you all right thank you very much and whoever's going to argue make sure you state your name when you step up as well so the record can get it straight what i've decided is to allow twenty minutes for the i'd like to emphasize that and i certainly i have no intention of doing a repeat of the briefs but i'd i'd like to emphasize that even though there's a whole lot of facts discussed in her brief and even though i believe that in our payments and dates that were clearly after the wall street journal article hit the streets how does that affect our analysis well first of all there's two ways  develop after these policies were entered into work for them we have a cli including subject to the right to increase the premium for the increased risk so now we have the obligation which is really nothing more than a request to increase  and they also received at the same time when they receive that article about the same time they received a on the top and a press release from me saying there's nothing to i it informally keep it on the market they knew it might be made that that was the night and that they'd have to file a new drug application they still they still filed an application and said do we know of any possible claim they said no claim before they could claim that the policy was void and they did the responsible thing they hired independent counsel the chorale to investigate the facts that make a determination as to as to underwriters weren't bound was not just expert jackson it was on the testimony of underwriters themselves he quotes admissions by the underwriters in which their own clear lead underwriter testified that he did to talk and all and he asked him the question is anybody aware of any recalls where everyone said no no actually warranted in the expect was issued agreement that they weren't aware of any circumstances that would lead to a recall now they say they did understand the regula to take synthroid off the market it hit eight million patients it takes a year of calibration to take off the market and at least three doctors our people our experts honestly believe that they testified and every single regulatory expert that testified for experts that were working at it at the time either work for competitors or retired they had no dog in this fight and they came in and they were asked did you think this is something that might lead to a recall no the whole purpose of it we dealt with the f d a the whole purpose was to get an a and keep it on the market and have generics so absolutely abbott believe it paid six point nine billion dollars for a drug for the largest drug in there was was was since right so yes they believed it and we had an industry expert that came in and said in the regulatory context if you understand what the f d a was doing here what this was all about there was no there were efforts believe it was entirely reasonable now to respond to the question about the north question that i believe your honor page fifteen thirty nine was the information contained in a wall street journal article materially different than the information contained in question twenty five an answer his answer was yes the question was how was it materially different in my judgment as an always cancel this policy for no other reason the policy the way the policy works i think some rather you mention this is under condition our kids are ready it's automatic but now they could have refused to cover normal entire they could have refused to do anything they could increase risk for good synthroid just acquiring no increase the risk of policies which is why they were charging additional premium so at any time even if they were bumped they could say no we don't like this risk and his judge billick found the reason they didn't do that is because potentially early on what i think is apparent is a matter of law and the needs from the quote that your honor want before us and that is mr leahy testified that they knew well that he investigated this for five weeks and testified he was f them nonetheless when they sued us two years later they advanced as an excuse for failing to rescind for two years that they did not know they have a new anything but before july first and that is what judge bill calls the turning point in his opinion and that i believe as a matter of law was a pretext because their lawyer testified to the exact opposite and that exhibit that they rely on thirteen nineteen supposedly at such new information in it waiting to find out what avenue because they already knew would have it because their own lawyer that testified there's other testimony from him where he says it was or unquote clear to him that i have no the underwriter comida underwriter himself that the case that the santa clause these is i think that that argument might hold water if ultimately nobody knew what was in it in the judgment came in it forty million dollars or fifty million dollars but that's not what happened or what happened here and what triggered leahy's interest or what triggered underwriters to decide they were defrauded was mr leahy went to a meeting on july sixteenth two thousand and two and as you pointed out he had never asked about some three documents he got to a meeting an interviewed abbott people for two full days and by the way never asked a word about synthroid and he found out that this loss was one hundred twenty five million dollars and escalating that's what triggered the sudden interest in synthroid i think the distinction here is this loss here you are ultimately it was determined that abbott said it was one hundred fifty five or one hundred for it and in fact it was so what we're looking is an insurer faced with something that it knew was double far exceeded the policy limits and in that instance under the could just point out from my client's perspective that they brought this insurance fourteen years ago on the pig millions of dollars or they suffered a loss eleven years ago ok and instead of getting the benefit of the bargain their policy they've got a ten year litigation odyssey in which they're still and during that time frame if you take a five percent interest rate which i think under a underwriters rate of return i'm sure is rated up by percent but just at five the the policy limit i do believe that it's appropriate and indeed in an issue where we're essentially without interest or our insurance benefits are cut in half the underwriters are  i was clear on this but in our discussion about why when they hear terms just as often when they accept the premium the the premium was s t oh the application they all signed off on that one and they were told and they were told everything in the final copy is exactly the same so the underwriters scratch when the journal article it you say that it was the equivalent of a claim that's what that's what that's what cabinet said  policy specifically says they can cancel for an increase risk in their only business the gaiters says it prior to july the fear of they believe need formed the belief that it