notation of a deficiency which we contest was even a deficiency because it was consistent with the published e c f rules but nevertheless even if it was a deficiency  still does not affect the the our right to file as of right the amend the complaint and it's a district that this record did look at the amended complaint and found that it was insufficient right right and i think it's true but there are a couple of aspects of it that the court didn't consider number one the court didn't consider that st of all there was there was absolutely no briefing on the additional facts alleged in the  amended complaint before the district judge so and the district judge was looking at it from a standard of rule fifteen you know for leave to amend and what's what's the difference in terms of the standards from judging a complaint and the judge looked at the complaint and clearly the reason that nothing in the amended complaint was going to change the outcome right right so but the judge overlooked a couple of things number one is there was a there was a new  x set forth with respect to a different type of violation which was the violation with respect to making a one time you know limited time sensitive offer that's  they did one time off or something like that he had a footnote where he said this wasn't one of those situations where i really read the footnote was that he didn't even see that the letter made and a settlement offer but when we just why don't we just talk about the merits of that argument ok it doesn't say this is a one time offer a unique offer it's never coming back right it just has a time limit a deadline which most offers have and it says stand by to call if you want to talk more about  says this it says this offer is time sensitive and must be received in our office on or before october nine two thousand and eighteen but i think that's a very severe case every saying this is a unique opportunity were saying they were saying is when and every i was was was balancing the problem of a lot of on the one hand that basically it's pretty standard in the industry that there's going to be more offers but you don't tell them that up front because that undermines the your attempt to try to settle it in in the letter that you're sending and then at the same time though it misrepresents the consumer that this is their only time and she doesn't pay  correct it would have to be that any time a debt collector puts a date on and on and off for that that would be deceptive if they were potentially going to settle at some lower amount or some amount less than the full value at some later time i think that would be extraordinary i think you consumer operates on the assumption that stores when they want discounts that collectors when they want this can whoever runs discounts that they always have the ability to bring it back right  i mean just to point out i mean every pointed out of other settlement offers they were talking about we would like to or feel unique opportunities satisfy your outstanding debt time's a wasting act now and receive thirty percent off if you pay by march st none of those said this actually said this is the only offer you're going to get the what what i think every says is that those kinds of statements yet when you make an offer and you put a deadline and you say and certainly here they add expressed term they say this is a time sensitive offer that without more and that's why they came up with that with the safe harbor language of saying you know we're not obligated to renew the offer the only time i've not found is last year judge donnelly wrote but in that particular case the letter actually used the safe harbor language and she said obviously there's no misrepresentation that this is a one time on the law for because it used to sit in our village we just ask about the other claim briefly you're not arguing that the interest or in the late charges we the contractually or legally prohibited in this case in fact in your st can point you said that the charges were interest charges w government guaranteed student loans this was a private student loan this is there's no there's no reinstatement here there's no opportunity like there was in the a vial of versus reliant case where there was an opportunity for reinstatement this is this was a charged off a private student loan that was bought by that buyer so that's the case and then sixteen and two if i have addresses both taking actions that are legally prohibited as well as actions that are not intended to be taken then after mr kleiman who's filed a complaint brought us in as co counsel and we looked at it based upon what we were able to ascertain  looking at other cases involving us asset the buyer that the debt buyer doesn't charge interest and from that we we felt it was legitimate to to allege that they don't charge don't allow the buyer to accrue interest it's this static amount that may very well be the case here but we don't know that yet but certainly we know that by their behavior that they act consistent with your st and was such a source complaint you you know to set set out which you just have we're not to destroy corn obviously but you've had an opportunity to argue why your complaint and i would submit given the the procedural setting of this that the this this this court shouldn't a court i'm sorry no i'm just your lights on anything else that you would like to tell us at this point nothing else or others thank you thanks mr stern will reserve decision at this point get a decision