes to the contrary and what they did was was even more misleading they would make these statements they would say confirms the feasibility study and the resource report and then they went ahead and said oh an order or order by the way is strathcona implying the strathcona agreed that that's  at the very least you're not disclosing the serotonin strongly disagrees and the court there actually did agree there was a material fact of the court said you knew they needed time to analyze the strathcona is opposing views that's fine but don't make a statement then there is no duty for presidents to make a statement for defense minister and to make any statement until you can give full disclosure to investors and here they chose to make certain statements they gave a false misleading impression and then the and then they only disclose there that the problems that that your opinions but there is a here a very credible source the here the expert the one who's going to sign onto the book sample program and he had to says no we disagree this is not working out this is not commercially viable you must disclose i don't see anywhere in the in the state an opinion you have to do a reasonable inquiry and have a reasonable basis the issue and on that care was that there was an allegation that the company made a statement about its legal exposure either without having consulted a lawyer or possibly having consulted one who disagreed and the court found that under that those sets of allegations there was a significant issue over whether the company had done a reasonable inquiry and had a reasonable basis but in care what the court says is let's assume that the company had gone to multiple lawyers and one of those lawyers disagreed one of those lawyers said i don't think you're in compliance in the others did the court said depends on context but that may be just fine know as a company the opinion of one expert knowing that and one lawyer knowing that another lawyer does not agree that's right because what the company is saying and what preddy him was saying is we're mining this area we think it's going to take us twenty two years to complete the mining we are going to give you an estimate of what we think the amount of gold will be that estimate they disclose is speculative it's based on the number of assumptions people can disagree and we may be wrong that's what that's what this company said and  here the resorts estimate the principle expert was snowden snowden was responsible for the resource as to mint not strathcona and the resource estimate was replied upon by tetra tech in amc two other independent experts who had to rely on it to do the feasibility study strathcona had the role of doing the bulk sample taking a chunk of the mountain right and analyzing it so with the goal of trying to have the sample represent the various mineral deposits of lot high grade minerals ation gold might appear within the area represent read and understand how much issued its research report in november two thousand and twelve which is thirteen months before the completion of the bulk sample the box and i hadn't even started what they thought it would produce because exactly rejection with what they thought was their right so so they did their testing and as part of their testing what snowden said is here's our estimate and one of the things we recommend is that the company also do a book sample will see the  analyze that result and what we check it and during the course of the box and where there are a series of data points that began to appear with regard to what the expectation and visa v the expectations of what they might have been right so i'll tell you what the record shows on that the record shows number one the company announced that it was not going to disclose anything in the sample until the sample was done completed and they said we think it will be at the end of the year the they announced this in june and two thousand and thirteen they say we think it will be at the end of the year will disclose it when it's done by the time strathcona resigned there were zero results from the processing mill of the bug sample none zero there was twenty percent of the sample mill so let me explain the difference so with the book sample you're taking ten thousand tons out of the mountain crushing it and processing it right and it's those results that you're going to try and figure out how it compares because the mountain is not homogenously right the mountains not much as you and take the ten thousand you hope it representative your crush it up you take lucky you see what's there they also had a sample tower that had a half of one percent of that and they were taking samples along the way and and according to the record twenty percent of the sample results occurred by the time strathcona resigned and so pretty i'm looked at that and said you know what we're sample you could be wrong high or low and so what they said they were going to do is let's wait till the sample is done that way till december and we'll assess our resource estimate as it turns out december which is two months after the end of the class period strathcona is resigned other experts come in to finish it and the estimate of the gold goes up not down it goes up so the bulk sample when done supported and right when you're making the resource estimate what's the information you have you have the snowden resource estimate which is accepted by tetra tech a name c strathcona doesn't like the methodology and resigns but strathcona hasn't done the work on the bulk sample and when that's done the gold estimates increase methodology which serves as the basis for strath correct and as i'm looking at a series of results going along and they say wait this doesn't add up to what it was thinking right so the head to strathcona gave a press conference and it's in the record and in the press conference he doesn't say we disagree with the data he says the data will show what the data will show you know when it's all done he said we have a methodological difference ok that's fine three experts are countable the resource estimate one expert before doing its work has a methodological fs take that statement and says planning is underway means they're on board in the agree that's what he stood up and told the court that's what he wrote in his papers well that's not true planning is underway doesn't mean it's on board and agree i'm planning my wife's birthday party planning is underway we're having discussions about it i don't think we're going to have a dinner in new york right i don't think we're going to have the dinner in new york that the kids want to have i think we're going to go on a family vacation all right planning is underway for the dinner but it may not happen always invest a great deal of money depending on which restaurant you select and no one is based on the statement planning is underway and there's no sea enter and there's no there's no nothing in the disclosures here that led to the stock drops that had anything to do with planning center and by the way wasn't a false statement what the judge plough did was he inferred something he said was str at some point between june and october disagreed with the methodology of the resource estimate i'm going to infer that back in july and august it was not engaging in planning this is months before it resigns engaged in planning with pratty and i think that's an improper inference and there's no basis in the record to find that in july and august when the statement was made eventually resigned over a methodological difference that fact in our view your honor just not support an inference that planning is underway when they're still on the job and they're still dealing with the bulk sample th out that they're discussing it suggests exactly what it says planning is underway doesn't mean we have a decision we have a we have we have a plan we have a program what it suggests is is is that they're in discussion and the fact is it takes two more months before strathcona resigns i think you can infer from that that they in fact were in discussions i think the name france the proper inference is exactly the opposite you ask a bunch of lawyers and one says i don't think this is legal and the others say it is legal you don't have to disclose the one lawyers point of view illegal and the other when it's legal well actually anomic care that's what the lawyer was saying is it's it's all legal and the court i understated my own case and i'm a care said that's fine in time it's not just the expert it's the regulator who is going to have to approve the drug and that regulator is saying to sanofi the drug company for ten years we think you have a methodological problem with your clinical trial because it's single blind and not double blind ten years f d a is telling that and what does the company say not i have an estimate could be right it could be wrong or whatever it is the company says ninety percent assurance we're going to get approval by a certain target date ninety percent assurance in the face of the a the f d a repeatedly saying we have an issue with the methodology of your trial and under those circumstances this court said that doesn't have to be discussed so our case way easier than tom and fits right in the care the principle expert on the resource estimate it issue here is snowden it's their estimate it's their certification to other experts agree with them one expert based on a philosophical methodological difference disagrees under on a care and under and under tongue that that is not required to be disclosed and then we also have here on earth see enter  what the methodological difference was i mean it seems to me if you're going to take a couple tonnes out of the mountain and out and grind it up and look at what it is what's the difference in methodology the question is what how do you extract the lake from the question is when you look at the entire area of the entire project and valley of the kings area is very big the question is how do you extract the weight from the results you're getting to the mountain as a whole given that it's not a differences about interpretation of data become a basis for ten b cases is just just not what we're going to do if you have contacts i suppose in your adversary the analogy of this is strathcona had no role in the actual resource estimate they were doing a side project which at the end you might you might address but i quite agree with you with the auditor analogy the monitor here is snowden and if snow had changed his mind this would be a very different case the only thing i will say is strathcona resigned before any mailing results for the bulk sample and with only twenty percent of the small sample tower said we just don't think you have a not information to say this and by the way you can mislead shareholders with premature statements the hear what the courts are saying to companies is the have if you do reason one create a have a good faith basis we are not going to second casts all of your opinions and judgments it's just a terrible world to get into it does it it it was it was it was by the time they had resigned it was more than seventy percent seventy percent was done by july of two thousand and thirteen that's where in the record that's that's in the complaint we can we can pull up a bit as to the was the june in june two that in june two thousand and thirteen there were twenty percent when you come to july to that july twenty third two thousand and thirteen it's seventy percent you're much further along by by october there are facts that facts analysis facts i used it seventy percent seventy percent of the drilling had been done how much have they analyzed i have the difference between the drilling and the analysis you could have a huge pile of mountain sitting in the middle of this room and not know anything and so and so all probably had to do is tell messrs is that we've just started this strathcona strongly believes we're not getting close to sixteen grams per ton but we believe that's the case but they didn't do that and he will and he when we talk about it we said at the auditor when it comes to the bulk sampling program that's the statements  issue in this case are the bulk sampling program and there's results there's only one or two that are in the book sampling program that order is strathcona protium is a resource report the order of the program which is a statement that issue that is the that is  issue when we talk about on the care and we talk about the attorney the talks with two different types of attorney it is a senior attorney that's something that should be disclosed to investors if it's a junior attorney who says that you're not a compliance that's something obligation to give the contravening opinion as well thank you thank you thank you both will reserve decision the next case on calendar is united states versus de vos to we're taking that on submission the case of united states versus rivera is