that level of granularity judgment this court's opinion by aged one concludes by saying we wish to discourage the suggestion that there can be a leisurely and repeated bite at the apple here's what happened subsequently council you can order these arguments any way you want but i think you would be more helpful to me if you reach the res judicata point second very good you are then what i'd like to go to is directly to the point about the discontinuation rates and what is lead with respect to those what d world there are no safety concerns as hasn't been taken off this is changing the lives of people all around the world in huge quantities it's revolutionary it's safe and it has been successful from a business point of view here's what the record evidence is with respect to discontinuation and the allegations attributed to dr thrower in the so called shepherd center you heard counsel say in the summer of two thousand and fourteen whatever research was done there was such that it concerns were expressed he called them managerial employees or low level employees about safety and then of the four hundred patients treated by that one center two hundred of them were taken off the drug they were discontinued that's the summer of two thousand and fourteen later in two thousand and fourteen in december of two thousand and fourteen this is than the company would have hoped for an oral multiple sclerosis truck that's significantly after the information communicated to the company with respect to the the shepherd center and multiple times the after throughout that class period the company repeatedly gives cough cautionary language about tech but there was growth rate timing of that statement relative to the statement that opposing counsel quoted about discontinuation rate that was made by biogen but so that was in december of two thousand and fourteen subsequently there are other statements from discontinuation rates not that very hearing that came before and then subsequently said by jim says and we don't see them we don't see them very the evidence that the plaintiffs point to disable what you said about the discontinuation rates must not be true and indeed busbee must have been you know these subs are statements must be made with yet or can be forward there's nothing in the evidence nor could there ever be that would suggest that biden statements about those discontinuation rates are wrong because the information is public in terms of what the sales are for tech figure every quarter every quarter you see what they are and what happened what happened with the benefit of hindsight is exactly what by announcement of the p m l is that in the fall of two thousand and fourteen it took a while for that to be absorbed into the market and then we now know what happened afterwards well when you look at the full year two thousand and fifteen numbers the whole year turned out to again be a spectacular success the growth rate tech the dera two thousand and fifteen over two thousand and fourteen was twenty five percent there's nothing that accurate with respect to the disclosures of discontinuation rates and indeed the cautious language that is throughout the class period is entirely consistent that being consistent with the very things stated by the so called confidential witnesses so in some region saying my sales screeched to a halt or drop dramatically but i lost twenty percent well then that's all well and good that's one particular reach one particular sales rep the sure the discontinuation rate is the rate in which patients who are on the drug whatever reason come off that they can't tolerate or for some reason that's one of the for actis that goes into the growth rate other factors will be the number of new patients and the expansion up the discontinuation rate as best as i know was in the mid teens as publicly disclosed by the company and stayed the same there's no allegation anywhere that that it was otherwise i would if i might absent questions about that one less please you made characterize it differently than they would characterize it but from your perspective is there anything in the record from any of the confidential witnesses or plaintiff side that spoke directly to discontinuation as opposed to drop off in sales i think the best thing is indeed what players point to which is the allegations about the doctors in the shepherd center because what they said again before by agents december statement they said we discontinued t hundred of our four hundred patients that's discontinuation and it's entirely consistent with the company's public disclosures if you would indulge it i would like to address the race to the car race to cut argument be it briefly and i one would dress it not because it will result in any real efficiency in this case of course not the district court already did the work twice and this court is now doing the same work twice but that shouldn't be a final judgment should happen one time and what happened here is an end run around the p s l array and i respectfully submit using claim preclusion in this case to stop this from happening is entirely consistent with the supreme court's recent china agra tech here's why and want to go back to what really happened here so what happened here is the case was filed this is august of two thousand and fifteen pursuant to the very unique protections of the p s l our way public notice goes out anyone who's interested anyone who's interested in taking control of that case any shareholder could step forward and bring a case and indeed in the ninety represent the class they made a representation that they want there was a public notice and effectively a competitive process for the very lucrative position of the lead plaintiff and more so we counsel the court in doing that what happened the plaintiffs in this case appointed in case one the g b our group got to be the lead plaintiff case didn't go well for them at the district court they appealed while that appeal is pending the same orders approved by obviously here because of the different requirements of the statute that we're dealing with compared to rule twenty three you don't have to meet all the requirements for certification level twenty three class  with your first premise it's not obvious that because there was no rule twenty three sort of a case in a can't buy and here's why the the supreme court's taylor case cited cites a rule twenty three class as inclusive of the kind of thing that can give adequate representation the issue here is we will the people who aren't the lead plaintiffs in the first class have due process but is it going to be good enough and you combine the opportunity that there could be something other than a fully certified rule twenty three  where somebody who represent other parties has not been certified as a representative of the rule twenty three i think the best case is the supreme court's trying to to the supreme court say enough with this serial american pipe tolling for successive class action since in that securities case there were three rounds of cases here we only have two and the supreme court said looking at looking at the protections of the p s l or a public notice you can come in and you have a chance to take care of this be in charge of this case if you want to dish your approval selection of the lead plaintiff with rule twenty three in mind side of a case in which the court was focused on representative so you conclude that somebody could represent them behind others even when there had been no certified there is no right situation for clean preclusion and consider the counterargument for a moment here it is well to start adequate representation that starts the argument now one of his arguments is that it's not final argument i believe as to a main statute where we were questioning why their courts have the power to imply new terms that the legislative body has itself  declined to put in thank you thank you