notice envelope has printing over the postage meter and judge really briefly i believe the answer is that the postage which is the july second date was in fact a postage meter we're all familiar with post each me the bank to mail each notice by first class mail using only twenty seven cents postage rather than the normal thirty seven cents so that's a story in tool that enables the bank to get a discount on a bulk mailing and also met your honor that it's also alleged that the plaintiff mr cox who is a retired attorney in fact asked the bank to provide the forms thirty six hundred which would have demonstrated clearly on what day this mailing took place in the bank refuse to provide that and we've alleged that that we did subsequently obtain several forms thirty six hundred involving the bank and that there is evidence that might prove that in fact this was done on july third we  know that and no mailing could have occurred before july second because that's the only day that the postage the meter was actually placed there so we have a look and you know it's interesting because unlike the previous case this case is the direct case where you're talking about a relationship and a material misstatement about the core material fact and it was made in order to induce these investors to believe that they had no choice but to surrender their adventures so you don't have to get into the you know it's unlike many of the cases that the circuit has decided in the broader market theory and in that context it's understandable that you're looking for very precise very specific information and you often have as you had in the earlier case volumes of information or public statements or disclosures here it's a relatively simple transaction but it is  knowingly and intentionally and we've alleged very particularly why it is that the defendants thank of new york knew that what they were saying was false knew that the representation that this is a  and her sworn affidavit which was created on july one uses the past tense she said i deposited it in the mail postage pre paid in new jersey morning we've in fact we know from the says i mailed them post each priest in new jersey yeah and you know i think it's interesting that he and i think this is perhaps where the trial court made it error in that the trial court assumes in so pinion and reaches the conclusion that mr thomas is a low level mail room employee and i submit that that's not our allegation our allegation is that she's a high level enough person the corporate trust department she doesn't say that she works in the mail submit it's appropriate for the court to recognize that people assume the date of the no this is the date of mailing and the other assertion in there which of course is false it is offered in compliance with section four point zero two or three or four of the debenture which in order for that statement to be true the mailing would have to be timely meaning it would have to be not less than dirty  an omission there's an omission to disclose because in fact these dimensional holders were led to believe that they had no choice in security the protection of investors it's all about choice we want investors to be able to make w on full information and accurate information and here you venture holders were misled intentionally by the bank and you can imagine what the what went on in terms of at the end of the day on july one when the bank realizes that they've botched this job they've been given the task by viacom and viacom's board of directors had to me to approve the redemption and then i realize we missed the deadline you can imagine and i the argument that we heard from the plaintiff is any evidence that at the end of the danger life first anyone in authority at the bank of new york realized that the mailing had not occurred there's absolutely no evidence that the mailing occurred correctly is the opposite direction from manhattan from new jersey within the control of the bank as i believe one of your honor assisted me that is that paragraph fifty eight b of the complaint excerpt of record seventeen the only other point i'd like to add is in our discussion of ms thomas relying on to show the falsity of that statement and this is different than many of the cases the court has had to decide because it's not a secondary market case it's not talking about investors in the marketplace this is a wonder one relationship