Company: GHC
Filing Date: 2025-02-26
Form Type: 10-K
Source: 0000104889-25-000022
Chunk: 124

Company: Graham Holdings Co
Filing Date: 2025-02-26
Form: 10-K
Item: Item 16
Chunk 124
---
 Kaplan responded to the initial set of claims in 2021 with documentary and narrative evidence to refute the allegations, demonstrate their lack of merit, 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 

117

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 a reimbursement action against Kaplan following approval of former students’ BDTR applications, Kaplan may be subject to significant liability.In November 2022, the Northern District of California approved the settlement agreement in the lawsuit Sweet v. Cardona. The Plaintiffs in that lawsuit claimed that the ED failed to properly consider and decide pending BDTR claims. As part of the settlement, the ED agreed to discharge loans of borrowers who attended 150 specific schools, including all schools formerly owned by Kaplan, and who had BDTR claims pending as of the June 22, 2022 settlement execution date. This discharge will likely cover each of the first set of applications the ED sent to Kaplan and to which Kaplan previously responded. The ED and the Court made clear that these discharges as part of a settlement are not determinations that the