don't actually like to start with at the end with the kit with the issue of corporate c enter and the reason i want to do that is because it really highlights what the district court missed here with respect to the underwriting issue is that there was effect of exclusion of more plausible inferences in the complaint that we're dealing with here at a corporate level picking your basis this is not without a corporate level is fraud and not error so we're correct that well i think with respect to the corporate level and the underlying accounting for that to place your bets we dealing with fraud here because what you're dealing with with respect to the do with accounting quote that restating the complaint say about the top of the pot the very first sense they're talking about with respect to the control environment is that it was an inappropriate tone at the top with respect to how hurts complied with their obligations and then so what their party is the defending created a specifically referencing defendant for story here because they identify him as as but i would say the main culprit here they say he is if you look at if you look at the allegations in the complaint draw the differences in our favor there's nothing there's nothing we statement itself or the complaint that says anything about mismanagement but about what we talked leadership in there and you think they've been out of line you may be reliable cars or maybe see enter i think that the resignation in the in the context of the allegations here suggests that there was at a minimum  the idea that the strong inference that they either intended it were so reckless that they just completely disregarded well i think there's that to the point i mean with respect to the tone of the top as as the main argument with respect to their pressuring you cite you look at three years worth of gross revenue with that percentage i would look at what the terms of gross revenue that i think that that's a red herring we're looking in terms of of the income that they derived and that's one hundred thirty two million dollars with an income that shouldn't have i'll give you when you come back going to but i want you want to see if you can give us that source of that o setting stretch targets and asking and putting pressure on people to meet their their sales and revenue goals this was this was pressure put on accounting people understand there are going to be no no we in fact have said that when the c e o tells people who are responsible for putting the numbers together you better make the numbers you had better make the numbers  the communicate effectively your job is on the line if the numbers don't come out right that it doesn't take a written memo about fraudulent accounting practices to communicate to them i want to see these numbers and i don't care how you get there that's that's what i pay them to be arguing what's wrong with their argument there is no specific allegations that the c e o said anything like that it's just it's not specific statements of putting pressure on people and i think that most corporations in america have a pressurized operating environment some extent in this case after the fact there's an investigation that deems that the operating environment to be inappropriate but i don't think it's right for the c e o to put pressure on people even after the fact the company deem it appropriate and just add on to that it's not a i'm sorry is it inappropriate to put pressure on accounting people again their argument is this was pressure on the numbers of people not on the people in the field could those numbers until we get to our financials are some specific thing directing the person to commit fraud but there's nothing like that here it's just a general and specific thought about if even if the allegations fail to plea anyone else but they raise  actually as the district explained the misstatements considerably more measured than that it says that there were in certain instances an inconsistent and sometimes inappropriate time of the top and that there was a conjunction from that and lots of other factors things like medical conflicting business initiatives and legacy systems and not personnel who were knowledgeable or stories to conjunction you know you're not implying that this was coincidence and there was a cause all wine drawn between the inappropriate tone and recklessness is whether it was actually known or was so obvious that it must have been known that there was a risk of misleading statements and i don't but there are any allegations in this complaint to suggest that it was so obvious that it must me anyone at the top of the company was aware of these all these other factors that might have led to these problems you know our patients of that nature and so with the statement says which made us why upon is that all these factors together led to these problems of the company and interest on  d the existence of the twenty five one trading plans means there's you know there's no fire here there's not even really smoke you have any is there anything the record we can look  four you've got the line about the trade in only the very next minute you can go ahead and give the explanation if you want but the question i was asking and i'd like you to answer that is is there anything in the record that shows when the ten p five one plants are entered into you know there is nothing  page and if there is nothing in the record that shows when they were entered into how can they be of help to you since conceivably if you accept there are live argument this plays right into in the midst of the fraud right and i think that what she did in addition to that was to exercise options and sell immediately at the same day so that their sales are actually they are sales  there are cases that said talk about them being treated as sales because he was still simultaneously but he actually increased the amount of money his personal money during the class period up implementing the accounting that's my understanding it wasn't wasn't he a guy who should have known if there were actually diffuse and pervasive accounting problems somebody who should have known own up to the fraud word obviously you can't do that at the lectern but i am asking the question since still arguments being made by the defense it can't really be inappropriate tone at the top because we were messing up all over then with with the assistance of our forensic accountants we then look at the numbers and came up with the percentages that you find in paragraph one thirty five so as i feel we have what we stated we have it i have not the account account that's easy subject to easy manipulation and what did the work these employees below did is they manipulated it and they manipulated in a way that if you look across the fifteen different items that we talk about here who wait for these results they have every incentive to put the company in the best light and the best thing you can do under the circumstances we're saying these were inappropriate decisions that were made these were inappropriate actions conduct that's what will tell says you're all of this from a reasonable person standard a reasonable person would you see the word inappropriate and