Company: GHC
Filing Date: 2025-02-26
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0000104889-25-000022
Chunk: 152

Company: Graham Holdings Co
Filing Date: 2025-02-26
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 1
Chunk 152
---
; provides that the borrower’s claim will be presumed true if the institution does not provide any responsive evidence; provides an easier process for group claims; and relies on current program review penalty hearing processes for discharge recoupment. Under the rule, the recoupment process applies only to loans first disbursed after July 1, 2023; however, the discharge process and standards apply to any pending application regardless of the loan date. 

Kaplan believes it has substantive as well as procedural defenses to the borrower defense claims that would bar any student discharge or school liability, including that the claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, are unproven, incomplete and fail to meet regulatory filing requirements. Kaplan expects to vigorously defend any attempt by the ED to hold Kaplan liable for any ultimate student discharges. Kaplan responded to the initial set of claims in 2021 with documentary and narrative evidence to refute the allegations, demonstrate their lack of merit, 

7

and support the denial of all such claims by the ED. Kaplan intends to similarly respond to any new claims that apply to Kaplan University or other prior Kaplan-owned schools. If the claims are successful, the ED may seek reimbursement for the amount discharged from Kaplan. If the ED initiates a reimbursement action against Kaplan following approval of former students’ BDTR applications, Kaplan may be subject to significant liability.

As part of the Sweet v. Cardona settlement described below, the ED agreed to review any BDTR applications submitted between June 23, 2022 and November 15, 2022 on an expedited basis. In January 2024, Kaplan was informed that the ED received applications during this time period regarding former Kaplan University and Purdue Global students. Kaplan received those applications and believes none of the applications has merit and that the applications are far outside any statute of limitations period and accordingly Kaplan responded similarly to responses for prior claims. The total discharge amount sought or how much of that amount would apply to Kaplan University students is not fully known. The Sweet v. Cardona settlement requires the ED to adjudicate applications received during the designated time period pursuant to the requirements of the 2016 Borrower Defense Regulation. As noted, if the claims are successful, the ED may seek reimbursement for the amount discharged from Kaplan. Kaplan believes it has significant defenses against any attempt by the ED at recoupment including the claims’ collective lack of merit, the applicable statute of limitations periods, and the ED’s standing for recoupment given the Sweet settlement described below. Regardless, if the ED initiates