underwriter sold another sixty three million dollars shares short at thirty eight dollars per share after the announcement a fund manager at capital research told morgan stanley the price was ridiculous and cancelled some more plaintiffs but not the retail purchasers facebook stock closed at thirty eight dollars twenty three cents on the st day of exchange trading but opened at thirty six dollars fifty three cents on the  after morgan stanley in the lead underwriters declined to support their thirty eight dollars offering price in pre market trading we know this because morgan stanley in the lead underwriters made a report of her twenty five million dollars profit by covering much of their green shoe short sale after facebook shares still substantially below the i p o price  delayed because morgan stanley was reportedly having trouble executing changing orders asser the delay facebook stock opened at forty two dollars and boston's st year following what should have been a market  germane to the settlement approval are conflicts between the institutional class and the retail class in this carries action the institutional pursers including the lean plan has had access to research by the three principle reasons the st is that as duly appointed lea plaintiffs under the p s l array believe plaintiffs here were empowered to control the litigation as a whole and therefore have the authority to determine which claims to assert were not on behalf of the class the nd is that they exercise that authority reasonably asserting the exchange act lame against morgan stanley that's at the heart of mr hayes his objection here would have dramatically increased without increasing recoverable damages for instance it would have required us to prove reliance which would in turn have required us to prove market efficiency and the law in the circuit is well would have been challenging here because defendants had a significant causation defense based on the system wide failures experienced on the nasdaq exchange on the st day of trading after the i p o in a di required us to prove scienter which as the court knows is not an element of our section eleven claim doing so would have been challenging here because we would we would have had to prove this i enter of an underwriter in connection with an offering which is no small tas so we made the decision not to assert the claim for those reasons right up front and then we took a very expensive discovery and that discovery confirmed our decision not to assert the claim because it was not substantiated we deposed morgan stanley  including the c e o and chairman of morgan stanley as well as the key witness mr hayes identifies in his reply papers mr michael grimes who is the lead investment banker on the i p o we deposed thirteen underwriter witnesses overall we took a total of discovery which is the greatest amount of discovery i actually have ever seen taken of underwriter defendants in connection with an i p o case focused on the very issues at the center of mr hayes's proffered section ten b claim who in the pricing issues the allocation issues  and the oversubscription issues and we analyzed it and it demonstrated that the claim he wanted us to assert was not substantiated rd there was no prejudice to mr sixteen he elected not to assert himself even though he had every opportunity to and ultimately we disseminated one million three hundred thousand settlement notices in this case and received only two objections which i think speaks volumes about whether the class believes it was prejudiced by the absence of this one particular claim against one particular defendant with respect to his nd contention namely the scope of the reed released the fails to show his use  vented all his adequacy in congo and conflict arguments very thoroughly in connection with final approval earlier the classification stage found that they were without merit and mr hayes has not proffered any reason why those