id notifies respondent both of the nature of the conduct i'm going best occasion and this is potential violations of law are connected to student loan servicing including processing payments charging fees transferring loans maintaining accounts in credit reporting and the a couple provisions of the law business operations of any student loan service or that's not conduct that's business operations and fund fund functions that's the kind that would constitute an alleged violation three question she's saying should say that an example if that's what your listeners are looking for a scenario where they are for example and there's federal trade commission cases in the d c circuit for example dwight versus church where that notification of purpose talks about these and you can look at those notifications of purpose and you can see that they all make it lean more precise and specific and describe the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation for example if you want to look at part of that commerce and then it goes forward and describes in more detail the concept of there being number one the monopoly which is a specific type of conduct constituting an alleged violation it's not merely were citing what was in church does as a practices including but not limited to finance or misleading representations need in connection with the advertising for sale and sale that services into the promotion of inventions and sales it's very specific point that don't just wake up in the morning and say you know we're going to invest all of the practices of this company something has cost them undertake an investigation and the say well we're going to look into all the stuff you do well that's not the way investigations start and in fact more salt said you know investigation could be so sweeping into corporate matters  give fair notice to recipients of civil investigative demand about what the nature of the investigation is about what it was so what would it should be about in this case i'm trying to find out what it is here the see ideas telling the recipient i mean that's a problem we don't know we don't know why they're conducting the investigation that's right you know on a reasonable inference from it could be maybe maybe not a much more do they have to tell you what the purpose of their investigations sure they just have to tell you that they're looking at whether certain conduct could be implicated by certain law that's what fifty five sixty sees it doesn't say that the investigative agency has to tell you the specific theory of their case do you agree with that well that's interesting that they have to tell the specific theory of their case they do have to it led to these observations of we have no reason we can't figure out why you're looking at this and to see because you're not under their purview that they're your client is so you see that case and in the district court that was in fact the it's between the kind that described and the alleged violation and that's similar here there's no crime there's no description here of the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation and a connection to the under investigation as described in the snow efficient purpose is these five specific aspects of student loan servicing and in particular it's unfair deceptive and abusive practices in connection practices no i think that is a fair reading of the notification of purpose as a little thing this are the conduct that constitutes the violation those processing that the processing and you're saying are you're processing so therefore you're violating the act with a step she doesn't require that we set forth specific violations of law it's just i guess it's this one phrase and we're all reading it differently and i see that congress was aware of that practice and intended to deed the new provision to be read in that sec titian from this court they can give you that proposition signed and send the attorney general it twenty the relevant facts that would establish like what fair notice for the nature of the investigation is that well heartland uses the term fair notice our frequent way in their brief but i think the question is really fair notice and to what end and i know our answer to that which i think is well supported in the case law is that the recipient of the ca ideally does have an interest  knowing the information they need in order to apply morton salt they have an interest in assessing did this subpoena that we received satisfied the governing legal test are the specific requests in it relevant to the agenc purpose is the agency undertaking an investigation with its within its authority they don't have an interest in you know whatever additional information about a confidential law enforcement investigation that the purpose requirement applies to see i d s that are sent to and it is that are themselves the subject of a girl investigation but it also applies to see ideas that are sent to third parties who are not themselves the subject of same and i think this really helps to demonstrate what what is the fairness required here what are the interests implicated and whether it's a and b that is a self under investigation or whether it's a third party five aspects of the company's business and i like to turn if i could to that he says yes decision which the district court probably found had no application here court found that the notification purpose was deficient that you would disagree with and tell statement that it is required by statute to adequately inform six of the link between the relevant conduct and the being decided on broad grounds he can you describe its holding as narrow and says that it was limited to that particular notification purpose in that case so it's no surprise that every again an investigation into unfair deceptive practices including but not limited to false or misleading representations made in connection with advertising of the company or sale of the company's services so this including but not limited to thank you your honors a few points i wanted to to respond the notification of purpose at issue here isn't just a recitation of all functions of a student loan servicer it also includes the phrase in connection with which actually pardons and makes it less specific not more specific and so i want to point that out because i think that's important section two hundred fifty two of the consumer financial protection act which in which specifically propound civil investigative demands has a statement in it that says requirements and it has one requirement the only requirement is the provision of a notification of purpose so when it says requirements this is the only thing listed requirement imposed on the c f p when they found a civil investigative demand there's no fair notice here there's no sufficient notice here there is no link between the alleged conduct constituting the alleged violation and the actual violation all comments were made about different notifications of purpose including ones in say law and source of public data those cases of course are still in the district court proceedings there are up on appeal and in each of those instances we would posit that the notifications of purpose are actually quite a bit more precise and they potentially do in fact state the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation unlike the one here now finally i want to make a few other notes   federal trade commission said as part of its reforms last year the commission changed its practices so that it see i d s and consumer protection investigations now include a specific description of the investigation that links the information the c i demands to the conduct that is being that is that the bureau of consumer protection of the f t c is investigating the commission made this change to make the purpose of its investigation more transparent to see id recipients and courts that change is consistent with the court decision in a sea i c s so in fact the federal trade commission notwithstanding those d c circuit opinions which concern notifications of practice that are quite a bit more precise than the one issue here nevertheless the federal trade commission has also amended  this doesn't provide sufficient notice it doesn't provide fair notice the district court erred in the test that it applied in determining whether or not there was fair notice here and we would encourage this court to reverse that decision thank you