devastating effect the death had on those sales consequently investors were misled were significantly damaged the point is provided extensive evidence of the defense knowing fraudulent conduct both in the first substantive complain interviews were being were being done and that first complaint was filed that substantive complain by only plaintiffs we submit had enough information to get past the motion to dismiss they said importantly we have not noticed the change in discontinuation rate so when you said this was false i expected to ben see the next paragraph saying in fact discontinuation have not noticed a meaningful change in discontinuation rate as compared to the teens rates that were running higher than the company would have hoped for in december what is what allocation should i go look to to see that that i say i've got ten dollars in this chart here and you want to allege that that's a false would i do think you need to come in and say that there isn't ten dollars in the jar investigation being conducted in the different words that well when an individual does want to speak to you if you're just asked if you follow questions you would have been able to find this information and that's certainly no way to run into that see if certainly we don't have subpoena power we do have the ability to trace somebody in how to speak to us this is done through the willingness of individuals that were former employees of the company and that's where you start and when individuals are willing to speak in the first instance and there was willing to speak in the second instance i certainly think that we have occurred it case until after that privilege review and i think it's important to understand that this is not a situation where the plaintiffs lost he said we need to find new information this information was filed with the wolf if you don't rule sixty motion within and said essentially because as lee pointed pick us as lead counsel to take this case forward and were successful in that regard we had a hearing before the district court judge and the district court judge asked the plane is how much time do you want for your amended complaint it gave them exactly what they asked for and in so doing and this is at that november hearing the district court did entirely consistent what this grant the motion to dismiss and then trying to come forward with another complaint the plaintiffs made the choice to proceed as they did and went forward and had oral arguments in april did not move and then trying to come forward with a new complaint it would bottom here that cannot be an abuse of discretion to not allow that kind of behavior particularly counsel begins months in advance that's the argument with respect to the motion of a cape particularly not i'm here to play just don't have a case where they say they've just run out of time the problem isn't a lack of time it's an absence  and that's made plain by the allegations of the sales people who say well my sales dropped dramatically with no context if confidential witness fried selling in north carolina made two sales last year and one sale this year sure those sales have dropped dramatically but they're not going to be a drop in the bucket i did we get in this class period there's over one hundred and thirty five houses patients on the drug that's publicly disclosed at the beginning of the class period and it continued to grow the allegations about dramatically reduced sales as they did is they are albeit colorfully day with plenty of edgy educators and adverse don't hold any water in the case where the plaintiffs do not and cannot contend that the publicly reported revenue and sales numbers are anything but one hundred percent accurate every quarter over quarter over quarter sales went down by less than ten percent that was one quarter and the company disclosed not challenged but that was a quarter of the way the calendar broke that there was a week less of shipping days and that they were actual sales numbers publicly reported further with respect to the allegations in the amended complaint which the district court in his decision notes that he considered i want to clear up what may have been a little confusion the moment ago dr thrower from going that way had to center in his declaration he testifies that he did his work in the spring of two thousand and fourteen and he came to the conclusion by again months prior to the public reporting of the death it's entirely this connected from the plaintiff's theory of the case and it's entirely consistent not inconsistent with what biogen had been reporting to the investing public concerns about the discontinuation rates and a moderation of sales growth both of those things are entirely consistent with the experience of dr thrower in atlanta and dr throwaways dr thrower declaration is consistent with plaintiff's theory of the case him what he did was independent and prior to his announcement in october of two thousand and fourteen of a patient who tragically died of months later another biogen executive speaks to that issue and says this is certainly one of the dynamics that we've seen that we didn't expect was a modest but not trivial increase in  continuations of type for there that's seven months later it makes sense from a commonsense point of view that data about this continuations which is only even that talked about as modest but not trivial put in context these allegations with respect to discontinuation i would submit that the allegations with respect to discontinuation taken in context i respect the senate don't rise to that level but there's certainly nothing that would suggest any specific facts in the event of a plane or anywhere else that would have suggested that the statements pointed out were falls at the time they were made or were made with recklessness sufficient to support a cla sales persons performance review documents and revalue rating the sales person's performance they're talking about events with respect to detect the dera and the p m l issue and that having in effect consistent with what the company said but it's not specific enough to give you any sense of magnitude or time it's similar very similar in nature to the allegation where you know one of the confidential witnesses says the sales took a hit or another once that's where they dropped precipitously well from what to what when and in how you know it what sort of magnitude on a comprehensive basis if you contrast stress the allegations here with something like this court's decision in cabletron we've got comprehensive company wide allegations reports showing massive massive inventories a mess of the accounts receivable being built up reviewed by senior management they couldn't be further apart from one another the plaintiffs say in their papers it's hard to imagine consider the notion of factor what's what's uncontested here are the opposite of the plus factors for one example unlike many cases where you see remarkably well tried trading by senior executives here the very people being accused of securities fraud it's undisputed become great if they hold the security in greater amounts during the class period it's counter intuitive i don't respectfully think the need go there if you chose to the allegations i suspect will be found deficient for very much the same reasons as that this report painstakingly went through them and still found thank you very much and  of his sales quarter one in twenty fifteen thirty seven percent quarter to thirty five percent down from inquiry one quarter to twenty foreseeable over one hundred percent he was it he was far exceed sales projections they were setting for him why is it important because this was a huge loss could one last ninety one billion dollars shortfall this while while executives are saying well we're having moderation we're not seeing for example when we look at relative growth of the product there's nothing that's the signal that says it's not consistent with historical averages that was not what was happening and that's not with him and we do know is c e o in ten was talking about meetings between the head of the know that we understand the standards are strict but they should be impossible and enough we have here we have an investigation that was continuously being conducted and has merit and appears celebrate certainly is was established to to