that we don't know what it was that what those other documents were that the court had i'll come or your position there are i understand thank you you can't be found to proceed in the face with a complaint because a complaint is only a complaint and the problem we have at that point your honor is that we had at that point in time is that we were of course affected by say there wasn't anything that we really could do at that point in terms of further honor but i think that the paper submitted by plaintiffs to the quirky law or contradict the eventual finding by the court we ended up looking at several hundred thousand pages of documents which were provided he was eventually by the trustee in the court as a matter of law a plaintiff with the exercise of diligence could have discovered the facts in question the state becomes important it is especially as the court noted in one fell just recently because where you have a situation where one of the things you have notion that the valuation was always zero and that's why he didn't have to do any work careful study of what the value was relevant to any particular representation of misrepresentation and market isn't accurate  january that if i kept losing money at that rate they would be out of money by september but that isn't to say that the value was zero in january they could have had plenty of cash in january they were just losing money at a rate that they were going to be out of cash by september of limitations obviously is to prevent the unfairness of bringing a lay claim when memories of faded employees may be gone and evidence may be lost promote diligence in bringing in flames and prevent the retroactive enforcement of contemporary standards this is all and so we have a was clearly intended to complain to the security that actions should stand or fall based on the actual knowledge of the players rather than information produced by the defense after the action has been fine turning to the argument that well as i understand it with each of these complaints they were dismissed and then the fine is filed another complaint and each time that triggers the automatic stay silent fact they're filing the complaint not based on having been granted discovery in that case i don't know what they were filing it on now though i read it and it seems to be they spent a lot of public records and then stand how they had been able to get  discount them including discovery involving k p and jan which point they got the information which allowed them to plead and pay pm game which is almost always going to happen with a pound so i mean if if if how is anybody going to know with regard to a plan as a lawyer and you plan to do you feel a certain number of depositions at the end and you have some reason to do that it's not unusual as you know and you schedule one and then all the sun something happens and because at the time judge wilson considered the issue of whether to give them to continue it was at the somebody that's been hearing but that issue was before him and he considered the totality of the circumstances and i think i believe that the very conclusion that i heard e i understand what he did was he considered their diligence before hand and the relevance of the evidence that they sought just to obtain and that my when i was trying to make is that all was considered on april thirtieth and then it's a question of his was the absence of expert testimony and none of the evidence that they wanted to speak in this very afterwards had anything to do with actions and so that's really where i want to focus is that the reason so you need something more than the possibility that there was a mature in the statement during the class theory you need evidence of that you need something that puts a travel question that there's a probability of a mid term statement and they say now if i make some changes in two they are sanctioning what happens it could be this it could be that it could be another thing that is not the same as giving an opinion that the actual value of the moore was not a residual valuation expert he was an accountant and he knew he was an accountant and he knew he wasn't a residual valuation expert so he needed someone to be a residual valuation expert but the plaintiffs didn't retain a reserve a usually what you see is an advanced study which is a statistical regression analysis that factors out takes that price drop at the end and then factors out on related causes that is causes unrelated to the the alleged or all he does is assuming that based on the price drop the value of the s g have to residuals with zero and then everything after that is math and the whole point of what that's wilson was saying is an expert report that introduce any expert evidence we did not and that's i think where you're going is the issue of whether there was enough to shift the burden to us in the morning is there a critical piece of evidence the only piece of evidence they have is the price drop ok value of the residuals during the class period if they need that piece of evidence to apply the out of pocket measure of damages so they've got to come forward with the trial question of fact on that and it's merely this doesn't have to be  of the the damages issue both the existence of damages legally cognizable damages and the amount of those damages you need a fact and that fact is what is the true val the securities act during the past year and they want to meet that burden by saying well after there was a supposed corrective announcement the price of the securities dropped that doesn't tell you anything about what the