InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
8th Circuit pauses student debt relief program
On November 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted an emergency motion for injunction pending appeal filed by state attorneys general from Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina to temporarily prohibit the Secretary of Education from discharging any federal loans under the agency’s student debt relief plan (announced in August and covered by InfoBytes here). Earlier in October, the 8th Circuit issued an order granting an emergency motion filed by the states, which requested an administrative stay prohibiting the discharge of any student loan debt under the cancellation plan until the appellate court had issued a decision on the states’ motion for an injunction pending an appeal. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) The October order followed a ruling issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which dismissed the states’ action for lack of Article III standing after concluding that the states—which attempted “to assert a threat of imminent harm in the form of lost tax revenue in the future”— failed to establish imminent and non-speculative harm sufficient to confer standing.
In granting the emergency motion, the appellate court disagreed with the district court’s assertion that the states lacked standing. The 8th Circuit reviewed whether the state of Missouri could rely on any harm the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA) might suffer as a result of the Department of Education’s cancellation plan. The appellate court found that the relationship between MOHELA and the state is relevant to the standing analysis, especially as Missouri law specifically directs MOHELA (which receives revenue from the student loan accounts it services) to distribute $350 million into the state’s treasury. As such, “MOHELA may well be an arm of the State of Missouri” under this reasoning, the appellate court wrote, adding that several district courts have concluded that MOHELA is an arm of the state. However, regardless of whether MOHELA is an arm of the state, the resulting financial impact due to the cancellation plan would, among other things, affect the state’s ability to fund public higher education institutions, the 8th Circuit noted. “Consequently, we conclude Missouri has shown a likely injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, and which is actual or imminent, traceable to the challenged action of the Secretary, and redressable by a favorable decision,” the appellate court wrote, adding that since one party likely has standing it does not need to address the standing of the other states. The appellate court also determined that “the equities strongly favor an injunction considering the irreversible impact the Secretary’s debt forgiveness action would have as compared to the lack of harm an injunction would presently impose.” The 8th Circuit explained that it considered several criteria, including the fact that the collection of student loan payments and the accrual of interest have both been suspended. The Missouri attorney general released a statement applauding the 8th Circuit’s decision.
The 8th Circuit’s decision follows a recent ruling issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which found that the student loan forgiveness program is “an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s legislative power.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
District Court blocks student loan forgiveness program
On November 10, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the Biden administration’s $400 billion student loan forgiveness program under the HEROES Act of 2003 is “an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s legislative power.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the three-part debt relief plan was announced in August to provide, among other things, up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients with loans held by the Department of Education (DOE) and up to $10,000 in debt cancellation to non-Pell Grant recipients for borrowers making less than $125,000 a year or less than $250,000 for married couples. Plaintiffs, whose loans are ineligible for debt forgiveness under the program, sued the DOE and the DOE secretary claiming the agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures and arbitrarily decided the program’s eligibility criteria. Plaintiffs further contended that the DOE secretary does not have the authority under the HEROES Act to implement the program. Defendants countered that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
The court entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs (rather than granting preliminary injunctive relief as requested) after determining it was appropriate to proceed to the merits of the case. Concerning defendants’ assertion regarding lack of standing to challenge the DOE’s program because it is conferring a benefit and therefore “nobody is harmed by the existence of that benefit,” (as the court characterized defendants’ argument), the court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court has actually “recognized that a plaintiff has standing to challenge a government benefit in many cases.” The court next reviewed whether plaintiffs suffered a concrete injury based on the denial of their procedural rights under the APA by not being afforded the opportunity to provide meaningful input to protect their concrete interests. While the HEROES Act expressly exempts the APA’s notice-and-comment obligations, the court stressed that the HEROES Act “does not provide the executive branch clear congressional authorization to create a $400 billion student loan forgiveness program,” and, moreover, does not mention loan forgiveness. “If Congress provided clear congressional authorization for $400 billion in student loan forgiveness via the HEROES Act, it would have mentioned loan forgiveness,” the court wrote. Shortly after the ruling was issued, the DOJ filed a notice of appeal on behalf of the DOE with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona released a statement following the ruling expressing disappointment in the decision.
DOE announces final rules for targeted debt relief programs
On October 31, the Department of Education (DOE) announced final rules to streamline and improve targeted debt relief programs. (See DOE fact sheet here.) The final rules implement several changes to protect student borrowers, including:
- Borrower defense to repayment and arbitration. The final rules establish a strong framework for borrowers to raise a defense to repayment if their post-secondary institution misleads or manipulates them. Claims pending on or received on or after July 1, 2023, can be decided individually or as a group, and may be based on one of the following categories of actionable circumstances: substantial misrepresentation, substantial omission of fact, breach of contract, aggressive and deceptive recruitment, or judgments or final secretarial actions. The final rules will only provide full relief (partial discharges will not be considered), with approved claims requiring “that the institution committed an act or omission which caused the borrower detriment of such a nature and degree that warrant full relief” based upon a preponderance of the evidence. Additionally, the final rules establish certain recoupment processes for DOE to pursue institutions for the cost of approved claims, and will allow borrowers to litigate their case “by preventing institutions that participate in the Direct Loan program from requiring borrowers to engage in pre-dispute arbitration or sign class action waivers.”
- Closed school discharges. The final rules provide an automatic discharge of a borrower’s loan “one year after a college’s closure date for borrowers who were enrolled at the time of closure or left 180 days before closure and who do not accept an approved teach-out agreement or a continuation of the program at another location of the school.” Borrowers who accept but do not complete a teach-out agreement or program continuation will receive a discharge one year after the last date of attendance.
- Total and permanent disability discharge. The final rules include new options for borrowers who have had a total and permanent disability to receive a discharge, including borrowers (i) who receive additional types of disability review codes from the Social Security Administration (SSA); (ii) who later aged into retirement benefits and are no longer classified by one of SSA’s codes; (iii) who have an established disability onset date determined by SSA to be at least 5 years in the past; and (iv) whose first continuing disability review is scheduled at three years. The final rules also eliminate a three-year income monitoring requirement.
- Interest capitalization. Under the final rules, “interest will no longer be added to a borrower’s principal balance the first time a borrower enters repayment, upon exiting a forbearance, and leaving any income-driven repayment plan besides Income-Based Repayment.” Specifically, the final rules eliminate all instances where interest capitalization—which occurs when a borrower has outstanding unpaid interest added to the principal balance—is not required by law.
- Public Service Loan Forgiveness. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the final rules will provide benefits for borrowers seeking Public Service Loan Forgiveness, including providing credit toward the program for borrowers who have qualifying employment.
- False certification. The final rules will provide borrowers with an easier path to discharge when a college falsely certifies a borrower’s eligibility for a student loan. This includes expanding allowable documentation, clarifying applicable discharge dates, and allowing for the consideration of group discharges.
The final rules are effective July 1, 2023.
DOE expands support for veterans/servicemembers and incarcerated individuals
On October 27, the Department of Education (DOE) announced final rules cracking down on deceptive practices affecting veterans and servicemembers and expanding college access to incarcerated students. (See DOE fact sheet here.) The final rules, among other things, (i) implement a change to the “90/10 rule” made by the American Rescue Plan in 2021, which closed a loophole in the Higher Education Act that previously incentivized some for-profit colleges to aggressively recruit veterans and servicemembers in order to receive more DOE funding (going forward, these institutions may no longer count money from veteran and service member benefits toward a 10 percent revenue requirement); (ii) expand access to DOE’s Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites Initiative to allow incarcerated individuals in nearly all states to participate; (iii) provide incarcerated individuals with access to the FSA’s Fresh Start initiative, which will help borrowers with defaulted loans access income-driven low monthly payments as well as with access to Pell Grants; and (iv) clarify requirements and processes for post-secondary institutions when changing ownership, which may require institutions to provide additional financial protection or impose other conditions to protect against risks arising from the transaction.
8th Circuit temporarily pauses Biden’s student debt relief plan
On October 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an order granting an emergency motion filed by state attorneys general from Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and South Carolina to temporarily prohibit the Biden administration from discharging any federal loans under its student debt relief plan (announced in August and covered by InfoBytes here). The states’ motion requested an administrative stay prohibiting President Biden from discharging any student loan debt under the cancellation plan until the appellate court issues a decision on the states’ motion for an injunction pending an appeal. The order follows an October 20 ruling issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which dismissed the states’ action for lack of Article III standing after concluding that the states—which attempted “to assert a threat of imminent harm in the form of lost tax revenue in the future”— failed to establish imminent and non-speculative harm sufficient to confer standing. “It should be emphasized that ‘standing in no way depends upon the merits of the Plaintiff[s’] contention that the particular conduct is illegal,’” the district court said. “While Plaintiffs present important and significant challenges to the debt relief plan, the current Plaintiffs are unable to proceed to the resolution of these challenges.” The 8th Circuit ordered an expedited briefing schedule on the states’ motion for an injunction pending appeal, which required both parties to file responses the same week the order was issued.
DOE announces PSLF changes
On October 25, the Department of Education (DOE) announced executive actions intended to bring loans managed by the DOE closer to forgiveness, including credit toward the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program for borrowers who have qualifying employment. According to the DOE, these actions will provide borrowers with many of the same benefits already going to those who have applied for PSLF under temporary changes (known as the Limited PSLF Waiver), before its October 31, 2022 end date. The announcement further noted that borrowers with Direct Loans or DOE-managed Federal Family Education Loans (FFEL) will receive credit toward forgiveness on income-driven repayment (IDR) for all months spent in repayment, including payments prior to consolidation, regardless of whether they made partial or late payments or are on a repayment plan. Borrowers will also receive credit for specific periods in deferment and forbearance. Even with these actions, the DOE encouraged borrowers to take the necessary steps to apply for the Limited PSLF Waiver by October 31. The DOE also released a Fact Sheet outlining benefits for borrowers who have Direct or DOE-managed FFEL loans as well as Direct Loan borrowers seeking PSLF.
CFPB releases annual college credit card report
On October 13, the CFPB released its annual report to Congress on college credit card agreements. The report was prepared pursuant to the CARD Act, which requires card issuers to submit to the CFPB the terms and conditions of any agreements they make with colleges, as well as certain organizations affiliated with colleges. According to the Bureau, the report “raises questions about whether some marketing deals between colleges and financial institutions comply with Department of Education rules.” The report also highlighted the need for transparency in the arrangements schools have with financial institutions. In conjunction with the report, the DOE issued guidance clarifying colleges’ responsibility to ensure that campus financial products are consistent with students’ best financial interests, including by reviewing whether any fees assessed are consistent with or below prevailing market rates. The DOE’s guidance discussed overdraft and NSF fees, given that financial institutions in the general market have increasingly been reducing or eliminating certain fees. The Bureau’s report included data on 11 account providers, including non-bank financial service providers, banks, and credit unions offering more than 650,000 student accounts in partnership with 462 institutions of higher education during the 2020-2021 award year. Key findings of the report include, among other things: (i) financial services providers and their partner schools appear to offer and promote more costly products to students than are otherwise available in the market; (ii) one entity dominates the market for financial aid disbursements, providing nearly 70 percent of the accounts offered in partnership with schools; and (iii) nearly 30 percent of accounts in the Bureau’s sample were subject to arrangements in which the financial services provider made payments to the partner school.
3rd Circuit says debt collector owes finder’s fee
On September 23, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturned a district court’s summary judgment ruling in favor of a defendant debt collector. The action concerned whether a federal contract entered between the debt collector and the Department of Education (DOE) required the payment of a finder’s fee to a plaintiff consulting company that helped the defendant secure the contract. The defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to help it secure federal contracts in debt collection in exchange for a finder’s fee. The defendant signed a contract with the DOE in 2014, but did not begin performing work on the contract until 2016 after the agreement with the plaintiff had expired. The defendant refused to pay the finder’s fee, arguing that even though the contract with the DOE was signed while the agreement was still active, the contract had not been “consummated” during the agreement’s applicable period because the defendant was not eligible to receive work orders or start performing work until after the agreement expired. The plaintiff sued, but the district court ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed and the 3rd Circuit reversed, holding that the contract had in fact been “consummated” when it was formed in 2014, and that the defendant owed the finder’s fee. On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment for the defendant, this time on the grounds that the defendant had not “facilitated” the contract with the DOE.
On the second appeal, the 3rd Circuit determined that the agreement specifies that a finder’s fee is owed whenever a “fee transaction is consummated” and defined a fee transaction as “the subsequent consummation of any contract with any Federal government agency for which [defendant] has been invited to compete, and is later awarded a contract to perform, which both parties herein expressly agree shall have arisen due to any ‘teaming’ or ‘subcontracting’ engagement Finder may have facilitated in advance of any such award of a contract by a Federal government agency.” According to the appellate court, it did not matter when the work orders from the DOE began, because the fee transaction was consummated during the agreement period.
New York expands access to PSLF program
On September 15, the New York governor signed S.8389-C/A. 9523-B , which amends the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSFL) program statewide. Among other things, the legislation: (i) adds clarifying legal definitions, such as “certifying employment,” “employee,” “full-time,” “public service employer,” “public service loan forgiveness form,” and “public service loan forgiveness program”; (ii) establishes a standard hourly threshold for full-time employment at thirty hours per week for the purposes of accessing PSLF; and (iii) permits public service employers to certify employment on behalf of individuals or groups of employees directly with the U.S. Department of Education. The legislation is effective immediately.
Democrats want PLUS loans in relief plan
On September 12, eight Senate Democrats sent a letter to President Biden, urging him to extend student-loan debt relief to roughly 3.6 million borrowers under the Parent Loan for Undergraduate Student (PLUS) loan program. Biden’s debt relief plan instructed the Department of Education (DOE) to, among other things: (i) provide up to $20,000 in debt cancellation to Pell Grant recipients with loans held by the DOE; (ii) provide up to $10,000 in debt cancellation to non-Pell Grant recipients for borrowers making less than $125,000 a year or less than $250,000 for married couples; and (iii) propose a new income-driven repayment (IDR) plan and cap monthly payments for undergraduate loans at 5 percent of a borrower’s discretionary income. Additionally, for IDR plans, Biden’s August announcement instructed the DOE to propose a rule to, among other things, reduce the amount that borrowers have to pay each month for undergraduate loans from 10 percent to 5 percent. The Senators expressed their concern that Biden’s recent actions do not appropriately cover Parent PLUS borrowers and urged his administration and the DOE to “to incorporate Parent PLUS borrowers in any administrative improvements to federal student loan programs, including the Public Service Loan Forgiveness and Income-Driven Repayment programs, extensions or creation of waivers, and in the implementation of executive actions to provide student debt relief.”