United States: Borrower Defense To Repayment: The Saga Continues

Last Updated: August 9 2018
Article by Jonathon Glass and Katherine Lee Carey

Comments on the proposed new rule due August 30, 2018

Two years ago, we wrote about the Obama Administration's proposed rules governing "Borrower Defense to Repayment," based on one sentence in the Higher Education Act intended to protect federal student loan borrowers. Those rules were intended to go into effect July 1, 2017. For those who may have lost track, after Secretary DeVos delayed the effective date of the updated BDTR Rule, ED conducted a new round of negotiated rulemaking. To no one's surprise, the negotiations did not lead to consensus, giving ED the freedom to propose an entirely new version. For more background, read our series of BDTR posts.

While much of the debate over borrower defense has focused on the tens of thousands of former students of now-closed for-profit schools, such as ITT and those operated by Corinthian, the BDTR law (and therefore regulations) applies to every student borrower, regardless of whether he or she attended a for-profit, nonprofit or public institution.

With the official publication of the department's notice of proposed rulemaking, the 30-day clock for public comment is now ticking. The new NPRM proposes very significant changes to what the previous administration sought to implement. While most of the changes attempt to clarify and balance student and institutional rights with respect to borrower defense claims, like the Obama Administration version, the NPRM branches out to proposed changes in other areas, including the department's system to measure the financial responsibility of institutions that participate in the federal student aid programs, closed school and false certification discharges. It is important to note – as discussed below – that the department is inviting comments not only on the entirety of the new rule, as required by law, but also on specific elements.

Below is our initial high-level overview of the primary components of the proposed rule. We will be issuing additional posts on this subject – particularly the very important financial responsibility issues embedded in this NPRM.

Status of Current Rule and Effective Date

Assuming that ED publishes a final rule by November 1, 2018, the earliest effective date would be for loans made after July 1, 2019. In the interim, and for all loans made in earlier periods, the very sparse 1994 version of the rule will continue to apply. Tens of thousands of previously submitted BDTR claims remain under review with the department.

Limited Basis for BDTR Claims

In a major change from the original rule, the NPRM would establish a federal standard for review of BDTR claims, replacing the current system, which requires ED to try to adjudicate these claims under the particular state law applicable to that student.

In contrast with the never fully implemented 2016 rule that set three categories of evidence borrowers could use to support a BDTR claim – a broad definition of misrepresentation, a judgement against the school or a breach of contract claim – the NPRM would limit the borrower basis to make a claim to only misrepresentation by the school. Such misrepresentation would have to be (i) false, misleading or deceptive; (ii) made with knowledge of its false, misleading or deceptive nature or with a reckless disregard for the truth; U (iii) directly and clearly related to the making of the loan or the provision of educational services. This is a major shift from the 2016 version, which included a strict-liability definition under which any misleading statement could be grounds for a claim, regardless of whether there was evidence that the institution intended to provide false information, misrepresent or deceive.

Further, in another very important change, in addition to providing evidence of a knowing and intentional misrepresentation, a borrower would have to establish that he or she "reasonably relied" on the misrepresentation "under the circumstances" and that he or she suffered financial harm as a result of that misrepresentation. ED's commentary makes clear that the harm must focus on monetary loss, rather than opportunity costs (that is, spending time enrolled in a program) or a borrower's disappointment in the outcome of his or her program.

The proposed rule also requires that borrower claims must be related to the issuance of a federal student loan and, unlike the 2016 version, specifically provides that a claim cannot be based on other matters such as the quality of education or academic disputes and disciplinary matters.

In yet another significant departure from the 2016 rule, the NPRM would require each borrower to make an individual application for BDTR relief to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This would reverse the provision in the 2016 rule, designed particularly for students who were affected by the Corinthian, ITT and other major closures that allowed ED to grant BDTR relief to groups based on common characteristics, as well as to borrowers who never applied.

Finally, and again unlike the earlier version, the proposed rule would establish a formal process, with procedures and timelines, to enable an institution to have an opportunity to present evidence to defend itself against a claim.

"Defensive" Claims vs. "Affirmative" Claims – ED Requesting Comment

An important change is whether claims must be "defensive" – that is, protection against a collection action for a defaulted loan, which was the standard under the rarely invoked 1994 regulation, or "affirmative" – where the student has continued to make payments – as provided under the 2016 proposal. The proposed rule specifically invites input on whether ED should limit claims to borrowers who have defaulted on their loans or also allow affirmative claims. ED notes that a defensive-only path might incentivize borrowers to go into default in order to make a BDTR claim with no assurance that the claim would be granted, but allowing affirmative claims may open the door to frivolous claims, which may then require additional regulatory protections and procedures.

Standard of Proof – ED Requesting Comment

ED has proposed that a borrower must establish his or her claim "by a preponderance of the evidence," meaning that the underlying conduct by the school was more likely than not to have occurred, which is consistent with the 2016 rule. However, ED also pointedly invites comment on whether it should require that claims be supported by the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence, meaning that the claim is substantially more likely than not, or has a high probability, of being true.

Additional Provisions Unrelated to Student Loans

Like the 2016 BDTR Rule, the NPRM has a number of provisions unrelated to the BDTR statute but triggered by the high-profile school closures that immediately preceded the earlier version.

Arbitration and Class Action Lawsuits

An area of hot debate in this category is whether schools may use pre-dispute arbitration provisions in enrollment agreements or similar documents that require students to waive their rights to participate in class actions and agree to resolve all disputes through arbitration rather than the courts. While the 2016 rule reflected ED's position that it could prohibit such provisions under the terms of the school's program participation agreement, the proposed rule looks to recent Supreme Court precedent and the Federal Arbitration Act to conclude that ED cannot impose such a prohibition. However, the proposed rule does require additional plain language disclosures regarding any internal grievance procedures and alternative dispute resolution conditions.

Financial Responsibility and Letter of Credit or Surety Triggers

The NPRM has continued the concept embedded in the 2016 rule, which identified certain triggering events that would require a recalculation of the school's financial responsibility composite score and require a school to post a potentially substantial letter of credit. While the proposed rule is considerably less aggressive in its attempt to identify at-risk institutions for purposes of evaluating their ongoing financial responsibility, the methodology and impact of that recalculation bears very close review in this comment period. As was the case with the 2016 rule, there are two categories of triggers, one mandatory and one at the discretion of ED.

The mandatory triggers for such a recalculation include (1) a liability for BDTR loan discharges or a judicial or administrative action against the institution, (2) for a proprietary institution whose composite score is less than 1.5, an owner's withdrawal of equity from the institution by any means, including by declaring a dividend, or (3) for a publicly traded institution, the SEC suspends or revokes its registration, suspends trading of their stock or delists the institution or the institution fails to make a required report.

ED also has identified a number of discretionary triggers that would allow ED to perform a recalculation of the composite score and consider requiring a letter of credit. These are if a school (1) is issued an accreditor show-cause action, (2) violates a credit agreement, (3) is threatened with the loss of state authorization, (4) violates the 90/10 rule for one year or (4) has a cohort default rate over 30% for two consecutive years. In each of these cases, ED would determine whether the event is likely to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the institution.

In another interesting back-to-the-future twist, ED proposes to return to a policy discarded 25 years ago, allowing a school to satisfy any "letter of credit" requirements with a surety bond, which is typically far less costly. In most cases, a letter of credit must be cash collateralized and, in any event, tends to bear high fees compared to typically far less costly surety bonds. Additional proposed options include the deposit of cash or an arrangement for ED to offset future Title IV funds over time in order to create an ED-controlled account that would function as a form of surety.

It Ain't Over 'til It's Over: State Lawsuits

In 2017, the attorneys general of 18 states and the District of Columbia sued the department over its delay in implementing the 2016 rule, as well as its handling of the current backlog of student BDTR claims. We fully expect that the proposed changes to the rule will spur additional legal challenges from states and others concerned over the potentially more stringent review process for student relief.

Public Comment Period

ED will accept public comment on the proposed rule until August 30, 2018. All comments must be filed through the ED portal. If you are interested in more information on the proposed rule or would like assistance in developing comments, please contact us for assistance. In the meantime, keep an eye on our blog for additional posts regarding the financial responsibility and related provisions in this proposed rule package.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions