Speaker 1: Now it's time for our daily of Bloomberg Lobbref, exploring
Speaker 1: legal issues in the news, and today Bloomberg, Lahouse student
Speaker 1: Grosso and Greg Sture discuss why nineteen US state Attorneys
Speaker 1: general are suing Education as Secretary Bessie de Vos for
Speaker 1: delaying protections for student borrowers. They speak with Catherine Lee Carry,
Speaker 1: special counsel at Cooley. These are complicated rules are a
Speaker 1: lot of different aspects to them, including standards that apply
Speaker 1: when students who say they were defrauded want to get
Speaker 1: out of having to pay the debts. What are the
Speaker 1: attorneys generals seem most focused on in their lawsuit? The
Speaker 1: ages are focused on for two primary issues, one being
Speaker 1: what they considered to be deprivation of rights and benefits
Speaker 1: for their enforcement actions, and the other being what they
Speaker 1: consider to be harmed for to students. If the regulations
Speaker 1: are rolled back, Specifically, as part of the new rules,
Speaker 1: the Department of ED would have considered as part of
Speaker 1: their process for determining whether or not student claims had
Speaker 1: a basis or if a group claim could be created,
Speaker 1: would be using an a g S successful enforcement action
Speaker 1: against the school. And then on the student side, they
Speaker 1: They are primarily focused on the idea of students having
Speaker 1: the personal um rights of action against the school through
Speaker 1: litigation as opposed to arbitration or class action that has
Speaker 1: that would would have been essentially barred by the July
Speaker 1: one rule, where schools could not force a student to
Speaker 1: enter into an arbitration agreement or a class action waiver
Speaker 1: prior to um an actual dispute coming up Kate. This
Speaker 1: lawsuit came three days after the d C. Appeals Court
Speaker 1: reviewed the e p A for unilaterally delaying Obama era
Speaker 1: methane regulations? Did divas do the same thing here by
Speaker 1: not engaging in the legal process for changing or rescinding regulations?
Speaker 1: There does seem to be some correlation between the arguments
Speaker 1: that are being made on both sides the There are
Speaker 1: a couple of things that that seemed to distinguish the two.
Speaker 1: One is that the e p A rule was already
Speaker 1: in effect and it was just a certain provision of
Speaker 1: the rule that was to go and effect in June
Speaker 1: that they were trying to roll back, as opposed to
Speaker 1: the borrow defense rule, which had not become effective yet
Speaker 1: at the time that they are trying to stay the rule.
Speaker 1: But I do think that there are some similar legal
Speaker 1: issues that will likely come up um in this A
Speaker 1: G case that's similar to the case that came up
Speaker 1: with the A P A in relation to their authority
Speaker 1: to delay a rule that already went through the negotiated
Speaker 1: rulemaking process and as Catherine and the League carry Special
Speaker 1: Council at Cooley speaking with Bloomberg Law House, Jun Grosso
Speaker 1: and Greg's store. You can listen to Bloomberg Law weekdays
Speaker 1: at one pm Wall Street Time here on Bloomberg Radio,
Speaker 1: and that's this morning's Bloomberg Law Brief. You can find
Speaker 1: more legal news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg
Speaker 1: BNA dot com. Attorneys will find exceptional legal research and
Speaker 1: business development tools there, as well more information at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law dot com and Bloomberg b and A dot com