the next matter on our calendar is seven west fifty seventh street versus citi group and others everyone else actually thank you effected the value of the bond portfolio of course so bond investors are generally yield investors and yield investors want there to pay an interest rate that matches current interest rates and so as liable rates go up interest rates go up and the value of bonds that pay out a lower interest rate goes down because the yield is a function of the price you pay on the part by you in the current interest rate so if you're buying a lower interest rate bond you have to pay a lower price to get the yield that you want they were put there one step away from the direct effect of libor on this bond portfolio is that correct what the bonds are and we're not saying that any holder of a bond that dropped in value because of the inflation of library would have anti trust ending to sue what we're saying is that that was a direct effect of the inflation of live work and then one of the price fixers used that effect of its market manipulation to profit from the plaintiff right so citibank had issued libr denominated loans to the plaintiff that had these bonds pledged as collateral the value of the collateral dropped as a direct effect is as alleged in the complaint as a direct effect of the upward manipulation and then one of the price fixers for use that that affected for clothes on the loan and profit and the defendants have not identified higher interest rates and so they would not be efficient enforcers they were not have standing to sue with respect to these anti competitive acts and the defendants have been identified anybody haad that some plaintiffs are arguing suppression and other plaintiffs are arguing inflation now some of the admissions that have come out of the government investigations have been the banks themselves have admitted that they colluded to artificially inflate and depress or keep the same why a bore so bent on what they are marketers right there needs of the moment is what they said then the needs of the moment  in this instance in the fall of twenty two thousand and eight was that the banks needed cash right so here the allegation is that they artificially inflated liable for it caused the value of the bonds to fall and citibank capitalized on that by taking the collateral and selling it and getting direct result of the manipulation of live or so we think you know the district court said that the plaintiff didn't have wasn't an efficient force or because he didn't have direct dealings with the bank well that's just factually incorrect his injuries don't come just from the from the depreciation the temporary fall in the was litigated in the state or system and it was found to be commercially sound don't these claims now go right to the booty of the loans they do but right and so so we're not saying that this is an unrelated these are unrelated claims but what we're saying is that there was fraudulent concealment on the part of the defendants this court held in schwab last year as you know that it's the same type of scheme that plaintiffs were prevented from learning about it until at least the middle of march twentieth eleven district court below held in this case that there was fraudulent concealment and so the statute of limitations was told and even more the specter rescued a car there that the plaintiff was not put on notice inquiry until at the earliest march fifteenth two thousand and eleven but then the district court held that within nine days of the beginning of notice inquiry the plaintiff was required to assert its creek o claims in the state court proceedings well that's just impossible basically the beginning of notice inquiry doesn't even begin the statute of limitations period that doesn't begin until a point much a point later when a plaintiff knows or has  reason to know of his injury and his cause of action here as alleged in the complaint and this must be taken as to at this point the plaintiff didn't have knowledge or reason to know of his cause of action or his injuries until after he had satisfied the state court judgment in may of two thousand and twelve you can see from that from the complaint looking at the complaint in this case all the work that has to be done between being put on notice inquiry in a case like this and bringing a valid cause of action the plaintiff needed to fight the hind to find counsel who knew about these actions leading to higher economic experts the economic experts needed to gather information about the relevant markets and interest rates and then do an analysis even that here the defendant filed this case this case twenty three months after the beginning of notice inquiry and even now the defendants are saying it doesn't have enough detail it's not sufficiently particularized they haven't words there were public revelations before the state court system was lost it was completed about before the appeals were complete i for the appeals were complete it's true but i mean you can't a plaintiff can't be expected to bring a claim a cause of action until he either knows or has reason to know about it and even then you're given some time to put your case together have to make an application to amend to add the new allegations right and i think the more important point is that the point at which a plaintiff through reasonable investigation should have known about these claims that's a factual question and this court has held including in p p p illinois that a plaintiff doesn't need to plead reasonable investigation or reasonable diligence in a complaint in order to over in order to establish fraudulent concealment  so you know that is an issue that can be litigated as the case goes forward but at least at the motion to dismiss stage we think the district clearly erred in dismissing both of these claims thank you reserved for bottle well here at the bank and you are presenting factors for the efficient force or the first one is clearly not met here mr solo's too indirect because his bond was not pegged to lie board his bond is the value that fell so to play out the chain under the allegations you'd have to have the banks conspiring to do inaccurate submissions then the library being set but then after that that libel or rate has to somehow generally affect the interest rate and then the interest rate is somehow generally inversely reflects the bond but not at all it even under the allegations to any one to one ratio after that then there was a margin call and then there was a margin call that couldn't be met by mr solo then after that there was a default then after that there was a sale and only after that which have interest on it so all of those steps removed are to attenuate of a chain of causation and particularly when you look at this idea of there being more in fis loan first of all as far as the loan allegations that they make there's no allegations that there were any loan payments during this the relevant period there's nothing like that in the brief and of course there have to be allegations to meet for the motion to dismiss and then also on the amount for the interest rate to fall which was the other libel or they again that's even further attenuated that the bond because that only arises after the the bond that a fault the margin sale so in that chain of causation is even further iraq's a point out on all of these of course these issues have been litigated through race judicata i would also point out your honor that there's this speculative nature of the damages that it goes back to the point i was just talking about that it's not a one to one letter gated and found that libor was manipulated correct you know in the state court it was found that this sale of these bonds and the interest rate and all of the payments that was all adjudicated including that to fall interest rate in state court and there's a judgment on that so that is race judicata they're trying to get out of the race judicata now by trying to argue fraudulent concealment considerations about the causation in the chain there and of course in the schwab case it wasn't a antitrust case but it was a common law fraud this court held there that non libel or index were too far removed and that there was no proximate cause ation so when you look at the facts here you understand that the pressing of the official force are and how the bonds are at the core here and the other two allegations they try much about labor to have already been adjudicated and do are even further removed other three points on that first of all it was a litigator in state court and this was never raised they do litigate that interest rate their second of all state court was about his collateral this was this was loans and had taken out oh i'm sorry your hon the the manipulation and that is not the injury that they claim arose from the the default of the bonds all of that comes through only because mr solo did not meet the requirement to maintain a minimum amount of collateral of these bonds were not libel or pegged after that there was a margin call the margin call was it met this bone here in both for example there were issues that were raised below that the court had not ruled on and they were addressed as alternative grounds for firm and schwab it was the question of causation after there had factors that would affect that rate and that's part of the efficient force or also because of the speculative nature of the damages but let's just let's assume that happened let's assume that happened wouldn't that then create a upward pressure on the payments that would do the lending in fact their arguments are inconsistent your honor because if you even look at for example the the library pegged default interest rate part of the time they would have been significantly advantaged by that and for about two years before they satisfy the judgment and arguably that would offset anything that happened within the seven week period so yes that that's why these arguments and allegations just don't make any sense and it goes with that make them less than efficient force if they if they it standing in the claim here is not rooted in any injury having to do with the loan their injury in their complaint is focused and rooted in the valuation of the bond going down last council because i read it differently i thought they did make a separate claim as to the interest rate injury which was paid to leave bore and leave or was upward put a pushed up or illegally to the race judicata argument was only raised in response in separate briefs to the statue limitations and for good reason they're very different time triggers the statue of limitations was a for your time when this suit was brought in february tw that february two thousand and nine was the trigger here the judgment was not entered intel march of two thousand and eleven as judge chin pointed out the judgment was not satisfied till may of two thousand and twelve there was abundant information in the public no barrier to doing that why there is the matter on appeal so they had more than a year after the library index litigation was already pending to have brought this to state court i think the federalism concerns reinforce the interest in race judicata typically for the finale or for the judicial resources to be used efficiently the last point i would just make is the twamley point even though it wasn't reach below it was fully briefed below and fully briefed in that court and the implausibility of this just is obvious from being said the allegations here that sixteen international banks conspired on a daily basis not once but every single day for the period of seven conspiratorial banks doing this to inflate libel or at the height of the financial crisis and insight in three hundred one hundred eighty degree turn from all of the other gala geishas that this was speed is suppressed and also next bond and the subsequent calling for the margin whether mr solo could meet that margin call and what would happen when it was lost all of those really to state it and the last p of a conspiracy and there it was because they said well at least it meets the standard because there was a cia dia the because of the financial security that perception this would be directly contrary to that thank you thank you your the bond insuring separately from the interest rate injury well it's all part of our interaction all part of your argument but i think separate injury is a much larger part of the injury comes from the devaluation of the collateral and the seizing of the collateral so that's what we focused on more are the plaintiff was injured to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars that money went from the plaintiffs pocket into the pocket of citibank and so it's crazy to me to stand here and listen to my friend on the other side saying well there's no directness the injuries to attenuate it the money went from the plaintiff to the defendant it's hardly indirect and we're not asking for a limitless anti trust standing here as i said we're not saying that any holder of a bond that suffered a devaluation because of the library inflation has standing if some you know bank on elm street and had foreclose on the loan that would be a much harder case to make here you have one of the price fixers taking advantage of its market manipulation to profit directly from the plaintive i don't know of any case saying that a direct directly injured party doesn't have standing to sue there a financial transaction here the defendant ended up on the right side of it claim if on the wrong size the claims are rico claims and any trust claims that there isn't a claim a stand alone claim that they had to pay higher interest  inflation of life or in this case i'm sorry not part part of the state court judgment that the plaintiff had to pay incorporated the interest that the bank that was unpaid and that interest rate was higher because the courts held that the interest rate was commercially reason but that's because labor had gone up right at the at the time of the state court litigation there was no plaintiff didn't have any knowledge or reason to know of its rico or libre claims now they said that we forfeited our claims by not raising them below but the district court even in this case understood that we were raising fraudulent concealment it held that that that at least inquiry notice had been delayed imitation with respect to both even with respect to resit a cut in the twenty eight thousand decision the district said well ok notice inquiry was delayed until march fifteen and eleven so i don't know why they're talking about two thousand and nine the district court already held that there was inquiry didn't happen until two years later this court held the same with respect to you know similar types of allegations and that even that kind of notice which was that the articles about the government investigations wasn't necessarily enough to put the plaintiff on notice of everything you needed to know to bring its claims there's a reason plaintiffs are given some time to put together their evidence and that reason is reflected in the twamley arguments here you are a fast talker i'm sorry you want to present you're not the first person to tell me that so i apologize for the red light at the red light is on so i want to get it all in you know we don't think this court should decide the twamley issues in the first instance but i would just say again that the defense some of the defendants have admitted that they sometimes have colluded to inflate libel or to meet the needs of the moment and so it's surprising to hear those are those allegations described as implausible if the court doesn't have any other questions i will if you're talking to you both very lively argument