We can get one. Okay, Mr. Garkins. Good morning, Your Honest. May I please support on Victor Kins of Council to plan C-Pington Goldwater, to lead Council to re-planting the PKN, re-planting for the pellets. I'd like to start with the obvious here, and as a district court, I have to prevent it from pellets opinion of the hit-reepers. I would like to go through about four or five points of the pellets springboard makes. It would have been a benefit to just support as well as fight it's here. You believe pellets helps you? Yes. And I'm using four or five points of the plane. The complaint has the springboard as help. The complaint survives when there are equally inclined differences for and against the center. The allegations must be analyzed collectively, and more recently in Boston scientific for a circuit. It's a fairly recent case, 5.3, F375. In that case, the court held that are limits to the fraud, analyzing the talent here. There are limits to the fraud by hindsight doctrine, and in other words, all facts have been considered here, including those where the in-inconsistent statement, short time to meet the consistent statement. And as Boston scientific panel held, note if there's not need to be alleged, and of course, springboard is held back in both the circuit. But if it is, it should be analyzed to see whether it's consistent with plaintiff theory case
. And finally, I think as a wire panel has been held here, the plaintiff has not had to plead to burbuy a smoking gun. The district court below found in favor of plaintiffs on several issues. It found that all alleged false statements were in the false. It found that the confidential witnesses, this, we, six, should have been pled in the complaint, met the information we plead in the requirements and accept by each other. And it also found that the second amendment complaint did not plead. And finally, it also found that the county principal is involved in non-conplex. Now, given the above, and the arrest of this report made in the SNN analysis, the issues presented in this case, I believe, were best framed by tell-at-the-7s, or the remand. And that is, and I quote, how likely is it that the allegedly false statements that were quoted earlier in the opinion were resolved merely, careless in the state, that the management level based on false information fitted from below, rather than the intent of the scene or a recklessly difference to whether the state is misleading. The Supreme Court's seven-circle on remand held it, receiving the unlikely committee to leave that case here as well. Now, the district court made several mistakes. They overlooked. They overlooked. The district court is a knit. It's a knit or a hay, but it's not a hay. It's a knit. I'd overlooked several facts in the second amendment complaint, as well as holding plaintiffs, we believe, to a very strict pleading requirement, almost out of ninth surrogate. Well, isn't it a very strict pleading requirement? What is now required in this kind of case? I mean, isn't that effectively what Congress and the Supreme Court have told us? Yes, yes. I believe that it's a correct or honor, but I think the district court went beyond that, and beyond the pleading requirements here, the third circuit
. For example, I think the third circuit in Atlanta and Atlanta, specifically rejected the ninth circuit's pleading requirement, because of this concern about what the blindness and recklessness difference would be after, at least in regard to the offending financials by a way. Let me ask you one thing that confuses me about this case is if there were intentional misrepresentations, what were the defendants trying to do? Well, as I've said, the motive is not necessarily necessary, but is there a motive? Yes. What's the motive? Well, we think there's a... To help plaintiffs lawyers by creating lawsuits? I don't believe that's true, Your Honor. What happened in this particular case was, if you want to go to the mode of first here, the company in its SEC violence stated repeatedly that it had to diversify, if you were just catering to one market, it had essentially one product, it can't be produced, you can send it to sales. That was the oxan. Oxan, and they were doing this through acquisitions, it's stock, stock acquisitions, and the SEC violence. You're talking about my yellows, the acquisitions, but the misrepresentations that you are talking about are either two years before or after. Now, that's not true. The second set, when we get to January and February of 2001, there's three sets of falsies in the state that's originated once again through it, where they certainly had the answer. This was a pre-contract, $5 million contract, it wiped out most of our earnings when they took MGV stated. It went from $7 million to $700,000, and that income for the year 2000. And that the pre-contracted, they specifically should have pressed release on that contract with much fanfare, and they also stated... What was missing in that press release? That you think should have been it
. Well, the press release itself, I don't know what I don't believe, we'll let that as the falsies leading, but is misleading here, in January, February of 2001, they had said in the June 30th, 10th, and June, specifically, that they were going to restate for compliance with SAV 101, all licensing contracts for the year 2000, and of course the purchase latch on to the few prior to that, but it's kind of nonsensical, and it's a dual review for SAV 101 to comply with SAV 101 for the previous years, not the parent year, but putting that in the side... I'm still not sure that you've told us what was missing, or what was false. At the end of the year, what was false was, they included $5 million of licensing revenue, and it should have been spread out instead of once. And they did it with SAV 101. They didn't know that until they got the second order. I'm sorry? That came out with the second, when the second order came. Well, we believe that we've let the answer as of the end of the year. I think they knew as of the end of the year because of the review they were conducting, and also the size of the contract. What was... Did you allege in the second amendment to complain that the individual defendants were accountants or had any expertise in accountings? In accounting? We certainly didn't take the additional notice today, and... We can take the additional notice. It's in the record
. That they had expertise for training in accounting. We can take the additional notice of that. The defendant fast was a CEO with the company since 1983, who was also the treasurer or the company during that period of time. The defendant sternly, it was also a CPA, he worked for a half and a half with the CPA farm, and a large CPA farm. He was with the company since 1993, and I think that we also... I don't think that's responsive to my question. That doesn't mean that either of them had expertise of training in accounting. Well, obviously... Is there any allegation in the second amendment to complain that any of the defendants made any accounting decision with respect to any of the three of you stated items? Well, I think that's a rhetorical question. Yes. We believe that the cost... Now, this is where we get into the core business doctrine and also absentee financial management
. We don't believe that they have been this circuit pleased, that management should be able to get off because the chief financial officer spends most of his time in Israel, or his president's office, there's no financial controller. They can be kicked into the KPMG management letter, stated, and this was a neutral reason in internal control. They stated that there were no components or very few components in accounting personnel. Yeah, but the negligence. That's right. That's right. Excuse me. Did you save time for a rebuttal? Yes, three minutes. Go ahead. And... Yeah, I was going to ask the same question that the barrier is there. Yes. Well, we believe certainly that we put sufficient connection between individual defendants and the false attribution to the trends and else. You keep using the phrase throughout your papers and throughout the Second Amendment to complete individual defendants. Yes. But aside from paragraph 39, I see almost no mention of any individual defendant by name
. Well, I believe that we are lumped together throughout. Your honor, in the press releases, every single one, the alleged false mistakes that we have alleged here, Dr. Fast, the defendant Fast is the one who's spoken every single one of them. The Miles Activision, every key contract, side-tech contract, and also the Ross Channel. And so he spoke at each one of them. So the individual, that is put in the complaint, we have that in there, and this spoken in terms of the press releases, they each sign, yes, the C filing, that is making statements under this President in this court, well, of public circuits. And so therefore they did make a statement. Is I read your position only first of the representations, maybe versus Second Amendment together? You argue that defendants knew or should have known that the sales data was false. I'm sorry. You argue that defendants knew or should have known that the sales data was false. The sales data? Yes. But you haven't particularized why. Well, this goes to another error that the district court made. The district court did not look at the additional confidential witnesses that they have in the amendment complaint. The Second Amendment complaint. There were two other confidential witnesses that defended Fast as a micro-manager. They were in meetings. They all received these reports
. The reports were, they got from Genitiva, who was the primary distributor, and also an outside management report. And they discussed these reports at the meetings. And this court held us to a standard. Not only did the discuss these reports at the meetings, but if you really read the reports. And we just cannot, in case law, is clear that the former state received reports and pledged reports, he explained the reports in the complaint, and he cleared the read until absent. And we have to assume that they read them. Well, if the district court was unwilling to assume that they read them, you know, these people get loads of papers, why? He was discussing the reports in periodic meetings in the other individual attendance. And we had confidential witnesses that said that these reports were there when he discussed them. And he overlooked this. What were they discussed for? The purposes of setting commissions? I'm sorry? The purposes of setting commissions? No. It was purposes of reviewing the sales data and inventory data here. How do we know that? This was played by confidential witnesses in the complaint. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Your time is on. Thank you. We'll hear from Mr
. Warren. May I please, the court position? Yes. Apparently we have an echo, but we can hear you. May I please, the court, Irwin Warren, and while God's calling, I just want to ask you a few questions. Mr. Fass, Mr. Sterling, and Mr. Bond, who can address the reports of questioning. Nothing ties Mr. Bond to anything. He didn't even get hired by this company as the CFO, the June of 2001. And I do not see anything in the pleading that could tie him to a site-tech sale in 1999. It increased sale in 2000. Capitalizing expenses for a manufacturing facility in 1999, were oppressed released even in early 2001. It thinks the bond demonstrates why this court is ruling the checking group. Leading made perfect sense, including under the underlying premises from Rule 9V. Judge Ackerman properly declined through an inference of CNN. I disagree with my colleague here that Tell Labs helps the plaintiff
. Tell Labs does not help the plaintiff at all. I don't think you'll find many plaintiff securities who think Tell Labs is helpful. Well, I feel compelled to address it. I'm pointing a bit from my stripped-your-runner, but the fact of the matter is, the PSLRA, Tell Labs, this court's precedent, says plaintiffs must lead back, specific facts. What is the alleged misstatement? Which defendant made the misstatement? What was it that Graves C entered as to that defendant? And then, only then, after pleading facts, may the plaintiff start to see what inferences may reasonably be drawn from the facts. Here, the plaintiff has not led the facts. I'm going to get into that in some detail. Instead, they've led some facts when you don't say anything for a cause of action. Ask the court to then infer that there must be other facts. And then, ask the court to make an inference of C enter based on the inference of facts. This court and the Al Parman decision, I hope I have understood the case correctly, involved falsified sales, which this case does not. It involved reporting of the falsified sales to the headquarters of the company, which this case does not. Included an allegation that the assistant to one of the defendants got that information, which does not appear here, and even then, this court, if I read the case correctly, declined to infer that that person must told the individual defendant. In addition, we began irrespective by calling in the first circuit Boston Scientific and its approach to pleading C enter is not below you. And under whiner, GSC, key and logos, this complaint cannot stand up. Plaintiffs proposed inferences on their face are neither cogent nor compelling. That's the first threshold. But certainly, one could not conclude looking at the pleading's facts, including the public record documents, which is politically, as tell that what says we must do, that a reasonable person would conclude
. The Supreme Court was very interested in rejected the seventh circuit test of whether a reasonable person could conclude in this court. It said no, would conclude. What the... What's our standard of the review? What's our standard of the review? Standard is plenary. He knows it. And that's the only reason I'm not giving more difference to Judge Ackerman who went through this twice and gave them the lead to re-plead. You would think, I think it's 122 pages, second and then to complain, there'd be something in there, wouldn't you? Well, you would have thought that, but with all the respect, there isn't, you're on it. And looked at holistically, especially, which includes C enter, includes Motum, and the Supreme Court in Tel Av says the absence of pleading of Motum is something that goes to the holistic assessment of what would a reasonable person conclude. There's just no there, there, the... On the question of Exantran, there is no allegation. This is a fascinating case in some ways. Right. There's no allegation that a nickel of Exantran sales was mistated or overstated. There's no allegation that one prescription amount was overstated. There's no allegation that any of the Exantran sales in the fourth quarter of 2000, or the first quarter of 2001 were bogus or anything else. This is a case saying we didn't correctly state or identify all of the reasons why it went up. We only correctly stated some of them that have went up. Now, number one, but some reasons are better than other. Yes, certainly are. And certainly stocking up before price rise is a reason going up. That's not going to be reassuring in the future, whereas expanding into a new market is reassuring. Absolutely, you're right. And let me address that because there are several things. Number one, the Judge's Court, I've... Court in the Court in the first micrograph, it says we shouldn't check our common sense of the Court has to work. Why would we ever leave out a reason that we knew in the first quarter, only to come out in the second quarter and say, here's the result so far, sales are going to go down. This is not a company that just laid out the facts in the second quarter and let the market figure it out. It's not like I think I'm getting right, the Merck case where the Wall Street Journal had a few subtracting different sales to figure out what the revenue was and billions for a while. That's coming. I'm sorry
. There's no allegation that any of the Exantran sales in the fourth quarter of 2000, or the first quarter of 2001 were bogus or anything else. This is a case saying we didn't correctly state or identify all of the reasons why it went up. We only correctly stated some of them that have went up. Now, number one, but some reasons are better than other. Yes, certainly are. And certainly stocking up before price rise is a reason going up. That's not going to be reassuring in the future, whereas expanding into a new market is reassuring. Absolutely, you're right. And let me address that because there are several things. Number one, the Judge's Court, I've... Court in the Court in the first micrograph, it says we shouldn't check our common sense of the Court has to work. Why would we ever leave out a reason that we knew in the first quarter, only to come out in the second quarter and say, here's the result so far, sales are going to go down. This is not a company that just laid out the facts in the second quarter and let the market figure it out. It's not like I think I'm getting right, the Merck case where the Wall Street Journal had a few subtracting different sales to figure out what the revenue was and billions for a while. That's coming. I'm sorry. Merck case gets hard here today, but they may not be saying Merck case. I don't understand why my colleagues chose. But the point was, why would you ever do that in the first quarter, only to voluntarily say it in the second, the markets would go down? When did the defendants learn that the increase in those sales in the first quarter and second quarter, would you just stop doing buy-home sales at the end in Tories? Well, when they saw in the second quarter that the prescription dosages were lower and that that might account for it, that they specifically said even though the prescriptions are up in the queue, the second quarter they say, but it's smaller doses. In the third quarter, there's a press release in October, in which the press release, which is right out there in part of the record, the press release specifically said that we have gotten new data, new market research, which indicates the effect on sales and that there was buying an advance of the price increase. So that's in the third quarter. Why would somebody do this and why becomes particularly important? Because motive is a factor. This is one of the few cases I have seen your others, in which not one defendant sold one share of stock ever. Normally, how about my elders? My elders and stockholders get scared that this stock exchange, the exchange of stock is going to fall apart. No, and in fact, there's a total disconnect in time, which Judge Akram and noted. First of all, let me just say, the de Pouille transaction, because that's what wretz we started. The de Pouille transaction, not only was this publicly disclosed, it's got very own press release. But in the second quarter of 2000, the 10Q specifically says, we have sold it, we have earned the money, we've got the $5 million. Nobody could be misled by that. The accountants fought three years later may say, no, gee, you should even know you had it in the bank. And even though there was nothing else you had to do, you had to spread it out. But this court has stressed that we have an efficient market. This court's opinions would have stressed that. Even an inefficient market would understand we got the $5 million in, we're not getting it over time
. Merck case gets hard here today, but they may not be saying Merck case. I don't understand why my colleagues chose. But the point was, why would you ever do that in the first quarter, only to voluntarily say it in the second, the markets would go down? When did the defendants learn that the increase in those sales in the first quarter and second quarter, would you just stop doing buy-home sales at the end in Tories? Well, when they saw in the second quarter that the prescription dosages were lower and that that might account for it, that they specifically said even though the prescriptions are up in the queue, the second quarter they say, but it's smaller doses. In the third quarter, there's a press release in October, in which the press release, which is right out there in part of the record, the press release specifically said that we have gotten new data, new market research, which indicates the effect on sales and that there was buying an advance of the price increase. So that's in the third quarter. Why would somebody do this and why becomes particularly important? Because motive is a factor. This is one of the few cases I have seen your others, in which not one defendant sold one share of stock ever. Normally, how about my elders? My elders and stockholders get scared that this stock exchange, the exchange of stock is going to fall apart. No, and in fact, there's a total disconnect in time, which Judge Akram and noted. First of all, let me just say, the de Pouille transaction, because that's what wretz we started. The de Pouille transaction, not only was this publicly disclosed, it's got very own press release. But in the second quarter of 2000, the 10Q specifically says, we have sold it, we have earned the money, we've got the $5 million. Nobody could be misled by that. The accountants fought three years later may say, no, gee, you should even know you had it in the bank. And even though there was nothing else you had to do, you had to spread it out. But this court has stressed that we have an efficient market. This court's opinions would have stressed that. Even an inefficient market would understand we got the $5 million in, we're not getting it over time. We have it. They know it. Nobody's misled it. And certainly not in June of 2000, as to a Milo's transaction that doesn't happen until February. But even beyond that, the timing of the releases is clearly set up to avoid anybody. Anybody influencing the market? For example, the fourth quarter and year end 2000 results. Somebody might say, well, you have a reason to think that you want the other side to do the deal. You want to get the stock price up because you get a better ratio of the stock prices up. The fourth quarter and year end results were 2000. We're not issued until after the Milo's deal was cut. It was not issued until the exchange ratio had been fixed. And most importantly, the exchange ratio in Milo's was a look back trailing 20-day average. So if this release came out and the market went up, it wouldn't benefit EPG-1 penny because the relevant stock price was the prior 20 days. In addition, you can't even say that well they were trying to type the first quarter earnings to get the Milo shareholders to vote for the House of Public Record back, that this was a private corporation, so it's not your typical G was the public misled. But even then, public record back, the Milo's deal was voted on by its shareholders and it closed on March 19th. How do we know this? Because that was stated in April in the press release in which we disclosed the first quarter results. How could we possibly be trying to influence shareholders to vote by putting out a release a month after they voted and the deal closed? There's no relationship, no correlation at all. There also are no facts that with respect to these confidential witnesses, the old news and then like all of them, Judge Ackerman did look at the confidential witnesses
. We have it. They know it. Nobody's misled it. And certainly not in June of 2000, as to a Milo's transaction that doesn't happen until February. But even beyond that, the timing of the releases is clearly set up to avoid anybody. Anybody influencing the market? For example, the fourth quarter and year end 2000 results. Somebody might say, well, you have a reason to think that you want the other side to do the deal. You want to get the stock price up because you get a better ratio of the stock prices up. The fourth quarter and year end results were 2000. We're not issued until after the Milo's deal was cut. It was not issued until the exchange ratio had been fixed. And most importantly, the exchange ratio in Milo's was a look back trailing 20-day average. So if this release came out and the market went up, it wouldn't benefit EPG-1 penny because the relevant stock price was the prior 20 days. In addition, you can't even say that well they were trying to type the first quarter earnings to get the Milo shareholders to vote for the House of Public Record back, that this was a private corporation, so it's not your typical G was the public misled. But even then, public record back, the Milo's deal was voted on by its shareholders and it closed on March 19th. How do we know this? Because that was stated in April in the press release in which we disclosed the first quarter results. How could we possibly be trying to influence shareholders to vote by putting out a release a month after they voted and the deal closed? There's no relationship, no correlation at all. There also are no facts that with respect to these confidential witnesses, the old news and then like all of them, Judge Ackerman did look at the confidential witnesses. The best argument to him that he shouldn't look at the confidential witnesses. A salesperson in Seattle who is suing the company for wrongful termination and for not getting a commission on a sale she didn't make is somewhat questionable. It's the reality of the hypothetical confidential witness that the court in Higginbaud was talking about, but put that aside. Put aside that no reasonable person in the credit card. When one actually looks at the complaint and what did the confidential witness say and not say it's really interesting? Not one confidential witness says that Simfass ever said, gee, the sales are up because of a price increase. Not one confidential witness says, well I call Simfass, that's why they're not up. They didn't say that they knew that was the truth. Nobody says Mr. Sternlich knew about it. Of course nobody said Mr. Bond knew about it, he wasn't there. Not one person says, forget whether Mr. Fass said it. Not one person said they were present for a conversation in which somebody said to Mr. Fass or Mr. Sternlich, gee, you know the reason the sales went up is because people are buying an advance of a price increase. Nobody says that either. The documents they put in front of you
. The best argument to him that he shouldn't look at the confidential witnesses. A salesperson in Seattle who is suing the company for wrongful termination and for not getting a commission on a sale she didn't make is somewhat questionable. It's the reality of the hypothetical confidential witness that the court in Higginbaud was talking about, but put that aside. Put aside that no reasonable person in the credit card. When one actually looks at the complaint and what did the confidential witness say and not say it's really interesting? Not one confidential witness says that Simfass ever said, gee, the sales are up because of a price increase. Not one confidential witness says, well I call Simfass, that's why they're not up. They didn't say that they knew that was the truth. Nobody says Mr. Sternlich knew about it. Of course nobody said Mr. Bond knew about it, he wasn't there. Not one person says, forget whether Mr. Fass said it. Not one person said they were present for a conversation in which somebody said to Mr. Fass or Mr. Sternlich, gee, you know the reason the sales went up is because people are buying an advance of a price increase. Nobody says that either. The documents they put in front of you. These are for purposes of calculating commission. Forget the fact that on their list they must be documents from 2000, because they include the fourth order of 2001. The fact is they may tell you what the sales were, but this is not a case alleging that the sales figures were inflated or wrong. They don't tell you why did a wholesaler buy? How much of what that wholesaler bought was because they thought they were running out of power? How much because they thought they were lost or which is not limited to the haven't land, lost the vision, but includes a co-mortem. They didn't say how much was bought for that. It doesn't say how much was bought if at all by any wholesaler, much less will because of the price increase and if the ultimate disclosure was certain wholesalers bought, that was a fact. This doesn't tell you anything. The second document tells you even less. That tells you that the wholesalers were selling to end users. It doesn't even tell you whether the end user was in the lost market or not. What we do know is that in the first half of 2001, prescriptions were up 50% over the prior period of the year before. Now given that my client had the integrity to tell the market we think are existing markets back in 2000, is flat that may even decline we're going to go into a new market. Where do these new prescriptions come from? If not the new market. Now later on we learned they're lower dosage. That is out in the market by us voluntarily by the second quarter queue. This is much more akin to winem. It said we at least had prescription information as the basis for seeing a correlation. In winem is CEO as I understand it said well we've bought a new company we have a facility
. These are for purposes of calculating commission. Forget the fact that on their list they must be documents from 2000, because they include the fourth order of 2001. The fact is they may tell you what the sales were, but this is not a case alleging that the sales figures were inflated or wrong. They don't tell you why did a wholesaler buy? How much of what that wholesaler bought was because they thought they were running out of power? How much because they thought they were lost or which is not limited to the haven't land, lost the vision, but includes a co-mortem. They didn't say how much was bought for that. It doesn't say how much was bought if at all by any wholesaler, much less will because of the price increase and if the ultimate disclosure was certain wholesalers bought, that was a fact. This doesn't tell you anything. The second document tells you even less. That tells you that the wholesalers were selling to end users. It doesn't even tell you whether the end user was in the lost market or not. What we do know is that in the first half of 2001, prescriptions were up 50% over the prior period of the year before. Now given that my client had the integrity to tell the market we think are existing markets back in 2000, is flat that may even decline we're going to go into a new market. Where do these new prescriptions come from? If not the new market. Now later on we learned they're lower dosage. That is out in the market by us voluntarily by the second quarter queue. This is much more akin to winem. It said we at least had prescription information as the basis for seeing a correlation. In winem is CEO as I understand it said well we've bought a new company we have a facility. It's great we can walk in. Then a month or two later he said well we can't just walk in. It's going to cost you this 8 to 16 dollars to walk in. Then three weeks after that he said well it's not exactly 8 to 16. It's 11.5 to 16. This court didn't find to see and through this court found that the most reasonable inference, what a reasonable person would conclude is that as this person got new information he disclosed it. That is the only. I don't think it is the only reasonable inference here as to why individuals weren't selling stuff. We're doing an acquisition putting aside that even doing an acquisition is a matter of what is not enough. It's otherwise it would have had a different result. It would have been a GSC, that would have worked. And some of the others. There was nothing. You have a company that's out there telling the market what are after what's going on and you're not even leaving it to the market. If you have might the sales go down. We say sales will go down. What if I may one time? I think you can find yourself on the side
. It's great we can walk in. Then a month or two later he said well we can't just walk in. It's going to cost you this 8 to 16 dollars to walk in. Then three weeks after that he said well it's not exactly 8 to 16. It's 11.5 to 16. This court didn't find to see and through this court found that the most reasonable inference, what a reasonable person would conclude is that as this person got new information he disclosed it. That is the only. I don't think it is the only reasonable inference here as to why individuals weren't selling stuff. We're doing an acquisition putting aside that even doing an acquisition is a matter of what is not enough. It's otherwise it would have had a different result. It would have been a GSC, that would have worked. And some of the others. There was nothing. You have a company that's out there telling the market what are after what's going on and you're not even leaving it to the market. If you have might the sales go down. We say sales will go down. What if I may one time? I think you can find yourself on the side. Must be my red line. So are you? Thank you. I can't ask you a question. Yes. The big things that comes up in your. I'm sorry. One of the big issues in your brief is that a group leading? Nobody's mentioned the group leading issue. The district court found a second time around it. It was not good. And so we don't have to worry about that issue. No, I don't. I would just like to address my colleague. At least two examples here were tell us. It does exist. Plants are here. And they're both in a counting situation. One is side tech. And there was no plausible explanation for why they did not announce the return of this product
. Must be my red line. So are you? Thank you. I can't ask you a question. Yes. The big things that comes up in your. I'm sorry. One of the big issues in your brief is that a group leading? Nobody's mentioned the group leading issue. The district court found a second time around it. It was not good. And so we don't have to worry about that issue. No, I don't. I would just like to address my colleague. At least two examples here were tell us. It does exist. Plants are here. And they're both in a counting situation. One is side tech. And there was no plausible explanation for why they did not announce the return of this product. And 18 months after the alleged assault. What are the dates on side? Excuse me. What are the dates on June? June 1999. And he returned to the first quarter of June. I'm sorry, the first quarter of 2001. It was right around there. And what the court did was say, oh, it was conservative in the first press release announcing this deal. That it was a one time shot. Now, if that's the case, then why was there no press release when they returned the product? In fact, they went one step, two steps further, and tried to conceal not only through a county entries that misrepresented in the SEC filings, why cost of sales had went up? They attributed the cost of sales, increase, which is really because of the return of side tech, something completely different. And the second one, this is where we have two compelling instances. And I think the plaintiff's research. For Val here, and that is the other example of my colleagues said here, about the SAP, about the QEE contract in June of 2000. In that particular instance, my colleagues states that they disclosed everything. Now, he also fails to tell you that in the June 10-2, they tell you that they're doing the SAP 101 review. That's on the market. So everyone knows it's on the market. They've got the $5 million fee in, and they tell you they're going to restate this if there's a problem with it. So the implication is to the market
. And 18 months after the alleged assault. What are the dates on side? Excuse me. What are the dates on June? June 1999. And he returned to the first quarter of June. I'm sorry, the first quarter of 2001. It was right around there. And what the court did was say, oh, it was conservative in the first press release announcing this deal. That it was a one time shot. Now, if that's the case, then why was there no press release when they returned the product? In fact, they went one step, two steps further, and tried to conceal not only through a county entries that misrepresented in the SEC filings, why cost of sales had went up? They attributed the cost of sales, increase, which is really because of the return of side tech, something completely different. And the second one, this is where we have two compelling instances. And I think the plaintiff's research. For Val here, and that is the other example of my colleagues said here, about the SAP, about the QEE contract in June of 2000. In that particular instance, my colleagues states that they disclosed everything. Now, he also fails to tell you that in the June 10-2, they tell you that they're doing the SAP 101 review. That's on the market. So everyone knows it's on the market. They've got the $5 million fee in, and they tell you they're going to restate this if there's a problem with it. So the implication is to the market. The implication to the market is there was no problem with recording the $5 million fee the way it was before. So, and you've got two compelling instances. There are two facts and the compelling. And I think they've pointed to it when that particular matter. Under tell labs, I find these remote facts where none of the defendants have sold stock. Where the only motive you seem to tell us about is the acquisition of myelos. I am certainly unfersuaded. Tell labs don't say you don't have to plead mode of it. And I can tell you right now, it's a CPA myself. But we also have to use a little common sense in thinking about what are these people doing and why are they doing it? Why could they be doing it? A Rothman, a second-circuit case, it's imputed, motive, too, in the little defendants, from an acquisition. They do not have to sell stocks and tell labs says in this circuit. But you invoke the myelos acquisition as a theory of motive. And now you're saying it's not necessary. I think you put enough without it. I find that you've got, again, the mistakes by bending fast, concerning the reason for the spike in the increase of oxygen in the first quarter. And the cover of the side-tech return. And also the lack of a mistake. The pre-contract also spec because they all came around
. And this is the second set of misstates. I'm not taking up the first set. Are you withdrawing from the myelos acquisition? Yes, I mean, it just comes down to cutting the clasp here. We only need to save one mistake that's pulled you versus put those in the library in a six-circuit. Thank you. Thank you