assume for the sake of argument you've got to show something more than we filed with you twenty action that there's got to be something that indicates we need to it was appropriate to what do you have well least as late as that which showed they would prefer that you doesn't it when you were distributions and in two thousand and three where there was differences in terms of what he was reporting as much he was taking for himself so you acquired on notice he was receiving nothing wrong before the disclosure that got documents or even before that showing distributions were taking got his tehran's he was getting nothing so i guess it goes back to my point is reson to disclosure that spreadsheet simply additional information but not information that requ which we later found out may have been executed two thousand what went into that what was the decision making that went into that was there self dealing was there fraud where's the intent to deceive mr foley slithery really your first things officially as an automatic time out no matter what is a person if a person received an affidavit sworn i've stolen from you and here's how much and it was one day before the running of the statute of limitations that the filing of a two twenty action all by itself that's good enough to get you a can only know we never said it was automatic all right well it sounded like it you said that sound like you said it right to start so if you accept it it's not automatic that there their needs are some discretion in the judge to decide whether or not there was a sufficient showing here that the two twenty action was going to reveal something that could be useful then is our review of the district court decision about whether you met that standard to suit the typical thing we do when there's discretion in it in a trial judge and that is twenty action would be totally for abuse of discretion or is there some other standard should be applying is there all in delaware i don't know of any there could be but to the extent there's mix issues of fact and we're all experienced a reason would be abuse of discretion right correct but we make the underlying predicate decision as to is that a legal issue that would be primary review sure but it seems to turn to this question i just want to make sure i understand what's actually in front of us because this thing has been around for a long time as everybody knows it's been a while as there was a history on this the things that are in front of  questions for you in that regard i have searched citi group and i can't see anywhere were talks about statutes of limitations were procedural rules at all and might correct about them i'm missing something you correct ok the second question i've got is since you say we are title to delaware law is it not the case that the boeing statute is delaware on well here's here's why it's how they all f is that does not answer his question i mean yes the borrowing statute is there a law but the city quick decision recognizes at the internal affairs doctrine exclusively occupies the relationship exclusive that would include i would delaware as a matter of our policy when it comes to these kinds of things would bar a bad statute of limitations that's not a state of pennsylvania it's a state of delaware law so you've got there were so what's your complain today we're answering to if you say quote most of the words claims were time board before the two twenty action was filed most so are you with knowledge but there are some cause of action are not time bar did not addressing my opinion none if you ask me what the director of the role conclusively established that most were not all where i was i'm referring to brief to the writer to be very clear not to overstate the record i think the fact show that if the then there's a group of claims where the court found if we pick the state they expire by that date but we think the facts are pretty clear that they all expired years before and then the contract claim is only want to sort of in that last category and with that last category it was putting mr elkan head mr gorman that it was a raid of altering what had been his understanding agreement of how this was supposed to work and it jumped him ahead in a way that breached their understanding so we take to the business is that right correct and that would support as a matter of evidence according to your position the subsequent distribution  effectively be damages here if you just contending he did not receive the sheer which according to the seventy five twenty five capitalisation that was intended here twenty five percent of the profits would read all through that and there were monies that crowed afterwards why isn't it perfectly legitimate for them to say as as i said i assume he's going to say history from self i never said that the signing of the document self by itself suddenly created a side of the images i'm saying but that this was a breach of contract and things happened that caused damages and bad the line of argument the fact  that you put on separate evidence about damage from the sighting how does that how does it get you out of the the watch a quick rule of the argument if that's if that is their argument you're the again you're raising a lot of was addressed squarehead one for years and we've seen years a spike have said i had independent separate damages and if you look at the pretrial discussion with but just start at the post trial he he was quite upset about it he said you told me you're going to put on separate damages did you know and so there's a lot of theories kind of could have had and played a promise to have but never put four and then but they did go to trial and you have to have damages you can't double the covering this place just simply said i was damaged here's a number pick a claim that i don't think you're permitted to do you have to tie the damage a specific number to an action you can't just gross it up and say figure it out jerry and that's what the strength of did and that's why it was i legal remedies but that's neither here nor there be and with him it's for him it's here or there but i mean as a real matter that's not something we can go back in time and fix but going forward in time your knowledge ing that the most you could puzzle because i'm not sure it sounds like you're saying yeah i didn't i didn't make a case with respect to this one claim it but then it seems like you're also it we accept that argument then our damages right now in nominal damages but what i said at trial well we don't have independent him we don't want to work up we want twenty five percent for this and twenty five percent for that ok