![]() The current administration has openly acknowledged, for example, that after consultation with the U.S. There also may be further rulings from Judge Moss, who noted yesterday in a related ruling that this most recent chapter is “presumably not the last…in a dispute about the fate of the regulations…”ĭecisions from other courts also could prove significant. For example, while the rule includes a range of reporting requirements (noted above), it is almost certain that the current administration has no infrastructure in place to receive reports, much less to act on them. It is impossible to know, at this point, how and to what extent the 2016 Rule will be implemented by the current administration. Chief financial officers may be equally surprised to discover that these reported outcomes can prompt a recalculation of the institution’s federal composite score. Department of Education apprised of their litigation and settlement outcomes (among many other things). We suspect that more than a couple of general counsels would be surprised to learn that they must start keeping the U.S. Significantly, this reporting requirement, which is one of many, gives no consideration to who brought the suit, the nature of the claim, or the materiality of the claim to the institution’s financial wherewithal. Department of Education within 10 days of the institution being required to “pay any debt or incur any liability arising from a final judgment in a judicial proceeding or from an administrative proceeding or determination, or from a settlement.” See 34 CFR §§ 668.171(c)(1)(i)(B) and (h)(1)(i). Just by way of example, under the 2016 Rule, all institutions of higher education must notify the U.S. And there are elements that could cause significant heartburn. Moreover, while it is true that certain aspects of the rule likely have less implication for traditional higher education, almost all aspects of the rule apply to public and private, nonprofit institutions, as well. The 2016 Rule also includes significant revisions to the Department’s rules concerning financial responsibility, closed school loan discharge, and false certification discharge, as well as new provisions concerning pre-dispute arbitration clauses, class action waivers, and repayment rates. Schools should be aware, however, that the 2016 Rule is a massive, complex regulatory package that impacts far more than just the borrower defense discharge process. Press around the 2016 Rule typically only discusses the portion of the rule that concerns claims for the discharge of student loans. ![]() We also offer the following quick thoughts for those who are not sure what to make of these recent developments: Be aware Individuals looking for the text of the 2016 Rule can access the official version on the Federal Register website. The recordings of all four webinars are still available free and on demand on our website, for those who may wish to revisit the various aspects of the regulation. In November 2016, Thompson Coburn’s Higher Education Practice offered four, detailed, 90-minute webinars on the 2016 Rule. DeVos declined the offer, and instead has indicated that while she believes the 2016 Rule to be bad policy, the current Department will move forward with its implementation. District Court Judge Randolph Moss found the current administration’s delay to be unlawful, but gave Secretary DeVos 30 days to make the case as to why the delay should remain in force. In an order dated September 17, 2018, U.S. The 2016 Rule was slated to become law on July 1, 2017, but was delayed by the current administration. ![]() Department of Education on November 1, 2016, took effect. As many in higher education are aware, yesterday, following a long series of lawsuits, opinions, and orders, the “borrower defense rule” promulgated by the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |