Massachusetts Attorney General organizes volunteer lawyers to represent indigent college debtors in bankruptcy: This is A VERY BIG DEAL

Maura Healey, Massachusetts Attorney General,  announced last month that her office is partnering with the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce to organize volunteer lawyers to represent distressed college debtors in bankruptcy.

This is a VERY BIG DEAL for a least four reasons:

Dispelling the myth that student loans can't be discharged in bankruptcy

First, as Steve Rhode pointed out, AG Healey's initiative gives the lie to the myth that student loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. The Department of Education and the student-loan industry want college borrowers to believe their student loans are not dischargeable, and they have been successful in  perpetuating that falsehood.

As scholar Jason Iuliano wrote in a law review article, almost a quarter of million student loan debtors filed for bankruptcy in 2007, but only a few hundred even tried to discharge their student loans. But the Massachusetts Attorney General's initiative demonstrates that competent attorneys believe these loans can be wiped out in bankruptcy, and that is welcome news.

Legal representation means that more college borrowers will win their bankruptcy cases

Second, having experienced and committed lawyers representing student-loan debtors in bankruptcy court means more college borrowers will be successful. I once thought student-loan debtors could win their cases against the Department of Education and their agents even if they went to court without lawyers.

And indeed a few debtors have gotten relief from student loans in the bankruptcy courts, even though they went to court without attorneys. Richard Precht, Jaime Clavito, and George and Melanie Johnson come to mind.  But the debt collectors--and Educational Credit Management Corporation, in particular--have appealed their losses in the appellate courts, where it is very difficult for debtors to defend their interests.

In the Hedlund case, for example, a student-loan creditor fought Michael Hedlund in the appellate courts for 10 years!  And creditors often got debtors' victories reversed by appellate courts. In a heartbreaking loss, George and Melanie Johnson got their victory snatched away after a bankruptcy judge reversed his earlier decision to discharge their loans. The judge backtracked after his original decision was vacated by an appellate judge.

With competent attorneys, however, college borrowers can fight DOE and its venal agents until hell freezes over. And eventually some of debtors' victories in the bankruptcy courts will be upheld at the federal circuit court level.  Once the federal appellate courts endorse a more humane approach to handling student-loan bankruptcies, we will see more deserving debtors get relief.

Attorneys can defend college borrowers from dastardly creditor tactics

Third, if energetic and competent lawyers begin representing college borrowers in the bankruptcy courts, debtors will have able advocates to fend off what Rafael Pardo labeled "pollutive litigation" by the debt collectors.  Indigent debtors cannot counter unscrupulous tactics by creditors' lawyers unless they themselves have lawyers. In the Bruner-Halteman case, for example, ECMC repeatedly garnishing the wages of a bankrupt student debtor in violation of federal law. Had Bruner-Halteman not had an attorney, she would have been crushed.

A State Attorney General is now in open conflict with Betsy Devos and the Dept. of Education

 Finally, Massachusetts AG Maura Healey is now in open conflict with our federal government's heinous policy of fighting bankruptcy relief for college borrowers who are truly suffering. In the Myhre case, DOE opposed bankruptcy relief for a quadriplegic student-loan borrower who was working full time and yet unable to survive financially. In the Abney case, DOE fought bankruptcy relief for Michael Abney, a man in his forties who had a record of homelessness and who had a monthly income of about $1100 a month. In Roth, ECMC fought Janet Roth all the way into an appellate court. Poor Ms. Roth was living on Social Security income amounting to less than $800 a month.

Conclusion

For the first time, we will soon see a state attorney general's office and aggressive and competent lawyers going on the attack against Betsy DeVos' Department of Education, which has become nothing more than a shill and a lackey for the corrupt student-loan business.  Hurrah for AG Maura Healey!

AG Healey has introduced a model for progressive state governments to attack a vicious federal agency and bring relief to millions of college borrowers who have their backs against the wall.  California, I call on you to rally to AG Healey's standard. New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Texas and Florida: respond to Healey's bugle call and join the fight.

It is time for state governments to fight the corrupt and sleazy student-loan industry and to bring it down.  AG Healey and the Massachusetts Bar Association have shown the nation the path toward justice.

References

Bruner-Halteman v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, Case No. 12-324-HDH-13, ADV. No. 14-03041 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2016).

Hann v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 711 F.3d 235 (1st Cir. 2013).

Jason Iuliano. An Empirical Assessment of Student Loan Discharge and the Undue Hardship Standard. American Bankruptcy Law Journal 86 (2012), 495.

Natalie Kitroeff. Loan Monitor is Accused of Ruthless Tactics on Student Debt. New York Times, January 1, 2014. Accessible at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/us/loan-monitor-is-accused-of-ruthless-tactics-on-student-debt.html?_r=0

Rafael Pardo. The Undue Hardship Thicket: On Access to Justice, Procedural Noncompliance, and Pollutive Litigation in Bankruptcy. 66 Florida Law Review 2101 (2014).

Steve Rhode. Mass AG and Bar Association Lead Way to Help Student Loan Debtors to Help File Bankruptcy. getoutofdebtguy.org (blog), January 29, 2018.

Roth v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 490 B.R. 908 (9th Cir. BAP 2013). 

Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senate progressives should press for hearings on Educational Credit Management Corporation and the student loan crisis

Senator Elizabeth Warren has had a brilliant career. She grew up in Oklahoma, went to law school, and wound up on the Harvard Law School faculty. Now she is in the U.S. Senate, and pundits say she may run for President in 2020. Impressive!

Somewhere along the way, Senator Warren represented that she had Cherokee blood, although she never provided a shred of evidence to support that assertion. Her claim may have been a factor in getting that cushy Harvard Law School job. But Harvard says no, and Harvard always tells the truth.

Nevertheless, Harvard Law School claimed it had a Native American professor while Warren was on the faculty, without identifying who it was. (To be fair, it may have been Alan Dershowitz).

If Warren misrepresented her heritage to advance her career, we can't be too hard on her. Higher education is a rough business, and Warren certainly played the game better than I did. And, as the song goes that Willie Nelson made famous, Liz only did what she had to do.

But Warren is a senator now, and she has an obligation to do some good for the American people. She claims to be an advocate for distressed student-loan debtors, but what has she done for them?

She's written letters to the Department of Education and spouted a lot of nonsense about the "obscene" profits the government makes off the student-loan program. More substantively, she co-sponsored a bill in 2015 to protect seniors from having their Social Security checks garnished, but the bill never became law.

In my view, Senator Warren could do more to address the student loan crisis than file bills and write letters. Specifically, she should join with other progressives in the Senate and press for Senate hearings on the student loan guaranty agencies and Educational Credit Management Corporation in particular. ECMC is perhaps the federal government's most ruthless debt collector and has amassed a billion dollars in unrestricted assets, at least partly from hounding destitute student debtors.

In the Bruner-Halteman case, for example, ECMC garnished the wages of a bankrupt Starbucks employee 37 times in violation of the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision. A Texas bankruptcy slapped ECMC with $74,000 in punitive damages.

And in the Hann case, ECMC continued trying to collect on a woman's student loans even though a bankruptcy court had discharged those loans on the grounds that she had paid them off.  ECMC only got stung with a small penalty for that misbehavior.

Rafael Pardo and the Century Foundation both established that the federal government is paying ECMC's attorney fees, and ECMC is using its attorneys to ground down overburdened student borrowers in the bankruptcy courts. Many of these destitute people don't have the money to hire a lawyer, but ECMC is paying its lawyers as much as $300 an hour.

The public has no idea what ECMC has been up to, and Senate hearings could shine some light on this sleazy organization. How much is ECMC paying its CEO, Jan Hines, and its other senior executives? What is ECMC doing with its wealth? Why does the Department of Education pay ECMC's attorney fees to engage in what Rafael Pardo described as "pollutive litigation"?

Senator Warren could do a great deal of good if she would use her powers of persuasion to get the Senate Banking Committee to hold hearings on ECMC's shady activities. In fact, if Senator Warren got the opportunity to ask ECMC executives some tough questions, I'll bet she could bring this rotten outfit down.

Senator Warren needs to accomplish something tangible to address the student loan crisis if she wants people to regard her as a consumers' advocate. If she doesn't accomplish something soon, Americans will be forced to conclude she is not really a progressive, just as we know she's not really a Cherokee.

How much does ECMC pay its CEO, Jan Hines?

References

Bruner-Halteman v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, Case No. 12-324-HDH-13, ADV. No. 14-03041 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2016).

Hann v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 711 F.3d 235 (1st Cir. 2013).

John Hechinger. Taxpayers Fund $454,000 Pay for Collector Chasing Student Loans. Bloomberg.com, May 15, 2013.

Joshua Hicks. Did Elizabeth Warren check the Native American box when she "applied" to Harvard and Penn? Washington Post, September 28, 2012.

Natalie Kitroeff. Loan Monitor is Accused of Ruthless Tactics on Student Debt. New York Times, January 1, 2014.

Rafael Pardo. The Undue Hardship Thicket: On Access to Justice, Procedural Noncompliance, and Pollutive Litigation in Bankruptcy. 66 Florida Law Review 2101 (2014).

Robert Shireman and Tariq Habash. Have Student Loan Guaranty Agencies Lost Their Way? The Century Foundation, September 29, 2016. 

Brian Walsh. Elizabeth Warren is Rewriting American History. U.S. News & World Report, April 22, 2014.

Educational Credit Management Corporation is a bad actor: Rafael Pardo's article about ECMC's litigation misbehavior

In recent blogs, I discussed two cases in which Educational Credit Management Corporation, the Department of Education's most ruthless student-loan debt collector, was sanctioned by a court for misbehavior. In the Bruner-Halteman case, a Texas bankruptcy judge assessed punitive damages against ECMC for garnishing the wages of a bankrupt Starbucks employee in violation of the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision. The judge awarded Ms. Bruner-Halteman $74,000 in punitive damages--$2,000 for each of the 37 times ECMC wrongly garnished her wages.

In the Hann case, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld sanctions against ECMC for trying to collect on a student loan debt in spite of the fact that a federal bankruptcy judge had ruled that the debt had been paid.

Are these isolated cases of misbehavior? No they are not. In 2014, Rafael Pardo published an article in the University of Florida Law Review that documents how often ECMC's attorneys engage in "pollutive litigation" in cases against hapless bankrupt student-loan debtors.

Pardo's article is long (77 pages) and a bit dense and technical (477 footnotes).  I will limit my discussion of his impressive essay to a few of the highlights:

Failure to file corporate ownership statement

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure require corporate parties in adversary proceedings to file a "corporate ownership statement" that identifies any corporate party that directly or indirectly owns 10 percent or more of the corporate party's equity interests. According to Pardo's analysis of a random sample of cases, ECMC failed to file its corporate ownership statement 81 percent of the time during 2011 and 2012.

What is the significance of ECMC's noncompliance This is what Pardo said:

The significance of such procedural noncompliance is that, in the overwhelming majority of these adversary proceedings, ECMC has failed to provide the presiding judge with the information necessary to determine whether [the judge] has a financial interest in ECMC that would warrant self-disqualification. Even assuming that ECMC would not have had to report any entity in the corporate ownership statement if ECMC had been procedurally compliant, the failure to file the statement casts a cloud on the legitimacy of the outcomes of proceedings that ended favorably for ECMC. (p. 2149)

Motion Practice 

Pardo also documented incidents when ECMC failed to abide by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in its motion practice.  First, in some adversary proceedings a student-loan debtor fails to name ECMC as a defendant, probably because the debtor did not know the name of the correct party to sue. In such cases, ECMC is required to state with particularity that the debtor's student-loan debt has been assigned to ECMC and that it is the proper party to litigate whether the debt is dischargeable.

Pardo found that ECMC often asserted itself as the proper party in an adversary proceeding without filing the appropriate representations about its interests. First, Pardo found that in 9.2 percent of a random sample of cases, ECMC didn't file any motion to become a named party; it simply entered into the litigation as if it had been named in the student-debtor's complaint. (p. 2153)

Furthermore, when ECMC did file a motion to join the litigation, the motion contained a substantive deficiency 80 percent of the time (in the cases Pardo examined).  Deficiencies included failing to allege assignment of the loan, failure to provide documentation of a loan's assignment, and failure to indicate which of the Federal Rules entitled it to be granted relief.

One might respond to Pardo's findings with a yawning so-what, but as Pardo pointed out, "Such procedural noncompliance is significant because it calls into question the legitimacy of a court's decision to allow a movant who may not have a valid basis to join the litigation" (p. 2153). Moreover, the fact that bankruptcy courts have allowed ECMC to get away with these procedural violations suggests that the courts aren't looking closely enough to determine whether ECMC has the right to insert itself into a student-debtor's adversary proceeding.

Responsive-Pleading Practice

Pardo's research found that student debtors named ECMC as a named defendant about 24 percent of the time. In such cases, ECMC filed an improper response in about one case out of four. (p. 256)

In the majority of the cases Pardo examined, the debtor did not name ECMC as a defendant. In those cases, ECMC was required to file a motion to intervene on the grounds that it was the proper named party. In the cases Pardo reviewed, ECMC filed an improper response 89 percent of the time. For example, ECMC would sometimes answer a student debtor's complaint before it had served its motion to intervene.

How these irregularities affects a student-debtor's interest is a bit complicated, and I invite you to read Pardo's discussion on that issue. But it is remarkable, in my view, that ECMC, a sophisticated debt collector, fails to abide by the Federal Rules of Procedure on so many occasions.

Discovery Practice

Pardo also found significant rules violation in ECMC's discovery practices. In particular, Pardo found a case in which ECMC moved for summary judgment based on a student debtor's deemed admissions even though ECMC had wrongly asked the debtor to admit to a conclusion of law.

In my mind, ECMC engages in serious misconduct when it formally asks a bankrupt student-loan debtor to admit to conclusions of law--especially an unsophisticated debtors who is not represented by an attorney.  Not only are such requests impermissible under the Federal Rules, but student debtors may not know that; and they may also not know that an unanswered Request for Admission is deemed to be admitted.

Conclusion: ECMC engages in "pollutive litigation" and it uses taxpayer's money to do so

Pardo characterized ECMC's bankruptcy-case behavior as "pollutive litigation," and that's putting the matter mildly. ECMC gets reimbursed by the federal government for its attorney fees--fees that are often spent harassing unsophisticated debtors who do not even have lawyers.

Moreover, ECMC frequently wears student debtors down just by prolonging the litigation. Janet Roth, for example, an elderly woman living on Social Security income of less than $800 a month, filed for bankruptcy in January 2009. Her case was not concluded until April 2013, more than four years later.

There are a lot of things Congress can do to clean up the student-loan mess and bring relief to millions of suffering student debtors. But shutting down ECMC would be a big step in the right direction.

The Department of Education Should Shut This Bad Boy Down.

References

Bruner-Halteman v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, Case No. 12-324-HDH-13, ADV. No. 14-03041 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2016).

Hann v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 711 F.3d 235 (1st Cir. 2013).

John Hechinger. Taxpayers Fund $454,000 Pay for Collector Chasing Student Loans. Bloomberg.com, May 15, 2013. Accessible at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-15/taxpayers-fund-454-000-pay-for-collector-chasing-student-loans.html

Natalie Kitroeff. Loan Monitor is Accused of Ruthless Tactics on Student Debt. New York Times, January 1, 2014. Acccessible at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/02/us/loan-monitor-is-accused-of-ruthless-tactics-on-student-debt.html?_r=0

Rafael Pardo. The Undue Hardship Thicket: On Access to Justice, Procedural Noncompliance and Pollutive Litigation in Bankruptcy. 66 Florida Law Review 2101-2178.

Roth v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 490 B.R. 908 (9th Cir. BAP 2013). 

Robert Shireman and Tariq Habash. Have Student Loan Guaranty Agencies Lost Their Way? The Century Foundation, September 29, 2016. Accessible at https://tcf.org/content/report/student-loan-guaranty-agencies-lost-way/

Educational Credit Management Corporation and the U.S. Department of Education: Are They Co-Conspirators in Accounting Fraud?

Last March, an Arizona bankruptcy court discharged $245,000 in student loan debt owed by  Rita Gail Edwards, a 56-year-old single woman earning a tenuous living as a counselor. Educational Credit Management Corporation (ECMC), her student-loan creditor, fought the discharge. ECMC wanted Edwards placed in a 25-year income-based repayment plan. Under such a plan, Edwards would only pay $84 a month on her loans for 25 years.

ECMC's position was absurd, of course. A woman in her late 50s  will never pay off a $245,000 loan by making monthly payments of $84. The only possible purpose that is served by jamming Ms. Edwards into a 25-year repayment plan is to carry her student-loan debt on the Department of Education's books as a performing loan.

In ruling for Ms. Edwards, the bankruptcy judge questioned the wisdom of a system that allowed Edwards to borrow so much money. "In hindsight, it is a shame that [Edwards] ever incurred these student loan debts," the court observed.

While her Ottawa University education may have given her the tools and credentials to work in an emotionally satisfying role [as a counselor] and may have provided a well needed skilled counselor in her rural community, the predictable economic burden was never likely to justify the massive economic burden she incurred.

The Edwards case demonstrates the insanity of the federal student-loan program. Our government allows people to borrow extravagant amounts of money for educational programs that will never pay off, and then it engages debt collectors to push borrowers into long-term income-based repayment plans that stretch out over 25 years and will almost never result in the loans being repaid.

And the Edwards case is not an anomaly. In the Roth case, ECMC opposed a bankruptcy discharge for an elderly woman with chronic health problems who was living on less than $800 a month. In fact, Roth's income was so low that ECMC acknowledged that Roth's monthly payments under an income-based repayment plan would be zero!

In the Halverson case, ECMC opposed a discharge for a man in his sixties making less than $14 an hour as a substitute teacher and who owed almost $300,000 in student loan debt. Mr. Halverson borrowed less than half the amount he owed when he filed bankruptcy and was never in default. His debt ballooned mostly due to accruing interest while his loans were in deferment.

The Department of Education itself has taken the same irrational stance regarding bankruptcy discharge for student debtors. In the Myhre case, DOE opposed a discharge for a quadriplegic, and in the Abney case, it opposed a discharge for  a single father of two children who was living on less than $1200 a month and could not even afford to own a car.

Why?

 I can think of only one reason. ECMC and DOE are engaged in a massive accounting fraud, trying to convince the public that the federal student loan program is solvent and fiscally sound. But in fact the student loan program is a disaster. Eight million people are in default and and one out of four debtors are either in default or behind on their loan payments.

ECMC benefits from the status quo--that is clear. According to a Century Foundation report, it has $1 billion in unrestricted assets, most of it obtained from its loan-collection activities. The Westlaw database shows that ECMC has  appeared as a named party in over 500 federal court rulings; it has spent literally millions of dollars in attorney fees chasing after people like Gail Edwards and Janet Roth.

And who pays those fees?  According to a law review article written by Rafael Pardo, ECMC draws money from a Federal Reserve Fund to finance its loan-collection activities and has access to "significant [federal] resources when litigating against student-loan debtors" (p. 2145).  Pardo cites a document showing that DOE allowed ECMC to keep a quarter of a billion dollars that it drew from DOE's Federal Reserve Fund to finance its activities in 2008 (p. 2145).

So you, Mr. & Ms American taxpayer, are paying ECMC to engage in unproductive litigation against impoverished debtors--litigation intended to keep the student-loan crisis under wraps.

And ECMC is a nonprofit organization--supposedly devoted to the public good.

But ECMC is not acting for the public good. On the contrary, ECMC is DOE's hit man--the entity DOE sends to beat down bankrupt student debtors and prevent them from getting the bankruptcy relief they deserve.

 ECMC's senior executives are getting well paid to be DOE's "Mac the Knife."  Its CEO makes at least a million dollars a year.

References

Annual Report of the CFPB Student Loan Ombudsman. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, September 2016. Available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/102016_cfpb_Transmittal_DFA_1035_Student_Loan_Ombudsman_Report.pdf

Edwards v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, Adversary No.. 3:15-ap-26-PS, 2016 WL 1317421 (Bankr. D. Ariz. March 31, 2016). Available at http://www.azb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/024139558300_dmd.pdf

In re: Halverson, 401 B.R. 378 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2009).

Rafael Pardo. The Undue Hardship Thicket: On Access to Justice, Procedural Noncompliance and Pollutive Litigation in Bankruptcy. 66 Florida Law Review 2101-2178. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2426744

Roth v. Educational Credit Management Corporation, 490 B.R. 908 (9th Cir. BAP 2013). Available at http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/bap/2013/04/16/RothV%20ECMC%20opinion-FINAL%20AZ-11-1233.pdf

All Student Loan Debtors Should Read Natalie Kitroeff's Recent Online Article in BloombergBusiness.Com

Every distressed student-loan debtor should read Natalie Kitroeff's recent article in BloombergBusiness.com about Murphy v. U.S. Department of Education and Educational Credit Management Corporation, now pending before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.  And any student-loan debtor who is trying to discharge a student loan in bankruptcy should read the amicus brief filed in that case by the National Consumer Law Center and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.

The essence of the Murphy case can be summarized in a few words. Robert Murphy took out federal PLUS loans (student loans taken out by parents to pay their children's college costs), but he lost his job as the president of a manufacturing firm.  He's been unemployed for 13 years--too old, he says, to find comparable employment and overqualified for lower-paying jobs in his field.

Today, Murphy is 65 years old, and his total student-loan indebtedness has grown to almost a quarter of a million dollars due to accumulated interest. He and his wife are living on an income of $15,000 a year, which his wife earns working as a teachers aide.

Murphy filed for bankruptcy, seeking relief from his PLUS loans, but a bankruptcy court refused to discharge the debt. Like so many debtors who try to shed their student loans in bankruptcy, Murphy is acting as his own attorney.  His case is now on appeal before the First Circuit.

Murphy hopes to persuade the First Circuit to abandon the harsh Brunner test for determining when it would be an "undue hardship" for insolvent debtors to be forced to repay their student loans. That test requires debtors to show that they cannot repay their student loans and maintain a minimal standard of living, that their financial circumstances aren't likely to change soon, and that they made good faith efforts to repay their loans.

In the Ninth Circuit BAP Court's Roth decision, Judge Pappas filed a concurring opinion arguing that the Brunner test no longer makes sense. He pointed out that the Brunner test was devised at a time when student-loan debtors could discharge their student loans without restriction after a relatively short period of time--after five or seven years.

Today, Judge Pappas explained, student-loan debtors hold a trillion dollars in outstanding student-loan debt. And Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code so that insolvent debtors must prove "undue hardship" no matter when they file for bankruptcy, even if it is decades after the loans were taken out.

John Rao, attorney for the National Consumer Law Center, filed a brilliant amicus brief in support of Murphy, arguing that the Brunner test should be overturned. Rafael Pardo, a nationally renowned legal scholar from Emory Law School, also filed an amicus brief in support of Murphy's position.

If the First Circuit rules in Murphy's favor, bankruptcy might become a viable option for millions of distressed student-loan debtors. And if that happens, the world will turn upside down for the federal government, the federal student-loan program, and the colleges and universities that have feasted off of student-aid money without regard to whether their students could pay off their student loans.

Kitroeff's article pointed out that total outstanding indebtedness has doubled in just seven years. At the current rate of growth, total indebtedness will double again within 10 years, ballooning to well over two trillion dollars.

Let's all say a prayer for Robert Murphy and the two amicus attorneys who came to his aid: John Rao and Rafael Pardo. Ten million people are now delinquent on their student loans or are in default, and nine million more hold deferments or forbearances that temporarily excuse them from making payments.  Almost 4 million people are making payments under income-based repayment plans, which means total indebtedess for most of them is going up, not down, because their loan payments don't cover accruing interest.

This situation can't go on forever, and Robert Murphy may be the guy that ushers in relief for millions of fellow sufferers.  If you are a student-loan debtor in bankruptcy, you must read the amicus briefs in the Murphy case and get the arguments made in those briefs before your bankruptcy judge. Mr. Murphy, Mr. Rao, and Mr. Pardo are on the side of the angels, and I think their arguments will be persuasive to many bankruptcy judges around the United States regardless of what the First Circuit does.

References

Amicus Brief filed by National Consumer Law Center and National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys in Support of Appellant (Robert Murphy) in Murphy v. U.S. Department of Education & Educational Credit Management Corporation. (Written by John Rao, esq.) Accessible at: https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/bankruptcy/brief-murphy-1st-cir-amicus.pdf

Amicus Brief filed by Rafael Pardo, arguing for reversal of District Court's decision in Murphy v. U.S. Department of education and Educational Credit Management Corporation. Accessible at: http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/murphy-pardo-brief.pdf

Natalie Kitroeff. This Court Case Could Unshackle Americans From Student Debt. BloombergBusiness.com, October 8, 2015. Accessible at:  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-08/this-court-case-could-unshackle-americans-from-student-debt

Occasionally, The New York Times Says Something Sensible About the Student Loan Crisis: Bankruptcy Relief for Private Student Loan Borrowers

Last month, the Student Loan Ombudsman for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)issued a report highlighting the hardships experienced by students who took out private loans to attend college. Unlike the federal student loan program, which offers income-based repayment plans and economic hardship deferments to student-loan borrowers who run into financial trouble, private lenders generally do not offer any type of relief for distressed student-loan borrowers.

What the CFPB did not say in its report is that private student-loan borrowers, like borrowers in the federal student loan program, cannot discharge their student loans in bankruptcy unless they can show "undue hardship," a very difficult standard to meet.
All the CFPB report offered as a remedy to this problem was a form letter that student-loan borrowers could modify and send to their private lenders to beg for relief.  That is really not much of a solution.

Yesterday, however, the New York Times commented on the CFPB report and made a sensible suggestion. The Times proposed that Congress repeal the 2005 "undue hardship" provision that makes it almost impossible for private student-loan borrowers to discharge their loans in bankruptcy. In the alternative, the Times added, legislation should be passed that requires private lenders to modify loan terms for distressed student-loan borrowers. "Now it's time for Congress to fix [the error it made when it passed the 2005 law]," the Times editorialized, "by rescinding the bankruptcy provision or requiring lenders to create clearly advertised flexible payment plans in exchange for retaining it."

Respected commentators have recommended rescinding the 2005 Bankruptcy Code provision for years. In 2009, Rafael Pardo, a law professor and noted researcher on the student-loan crisis, testified before a Congressional committee on the special hardships suffered by individuals who took out private student loans to finance their college studies.  Here is what Professor Pardo said:

Because the costs of private student loans can quickly spiral out of control, and because there exist limited nonbankruptcy options for mitigating the financial distress imposed by such costs, borrowers of private student loans are particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of undue-hardship discharge litigation.  If they end up seeking relief through the bankruptcy system and subsequently fail to prevail in their claim of undue hardship, they will find themselves struggling interminably under an oppressive amount of educational debt with little to no other options for relief.

In short, Professor Pardo told the Congressional committee:

By stripping away the one social safety net that existed for borrowers of private student loans--that is, the automatic discharge of such loans in bankruptcy--Congress has likely condemned certain student-loan debtors to the Sisyphean task of repaying obligations that will never be extinguished. [Emphasis supplied.]

In his testimony, Professor Pardo stated unequivocally that Congress should repeal the 2005 "undue hardship" provision that has made it almost impossible for individuals to discharge their private student-loan debts in bankruptcy.  Pardo testified as follows:

I respectfully urge Congress to restrike the balance between student-loan debtors and lenders of private student loans by restoring the automatically dischargeable status of private student loans in bankruptcy.

Without a doubt, repeal of the 2005 Bankruptcy Code provision is essential to providing relief to distressed college borrowers who took out private student loans.  It is refreshing to see that the New York Times essentially agrees with Professor Pardo on this issue, although the Times equivocated a bit by saying that Congress might pass a law requiring private student-loan lenders to offer flexible payment terms as an alternative to repealing the 2005 Bankruptcy Code provision.

Everyone in higher education should be clamoring for repeal of the Bankruptcy Code's "undue hardship provision for all student-loan borrowers, whether they borrowed from the federal student loan program or borrowed from private lenders.  Literally millions of distressed student-loan borrowers are suffering  because they cannot repay their loans and have no real means of relief in the bankruptcy courts.

But if across-the-board reform cannot be achieved politically, at least Congress should repeal the "undue hardship" provision as it applies to people who took out student loans from the private banks. Even the New York Times, which at times seems almost clueless about the student-loan crisis, has figured that out.

References

Editorial. Driving Student Borrowers Into Default. New York Times, November 3, 2014.

Rafael Pardo. ABI Members Testify on Discharging Student Loan Debt in Bankruptcy. ABI Journal, November 2009, p. 10. Accessible at: http://www.abiworld.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=59097&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm