Presented to
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators
Annual Conference
Washington, DC
July 8-11, 2007
Powers
Pyles
Sutter &
Verville PC
Attorneys At Law
1501 M Street, NW, Seventh Floor, Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 466-6550 Fax: (202) 785-1756 www.ppsv.com
Presented by
Stanley A. Freeman
Sherry Mastrostefano Gray
Sharon H. Bob, Ph.D.
Joel M. Rudnick

Powers
Pyles
Sutter &
Verville PC
Attorneys At Law
Stanley A. Freeman

Washington Merry-Go-Round
From The Founding Fathers - Three
Branches Of The Federal Government:



Article I of the Constitution – Legislative
Article II – Executive Branch
Article III – Judicial Branch

Washington Merry-Go-Round
Legislative Branch – A “Perfect Storm”
Of Bills Affecting Student Aid




Student Loan Sunshine Act (H.R. 890, passed House in May)
College Cost Reduction Act (House
Reconciliation Bill)
Higher Education Access Act of 2007
(Senate Reconciliation Bill)
Higher Education Amendments of 2007
(Senate HEA Reauthorization Bill)

Washington Merry-Go-Round
Legislative Branch – “Perfect Storm”
Of Bills Affecting Student Aid





House Appropriations Bill for FY 2008
(passed House on June 8)
Senate Appropriations Bill for FY 2008
(Rpted out of Subcommittee on June 19)
Student Aid Reward Act (STAR Act)
Pending: Senate Banking Committee to tackle private lending
Recurrent: HEA Extension Legislation

Washington Merry-Go-Round
Sample Topics Covered By The “Perfect
Storm” Of Proposed Legislation







Accreditation – Possible Re-write of NACIQI
Student Outcomes and Accreditation
Student Loan Restrictions and Auctions
Independent Student Definition
Transfer of Credit
Due Process in Program Reviews
Pell Grants and Loan Limits

Washington Merry-Go-Round
Executive Branch – Agency Initiatives
Complicate The Outlook


Negotiated Rulemaking Hits Rough Seas:


Accreditation – Secretary Agrees to Cease and
Desist
Lending Rules – Too Little Too Late?
Federal Trade Commission

Chairman’s Recent Letter to George Miller: “Law enforcement will be a critical part of the FTC’s response to concerns about private student loans.”

Washington Merry-Go-Round

Executive Branch – Agency Initiatives
Education Department Initiates Campus
Security Program Reviews on Clery Act

Watchdog Group – “Security on Campus” –
Steps Up Private Enforcement Efforts

Furor Over Recent Case in Wake of ED
Report:


Report: School defied Clery timely warning requirements for ten weeks after rape/murder in dorm was discovered
Potential Sanctions: Fines/Title IV Restrictions

Washington Merry-Go-Round




Judicial Branch: Case Law Takes Sharp
Turn Towards Expansion of
Whistleblower Claims
Appeals Courts Reinstate False Claims Act
Allegations Premised on Title IV Violations
One Case Even Focuses Upon Accreditation
College Lawyers Cite Growing Threat of
Whistleblower Claims on Multiple Fronts
Qui Tam Cases: Filed, But “Under Seal” and Not Made Known to the Institution!

Sherry Mastrostefano Gray
Powers
Pyles
Sutter &
Verville PC
Attorneys At Law


Lender cannot offer, directly or indirectly, points, premiums, payments, or other inducements to secure FFEL loans.

34 CFR 682.200

No payments or other benefits to a

prospective borrower in exchange for applying for or accepting a FFEL loan from the lender.
No payments or other benefits to a school, any school-affiliated organization or to any individual in exchange for FFEL loan applications, application referrals, a specified volume or dollar amount of loans made, or placement on a school’s list of recommended or suggested lenders.



The term “other benefits” includes, but is not limited to:
 preferential rates for or access to the lender's other financial products,
 computer hardware or unrelated computer software at below market rental or purchase cost, and printing and distribution of college catalogs and
 other materials at reduced or no cost.
A school-affiliated organization is:
 any organization that is directly or indirectly related to a school and includes, but is not limited to, alumni organizations, foundations, athletic organizations, and social, academic, and professional organizations

Prohibited Inducements


Prohibited Inducements


No payment of entertainment expenses.
Includes private hospitality suites, tickets to shows or sporting events, meals, alcoholic beverages, and any lodging, rental, transportation, and other gratuities related to lender-sponsored activities for employees of a school or a school-affiliated organization (but see exception).
No philanthropic activities if provided in exchange for FFEL loan applications or application referrals, or a specified volume or dollar amount of FFEL loans made, or placement on a school’s list of recommended or suggested lenders.

Prohibited Inducements



No staffing services to a school as a thirdparty servicer or otherwise on more than a short-term, emergency, non-recurring basis to assist a school with financial aid-related functions.
No conducting unsolicited mailings to a student or a student's parents of FFEL loan application forms.
No engaging in fraudulent or misleading advertising with respect to its FFEL loan activities.

Permitted Activities (Exhaustive
List)
A lender may provide:

Assistance to a school that is comparable to the kinds of assistance provided to a school by the Secretary under the Direct
Loan program, as identified by the
Secretary in a public announcement, such as a notice in the Federal Register.


Most recently published in August 1999
Issue of LCD – will direct loan schools demand the type of services that FFEL lenders can and would provide?

Permitted Activities

Support of and participation in a school’s or a guaranty agency’s student aid and financial literacy-
related outreach activities, provided that lender name is disclosed and lender does not promote its student loan or other products.

Permitted Activities

Meals, refreshments, and receptions that are reasonable in cost and scheduled in conjunction with training, meeting, or conference
events if those meals, refreshments, or receptions are open to all training, meeting, or conference attendees;
(Exception to prohibition regarding entertainment expenses.)

Permitted Activities


Toll-free telephone numbers for use by schools or others to obtain information about FFEL loans and free data transmission service for use by schools to electronically submit applicant loan processing information or student status confirmation data.
Reduced origination fees in accordance with
§682.202(c) and reduced interest rates as provided under the HEA, and payment of federal default fees.

Permitted Activities


Other benefits to a borrower under a repayment incentive program that requires at least one or more scheduled payments to receive or retain the benefit; and
Items of nominal value to schools, schoolaffiliated organizations, and borrowers that are offered as a form of generalized marketing or advertising, or to create good will.


Meals and refreshments that are
reasonable in cost and provided in connection with guaranty agency provided training of program
participants and elementary, secondary, and postsecondary school
personnel and with workshops and forums customarily used by the agency to fulfill its responsibilities under the Act;



Travel and lodging costs that are reasonable as to cost, location, and duration to:

 facilitate the attendance of school staff in training
or service facility tours that they would otherwise not be able to undertake, or participate in the activities of an agency's governing board, a standing official advisory
committee, or in support of other official activities of the agency;
Default aversion activities approved by the
Secretary under section 422(h)(4)(B) of the
Act:

Preferred Lender List (34 CFR
682.212)

Preferred Lender List
Guidelines:

Cannot be used to deny or otherwise impede a borrower’s choice of lender;

Impede means to purposefully delay (see unnecessary certification delays standard).


Cannot contain fewer than three lenders that are not affiliated with each other and that will make loans to borrowers or students attending the school; and
Cannot include lenders that have offered, or have been solicited by the school to offer inducements

Preferred Lender Lists

A school that provides or makes available a list of recommended or suggested lenders must:


Disclose as part of the list, the method and criteria used by the school in selecting any lender that it recommends or suggests;
Provide comparative information to prospective borrowers about interest rates and other benefits offered by the lenders;

Preferred Lender Lists




Ensure that any benefits offered to borrowers by the lenders are the same for all borrowers at the school;
Advise students through a prominent statement that they are not required to use one of the school’s recommended or suggested lenders;
Cannot not assign a first-time borrower’s loan to a particular lender; and
Cannot cause unnecessary certification delays for borrowers who use a lender that has not been recommended or suggested by the school. (See also pattern or practice language under 34 CFR 682.603(f).)




Temporary or permanent exclusion from programs as eligible lender. (34 CFR 682.705 and .706)

Rebuttable presumption – to rebut, but provide evidence that the activities or payments were provided for a reason unrelated to the securing of
FFEL applications.
A guaranty agency may not make a claim to ED regarding a loan if the lender offered or provided an improper inducement. (34 CFR 682.406)
Lender subject to claims borrower may have against school if, minimally, the school refers borrowers to that lender or an inducement was provided. (34 CFR 682.209)


Prohibitions cover:




All institutional employees
All educational loans (Federal and private)
Guarantee Agencies
Lenders and affiliates that make loans

New York SLATE





No revenue sharing is permitted between lenders and schools.
Schools must implement a code of conduct prohibiting lender gifts to employees.
Effectively, financial aid employees cannot serve on lender advisory boards with respect to any form of student loans.
FA employees will need to report to NYSED all participation or financial interests they have related to any lender.
Schools must inform students of availability of
Title IV loans, including terms and conditions, before a lender can offer a private loan.

New York SLATE

A lender and school cannot enter into an agreement under which the lender makes high risk
(opportunity) loans to students in exchange for the school providing concessions or promises to the lender that may prejudice other borrowers.

New York SLATE

Preferred lender lists are allowed.
 school must explain method and criteria for

 selection and rank criteria must state (in same font size) that student can use another lender without penalty inclusion and placement of lenders on the


 preferred lender list must be based solely on the best interests of the borrowers school must review list(s) at least annually school must seek assurances that advertised benefits upon repayment will continue upon sale of loan(s) sale of loans shall be disclosed (same font)

New York SLATE


Penalties
 lender can be fined up to $50,000

 school employees can be fined up to $7,500 if lender violates this law, the lender cannot be placed on any preferred lender list unless notice of such violation is provided to all potential borrowers at the institution
NY defines "lender" to include guarantee agencies and any trade or professional association that receives money from a lender or guaranty agency for educational loan purposes.

Senate HEA Bill - Proposed



Bottom Line – substantially scales back original proposals; mixture of NPRM and
SLATE
Addresses School/Lender relationships with respect to FFEL loans only.

Possible involvement of Banking Committee,
FTC
May require changes to Final Rules issued by ED.

Senate HEA Bill - Proposed

Specifically addresses:

Issues identified in NPRM


Consulting arrangements (prohibited for FA employees or those school responsible for student loan decisions)
Compensation for service on advisory boards (prohibited – but reimbursement for expenses allowed)

Senate HEA Bill - Proposed


Would require code of conduct to




Prohibit revenue sharing
Prohibit gifts and trips except allows reasonable expenses for professional development that will improve programs and for domestic travel to such development
Prohibit consulting arrangements
Prohibit payment for service on advisory board except for reimbursement of reasonable expenses.
Would require annual attestation of compliance by executive officer.

Senate HEA Bill - Proposed

Preferred lender lists

Disclosure by school of why lenders are included on list



Student choice
At least 3 unaffiliated lenders
(Secretary to maintain list of lenders)
Factors considered for inclusion can include loan terms, high-quality customer service, additional benefits
(obviously, not prohibited benefits).

Senate HEA Bill - Proposed

Enforcement – per program participation agreement, violation can result in institution’s limitation, suspension or termination from loan programs.

Title IV Hardball With PPSV
The End!

Sharon H. Bob, Ph.D.
Powers
Pyles
Sutter &
Verville PC
Attorneys At Law


On August 18, 2006, the Department of
Education announced in the Federal
Register its intent to establish up to four negotiated rulemaking committees to prepare regulations under Title IV of the
Higher Education Act (HEA). The notice also announced a series of four regional hearings where interested parties could suggest issues for consideration.


The Department held four field hearings on September
19, 2006, October 5, 2006, November 2, 2006, and
November 8, 2006. Witnesses articulated a number of overarching themes at the hearings including:
 the need to revisit a number of unworkable rules governing the Academic Competitiveness Grant
(ACG) and the National Science and Mathematics
Access to Retain Talent Grant (National SMART


Grant) programs; the value of the current accreditation process particularly as it relates to improving student outcomes; and the need to address the rising levels of student debt through increased student aid and improved repayment options.


As a result of the comments and recommendations, on December 8, 2006, the
Department of Education announced in the
Federal Register the establishment of four negotiated rulemaking committees to:
 develop rules for the federal student loan programs
(including the FFEL, Direct Loan, and Perkins Loan
Programs);


 address issues related the ACG and the National
SMART Grant Programs; address accreditation issues; and address issues related to other Title IV programmatic, institutional eligibility and general provisions issues.





Loan Issues Go Forward Despite
Non-Consensus
Consensus Reached on General
Provisions Issues
ACG/National SMART Grant Issues
Go Forward Despite Non-Consensus
Accreditation Rules Withdrawn



There are no proposed regulations for the crime of identity theft because of provisions in current regulations under
Loan Discharge for False Certification as a
Result of Identity Theft ( §§ 682.402 and
685.215).
“Crime of Identity Theft” means that an identity theft victim must wait for a formal judicial determination that an identity theft crime has been committed before granting a loan discharge.




Institutions would be required to retain
Perkins Loan Program records showing the date and amount of each disbursement of each loan under an Master Promissory
Note (MPN) until the loan is cancelled, repaid, or otherwise satisfied.
An institution would have to submit disbursement records on an assigned
Perkins Loan upon the Secretary’s request.
Guaranty agencies would have to submit the record of the lender’s disbursement of loan funds to the school for delivery to the borrower when assigning a FFEL Loan to the Department.


The Department provided proposed regulations that would limit the collection costs that an institution may assess a Perkins Loan borrower to 30 percent of the unpaid principal and accrued interest for first collection efforts, 40 percent for second collection efforts, and 40 percent plus court costs in cases of litigation.



The Department provided proposed regulations that would require mandatory assignment “at the Secretary of Education’s discretion” of any defaulted Perkins Loan to the Department if:



The amount of the loan is $50 or more;
The loan has been in default for more than five years; and
No payment has been received on the loan within the previous year.
Exception: If payments were not due on the loan in the preceding 12 months because the loan was in an authorized deferment or forbearance period.

o
Students enrolled in clock-hour, nonterm programs would have to
“successfully” complete half of the clock hours in addition to half of the weeks in the payment period before another disbursement can be made.


The Department provided proposed regulations that would permit students enrolled in nonstandard term programs that are substantially equal in length and are each at least nine (9) weeks long (Per
ED, lowering the nine (9) week time period would have cost implications) to become eligible for a new annual loan limit when the academic year calendar time has elapsed, which is permitted for standard term programs.


Current interpretations by ED would not permit eligibility of certificate programs for ACG.


Academic Year Progression is measured in credits earned and weeks of instructional time.


An accrediting agency’s standards would have to address success with respect to student achievement in relation to the institution’s mission, which must include:

Expected levels of performance for vocational programs and programs leading to professional licensure or certification, including



Completion rates;
Job placement rates; and
As applicable, pass rates.



Criteria may permit institutions to establish their own expected levels of performance and agency review of the appropriateness of the expected levels of performance.
Criteria may include different standards for different types of institutions or programs.



The Department provided proposed regulations that would specify that an agency’s standards related to admissions and recruiting practices must address transfer of credit and acceptance of credentials by requiring that decisions about the acceptance of credits and credentials cannot be made solely on the basis of the accreditation of the sending institution or program, provided that the institution or program is accredited by a recognized agency.
Institutions would be required to inform prospective students of their policy.

Joel M. Rudnick
Powers
Pyles
Sutter &
Verville PC
Attorneys At Law

Potential Consequences of
Noncompliance in Financial Aid






Program review or audit findings leading to disallowances and liabilities.
Enforcement Actions -- fines, limitations, termination, suspension.
Reimbursement or Cash Monitoring
Letters of Credit
Growth Restrictions (changes in ownership, audit findings)
School And Program Closures, Teach Outs,
Loan Discharges, Class Action and Qui Tam
Lawsuits.

Sources of Enforcement – ED and
Beyond






Program Reviews (Onsite and Desk Reviews)
OIG Audits and Investigations
Substantive Change Reviews
Qui Tam Lawsuits & Federal Court Litigation
Student Lending: State AGs, ED and
Congressional Inquiries, FTC
Accreditation: Outcomes (Completion &
Placement)

ED Program Review Activity
ED Program Reviews Completed in FY
2004 – 2006




634 Program Review Completed
FY 2006: 190
FY 2005: 219

FY 2004: 225
Breakdown of FY 2004-2006 Reviews By
School Type




Public: 133
Proprietary: 367
Private Nonprofit: 132
Foreign: 2

ED Program Review Activity
ED Program Reviews Completed in FY 2004-2006
Program Reviews at All Institutions FY04 FY05 FY06
Associate Degree:
Bachelor ’ s Degree:
First Professional Degree:
Master ’ s Degree or Doctor ’ s Degree
Short-Term (300-599 hours):
Non-Degree (600-899 hours)
Non-Degree 1 Year (900-1799 hours)
54
25
3
42
0
0
71
Non-Degree 2 Years (1800-2699 hours) 26
70
19
1
34
1
2
60
30
50
23
3
29
0
6
70
8
Non-Degree 3+ Years (>2699 hours) 4 2 1

ED Program Review Activity
Teams
Atlanta
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Kansas City
New York/Boston
Philadelphia
San Francisco/Seattle
Completed in
FY 2004
32
40
18
20
30
31
20
33
Completed in
FY 2005
33
30
19
34
30
20
16
38
Completed in
FY 2006
30
22
38
16
11
36
13
22

Avoiding Program Review and Audit Liabilities
Top Findings in Program Reviews and Audits
Ranked by Frequency








Excess cash balances
Late Returns of Title IV funds
Verification violations
Incorrect Return calculations
Inconsistent information in student file
Entrance/exit counseling deficiencies
Campus Crime requirements not met
Satisfactory Academic Progress Standards not mentioned

Avoiding Program Review and Audit Liabilities
Top Findings in Program Reviews and Audits
Ranked by Dollars











Ability to Benefit violations
Falsification of records
Inconsistent information in student file
Excess cash balances – Direct Loans
FISAP expenditures incorrect
Ineligible Pell disbursements
Lack of Administrative Capability
Refunds not made to Title IV accounts
Admissions policy not followed
Verification not documented
Satisfactory Academic Progress Standards not mentioned

ED and OIG Enforcement Activity

Recent Decisions from Administrative
Judges in Program Review and Audit
Appeals

R2T4 and Application of Dear Colleague
Letter


Recent Decisions from the Secretary in
Program Review & Audit Appeals

Ineligible Locations and Disallowances

Professional Judgment
Recent OIG Audit Activity

Increase in FY07 Final Audit Reports

Audit Review Process – Factors That
Trigger Audits, Investigations and Program
Reviews
HEA Factors for Prioritizing Program Reviews
1.
Institutions with CDRs in excess of 25% or in highest 25th percentile
2. Institutions with a default rate in dollar volume for loans in highest 25th percentile
3. Institutions with significant fluctuation in FFEL,
Direct Loan, or Pell volume
4. Institutions reported to have deficiencies or financial aid problems by state licensing or accrediting agencies
5. Institutions with high annual dropout rates
6. Catch-all: Institutions deemed to pose a significant risk of failure to comply with administrative capability or financial responsibility provisions

Audit Review Process – Steps For
Preempting and Containing Audit and
Program Review Findings



Information Flow During and Immediately
After the Audit & Visit – Detecting and
Correcting Factual Misunderstandings
Preempting File Review Requirements: The
10 Percent Standard
Opportunities Under The HEA To Correct or
Cure Administrative, Accounting or
Recordkeeping Errors

 if the error is not part of a pattern of error if there is no evidence of fraud or misconduct relating to the error

Audit Review Process – Steps For
Preempting and Containing Audit and
Program Review Findings
Resolution of Audits, Reviews &
Investigations






Case Management Team
Policy and PIP
Office of General Counsel
Senior ED Officials
Administrative Judges
State & Accrediting Agencies

Other Sources of Enforcement – Qui Tam
Lawsuits and Student Lending
Investigations



Qui Tam Lawsuits
Student Lending Investigations


New York AG Investigation Into Preferred Lenders
Lists and Lender-School Relationships
Old & New Enforcers




ED
OIG
Congress
Other State AG Offices

State Legislatures

Federal Trade Commission
What These Developments Mean for Title IV
Participating Institutions & The Enforcement
Process






Internal Controls & Corrective Action Plans
Operational Procedures to Ensure Compliant and Ethical Financial Aid Practices
Hiring, Training and Maintaining An Ethical
Compliance Team
Monitoring Changes in Law and Guidance
Anticipating and Preventing Employee and
Student Fraud


Risk Identification

Internal/External Reviews and
Assessments

Helplines/Hotlines

Active Review of Complaints

The Role of In-House and Third-Party
Experts

Powers
Pyles
Sutter &
Verville PC
Attorneys At Law
Powers Pyles Sutter & Verville, P.C.
1501 M Street, NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Ph. 202-872-6757
Fax. 202-785-1756
E-mail: Stan.Freeman@ppsv.com
Stanley A. Freeman
Stanley A. Freeman joined Powers Pyles Sutter & Verville, P.C. in 1994. Mr. Freeman is a principal and shareholder and founder of the firm's education practice. Mr. Freeman frequently counsels postsecondary educational institutions from all sectors of higher education regarding strategic issues pertaining to participation in the federal student financial assistance programs, accreditation, licensure, and related regulatory concerns.
Mr. Freeman has been actively involved in representing educational institutions for twenty years. In his practice, he counsels individual educational institutions, corporate investors in higher education, associations of schools and colleges, accrediting agencies, guaranty agencies, and allied educational companies on administrative, transactional, regulatory and litigation matters. He has represented numerous schools in proceedings before the U.S.
Department of Education, the accrediting commissions, and guaranty agencies. He has also litigated cases in the state and federal courts. Stan spends much of his time advising clients concerning regulatory and compliance matters arising under the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Mr. Freeman graduated with distinction from the Honors College of the University of
Michigan in 1978 and received his law degree from the Georgetown University Law Center in
1982. He is admitted to practice law in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia.

Powers
Pyles
Sutter &
Verville PC
Attorneys At Law
Powers Pyles Sutter & Verville, P.C.
1501 M Street, NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Ph. 202-872-6778
Fax. 202-785-1756
E-mail: Sherry.Gray@ppsv.com
Sherry Mastrostefano Gray
Sherry Mastrostefano Gray is a principal and a member of the
Education Group at Powers Pyles Sutter & Verville, P.C. She represents colleges, universities and postsecondary education companies. Ms. Gray regularly advises clients regarding federal regulatory, state and accrediting agency requirements applicable to postsecondary institutions, including approval requirements, federal student financial aid compliance issues, growth plans, mergers and acquisitions, student loan programs, and non student aid federal grant standards. Ms. Gray assists institutions in the resolution of government and independent audits, investigations and other actions alleging failure to comply with regulatory requirements or accrediting agency standards. Ms. Gray graduated with honors from
Boston University in 1986 and received her law degree, with honors, from
George Washington University Law School in 1990. Prior to joining private practice, she served as law clerk in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Virginia. Ms. Gray is a member of the bar of the
District of Columbia and a member of the National Association of College and University Attorneys.

Powers
Pyles
Sutter &
Verville PC
Attorneys At Law
Powers Pyles Sutter & Verville, P.C.
1501 M Street, NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Ph. 202-466-6550
Fax. 202-785-1756
E-mail: sharon.bob@ppsv.com
Sharon H. Bob, Ph.D.
Sharon H. Bob, Ph.D., Higher Education Specialist on Policy and Regulation, is a member of the Education Group at the Washington, D.C. law firm of Powers Pyles Sutter
& Verville, P.C. Dr. Bob advises all sectors of higher education regarding strategic issues pertaining to their participation in the federal student financial assistance programs, accreditation, licensure, education tax benefits, and related regulatory matters.
Dr. Bob advises public and private colleges and universities, as well as private and publicly-traded companies. In this role, she provides clients with detailed technical guidance related to compliance with applicable statute and regulations. She regularly assists postsecondary educational institutions on issues relating to institutional eligibility, program eligibility, student eligibility, financial responsibility and administrative capability standards, changes of ownership, adding locations and programs, program reviews and compliance audits, and institutional responsibilities for the education tax benefits.
Through training seminars and on-site reviews, she assists clients in complying with the federal requirements for administering federal student financial assistance. Dr. Bob has authored numerous articles on federal financial aid issues for
NASFAA’s
College Link, and other higher education publications and frequently speaks at meetings of college officials and student aid administrators.
The Greentree Gazette,
Journal of Student Financial Aid, NASFAA’s Student Aid Transcript, the Career
Dr. Bob received her undergraduate degree summa cum laude from the State
University of New York at Buffalo and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. She received her doctorate from the University of Maryland.

Powers
Pyles
Sutter &
Verville PC
Attorneys At Law
Powers Pyles Sutter & Verville, P.C.
1501 M Street, NW, 7th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Ph. 202-872-6763
Fax. 202-785-1756
E-mail: Joel.Rudnick@ppsv.com
Joel M. Rudnick
•
•
•
•
•
•
Practice Areas:
Postsecondary Education
Title IV Compliance
Program Review and Audit
Responses and Appeals
Accreditation and Licensure
Litigation
Transactions
•
•
•
• Title IV and Private Lending
Member:
DC Bar
Maryland Bar
NASFAA
•
•
• NACUA
Education:
JD, Georgetown, 1991
BA, New York University,
1988
Joel Rudnick is a principal in the firm’s education practice and has specialized in representing public and private colleges and schools, investors, and lenders on compliance, litigation and transactional matters for 16 years.
Joel advises clients on compliance issues arising out of all aspects of the federal, state, and accrediting body regulation of public and private postsecondary educational institutions with a primary focus on matters related to the federal student aid programs authorized by the Higher Education Act of 1965. He regularly assists clients with strategic planning and targeted advice on issues relating to institutional eligibility, the 90/10 rule, financial responsibility, changes in ownership, the incentive compensation rule, student lending rules, distance learning, return of funds, institutional changes such as new campuses and educational programs, student eligibility rules, verification, compliance audits, and the vast array of technical rules and guidance governing the disbursement of federal student financial assistance. He also speaks and writes frequently on breaking regulatory issues affecting the financial aid community, including CCA, NASFAA, and state and regional conferences and seminars.
Joel has extensive experience representing postsecondary educational institutions in proceedings before the
United States Department of Education. He has litigated numerous client appeals of final audit and program review determinations and adverse actions before the Department, as well as seeking and obtaining settlements of such matters. He has also represented clients in federal court and in show cause proceedings before accrediting bodies and state licensing agencies. He has provided regulatory counsel on over 75 program reviews, audits, and investigations on Title IV matters.
Joel also counsels schools and investors on regulatory and transactional matters unique to the acquisition of postsecondary educational institutions. He has advised on over 50 transactions in the postsecondary market, including initial and secondary public offerings, going private transactions, non-profit to for-profit conversions, mergers and recapitalizations. He advises clients on the transactional impact of applicable federal, state, and accrediting body rules, including structuring and regulatory approvals. He also conducts and consults on due diligence inquiries and investigations.
Joel graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in 1991. He lives in the Washington area with his wife
Patty and their son and daughter.