this is a very unique case it's highly unusual to see the defendant's own statements basically demonstrate that they were being dishonest with investors and i think being specific h because the other side has said we've taken things out of context and we've been awarded risk disclosures but in fact if you look at what the defendants in this case said in december of two thousand and sixteen again in january two thousand seven hundred and again in february of two thousand and seventeen they simply cannot be reconciled with what the defendants later started emitting in april two thousand and seventeen through the rest of the class so it's one way i mean your honour's in december of two thousand and sixteen the c f o i have seen crony said importantly we are not seeing anything right now that tells us to change our underwriting we are always making tweaks and refinements modifying a little bit but we still don't really like how we're underwriting today when you look at the returns it's easy to underwrite to a positive return in this kind of environment between six thousand six hundred and twenty five dollars i go that's as low as we go and we still really like the returns so he said that i'm december th of two thousand and sixteen then he said on january th and february th of two thousand and seventeen that the company continued to maintain very consistent underwriting hasn't really changed our underwriting over the past not twelve months and the consistency is really important it's really important in our business it's really important to our retail partners however your honour's a few months later when the better returns started to hit so cronies financial books for example under him are th two thousand seven hundred to jump to a specific one the same person says back in mid two thousand and sixteen that's where we saw the inflection point on credit for us and we went in right away as early as july august two thousand and sixteen and we started making changes we tightened up around the dual core of grades these changes resulted in volume and final scores below six hundred and sixty dollars to the climb by thirteen percent investor presentation before two thousand and seventy proxy statement that investors could look at the age actual data to determine what impact there had been on their underwriting approach what's your response to that absolute your honor i'm aware their argument and they do  provide the data but the data does not reflect the underlying changes if you examine the data both or and after they start meeting their admissions this thirteen percent decline in the fica scores low six hundred and sixty dollars and then it becomes fift material wouldn't it be reflected in the data that judge bianco is referring to it was not reflected in the prior to april of two thousand tell me i i don't i mean that the numbers were selected but if it was  thereafter there is no reflection in the data prior to that time there is no in the nation that the purchase volume is going to decline by thirteen and then fifteen percent also your honour's it's not just the decline in person we know that wal mart began pushing back wal mart happened wal mart's customer base it was in this below sixty below prime level wal mart started seeing the impact and they were they started talking secretly for the st time in twenty years they issued an art of pizza putting cronies it was an outright session completely contradicted by the fact that we know they had multiple meetings through two thousand and seventeen with wal mart we know on october of two thousand and seventeen wal mart for the st time in twenty years told me they were going to put  business out to bid then the c e o said in january two thousand eight hundred we're not getting pushback but you can compare it to other cases this court has decided like express scripts like american express but not in one of those cases where there  was uncertainty as to whether or not our value bills was with the context that that there was no pushback on the credit levels or that there was no pushback on whether wal mart was going to continue the relationship the context is is is very specific and it's very much tied to what i'm talking about so what have been was by this point time january of two thousand and eighteen synchro he had started to disclose their wal mart based upon the fact that wal mart told synchrony they wanted more cards being issued to their customers this is half of their customer base based upon the fact that on october th two thousand and seventy one mark for the st time in twenty years issued an r f p to multiple companies to bid for this business that seemed phony exclusively had from its inception as a public corporation but if so where is that in the complaint as i was looking for that but that it had they knew they knew in the fall of two thousand seven  conclusions about what that data showed that's exactly what happened in this case and that is what judge properly and appropriately relied on as part of the total mix of information available to seventeen this peen personally attended a meeting with wal mart wal mart express significant pushback so why is that not it's not forward looking it's not an opinion that's a fact whether there was pushback or not so sure a couple responses here st off your honor with respect to whether or not judge bolton specifically addressed the fact the matter is this is firmly within the category of statements that the judge did address as being too general and t to be material i think your honor was on a panel very recently the sketchers case where in a footnote the court acknowledged that there were misstatements that were not specifically covered by the district court but they were certainly covered by the analysis and limits what they fact that they don't want to put credits in the hands of people who can handle it their names are on the cards so we were fairly closely with our retail partners and we're not getting pushback on credit that work closely with us so w complaint as to why it says that in this crisis and because getting don't push back and credit in the context in which ms king delivered it was saying a more general point which is at the end of the day because of the way the r is a the agreements with the retailers are structured the interests of our partners our retail partners and synchrony are fully allied so even though they may want to drive sales in the on the front end and want to get everybody below the sickly how can how can those interests be aligned obviously the retailer will want the credit to be as loose as possible and the issuer is going to want to be as tough as possible so one thing the two views  credit they want all their customers has been money at their wal mart's fully understood but on the backend the way that they share profits under the r s a as was fully disclosed they don't get to benefit from that upside in the swing of sales if there is credit default if people are not able to pay and they can't handle the credit they're given so they don't get the full benefit in fact that's what a wal mart complaint alleged that i'm you know i didn't get the benefit i wanted so in fact that's how that tension was resolved but you arrival and they were looking for a way to resurrect their claims at all times when they filed a complaint run or they were aware of that so there was a fully under dac a copy they did not seek to get a full copy of that complaint until after the motion dismissed they certainly could have sought to as they did later to intervene r chief allegation was compliant which was we were to lose with underwriting some unspecified time period and then at some point in time we got too tight and therefore drove wal mart away and all we did was show a  publicly filed version the redacted version that was rejected by wal mart because of commercial sensitivities all we wanted to do was say that's inconsistent with the complaint that you cited in your complaint that's all we did and what we offered them is because they said when you have access to the how do we know you're not telling mistruths finger point fast and loose with the facts what we offered them in that instance is look we'll show you want to counsel to counsel basis what what the un redacted portions are that pertain to this argument so you can be sure we're not making misrepresentations of so we made that offer we also made the offer to the court the district court judge who we're happy to have you look at it in camera to make sure the council is not misrepresenting what's in the unredacted portion where we d pretty about its underwriting practices talks about how dynamic it is and how it changes from time to time based on changing conditions at all times so there's a piece where you sort of underwrite to give credit to people you extend that you monitored throughout the lifecycle of our relationship so even throughout the credit relationship you're tweaking it modifying it all the time that is the system that synchrony disclosed and every disclosure including the one sided by the the plaintiffs here  certain changes and tweaks to didn't disclose dynamic underwriting process was an odd cycle disclosure in june of two thousand and sixteen so this is synchrony telling the marketplace and reasonable investors hey we're saying something here we are saying credit normal we're seeing all we've been all enjoying is great favorable credit environment people are acting responsibly but we're seeing a change in that behavior we want to have when you're just told to tweak exactly exacting reasoning about your honor is because it wasn't a wholesale change  at all times compared for example to the credit crisis in two thousand and eight where there was massive changes in the way that they under wrote it because of the credit crisis and the way that people handled credit that was a massive change and i was absolutely reflected in the data that was the ch b one plan there's no allegation no credible allegation that somehow ms keene or anyone on the synchrony leadership team that also entered into ten before one plans knew at that moment in time they were going to forty nine of the point where he says he two thousand and seventy was known that they were soliciting competitors at that point which is another indication of pushback right yes in fact the whole disclosure of that thing pretty makes is about how competitive there's nothing you know pushback is competition it's saying i can get a better deal in this case on capital one that's pushback on credit i can get more from somebody else than you that's always pushed back and i was disclosed the fact that we may be subject to our spe that is exactly the opposite of what was said that there was no pushback on credit that's almost a quote your honor i was saying that what i was describing as the competitive marketplace when other potential credit card issuers come in and compete synchrony they're saying we can do better on credit than you and so folks like wal mart who are are are savvy bargains will say you know what i can get a lot better deal from your competitors that's clear that there isn't any question but every time you have a business relationship every time you have contract negotiations you have pushback that that's what negotiations are lun person pushes this way the other pressure pushes that way but to say that there is no pushback on a particular subject seems to suggest that there's no expressed objection and unhappiness of a kind that's consequential it and i appreciate that your own practice runs exactly into i'm saying is that what ms keene is hiding about we're not getting pushback on credit she's saying very generally at the end of the day because of the way our incentives are lined on the front end and the back and we help them promote sales we do in sales promotions on the back end they share in the economics where they don't if there's false so ultimately although it's true there is this natural tension the way we align those incentives is the sound the back and we share in the pain it's not a one way street so no pushback line think the vast majority of the former employees the anonymous sources give our discordance described as sort of soundbites but don't have sort of the connective tissue to actual changes in underwriting saying that this is a made so we need to connect made by former employees and the like to see if they have amount to the specific type of allegation that would support the point under the standards of discourse i want to focus on f e nine because that's the only way and i would say we've addressed this division of the card business that's less than two percent two percent of the overall business and what he described was not underwriting change it was that there would be a new card off in the way that those underwriting standards would be applied so it's not even a underwriting guidelines change it's literally we're going to lower we're going to change the fica cutoff for you know a cobar were the like that is not a two percent change two percent slice of the business does not reflect the entire business there's no allegation he had full visibility and recall that efi nine said in the complaint i had a feeling i knew we were going to somehow lose wal mart well no one told that to  management who travelled down to bentonville arkansas to fight for the fight for that business all the way until the very end they were off until the end to try to make a deal to keep that value partner but it's not at all cost i don't just have customers customers that has to make economic sense and that's what we ask our executives and our companies to do is to be stewards of the public trust the shareholders trust you don't just make deals that don't make economic sense and that's what our group team that's what synchroni exactly when they were asked the pushback so they they said this is where we're focusing our changes after the fact they were asked is that affecting your retail partners and then they denied it so it is an aerial portion of their business it a company they were aligned with i mean when they raise that one billion dollars in offering if if you made a motion to unseal it and the court in arkansas thought you were right why did the court in arkansas unsealing the