hasten to note that we have number one alleged substantial misconduct in our complaints and number two that the district court has upheld one of our complaints under rule twenty three point one is heightened final ruling did recognize that you that the court must go transaction by transaction claim but claim now the court explained why would you rather mention earlier which is that isn't the key here because again on the securities fraud d claim there was just one which together which of course now with the district court when concluding that the allegations of the audit committees awareness of a disputed employment retaliation followed up by an investigation of that nothing new alleged so what is that me in terms of the securities case pretty straightforward talked about that earlier which it's really about are there damages in that case attorney's fees  possibility right i disagree with that profoundly your honor because a claim of securities fraud has elements one of those elements is loss causation and just because in the event the court decides to  securities fraud means if there's no securities fraud there could not have been a breach of duty in causing securities i don't think that's very complicated i think the idea that you just because it element of a securities fraud play matters and just because there's a dismissal on one doesn't mean that therefore there was securities fraud committed and somehow got off on a technicality but but the core fallacy i think we're hearing here is that there can somehow be a standalone claim for allegedly inadequate internal controls that do not cause a business loss companies are not in the business of internal controls internal controls are a tool a tool to help a company when it's an issue in its product selling its product to do so in compliance with law  compliance with regulations in compliance with financial disclosures of a life without an allegation that somehow alleged inadequate or improper turn of controls parts some business loss that could be speculation not even coming close to an interesting fact but more to the point the only reason in this case that allegation could have even remote possibility at some point the future is because of the reputation even plausibly alleged remotely so it's again all really related back to these other lawsuits which unless until they are proved with in those cases action it doesn't get rid of all of it and as far as we're concerned a dollar of extra cost that would not be necessary to spend is a dollar to many what's the harm system i really your honor i prescience that it makes a difference speak because if you two to know whether there is a case pending or not individual directors named as defendants need to report that to their personal insurance carriers  refiling and putting aside the additional cost at least in the new case will have clarity as to what it's about again you know it's hard for me to tell a client you know you have the option of moving to dismiss the claims against you so you don't have to report that and have that sort of on your permanent record as a blemish or don't worry just leave it there and we'll see what happens later you know if it were me i'd want to get it