125407586_web1_William-Drozginski-pic-PSP-Megans-Law

Appeals court: Sexual offender prohibited from being alone with children

125408267_web1_Dr.-Rachel-Levine

Initial test of Pa. nursing homes for COVID-19 done, more to come

WILKES-BARRE &mdash; Attorney General Josh Shapiro on Tuesday said a major decision in proceedings against Navient will also help protect consumers in future lawsuits.
				Shapiro announced what he called &ldquo;an important win&rdquo; in a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, as part of the Office of Attorney General&rsquo;s ongoing court battle with Navient, the nation&rsquo;s second-largest servicer of federal and private student loans.
				&ldquo;Today&rsquo;s decision is a big step in favor of all Pennsylvania consumers, especially anyone with student loans,&rdquo; Shapiro said. &ldquo;Navient repeatedly and deliberately put their own profits ahead of the goals of every borrower who worked to better their lives through education.&rdquo;
				Shapiro went on to say that Navient has attempted to delay this case at every turn and failed yet again with the Third Circuit Court&rsquo;s decision.
				&ldquo;Despite their efforts, my office won&rsquo;t stop pursuing Navient until I know that they can&rsquo;t deceive Pennsylvanians again,&rdquo; Shapiro said. &ldquo;The decision also makes clear consumers won&rsquo;t be left unprotected when the federal government fails to step up as has happened all too often during the current administration.&rdquo;
				Navient response
				Paul Hartwick, Vice President of Corporate Communications for Navient in Wilmington, Del., issued a statement on behalf of the company:
				&ldquo;This ruling affirms our longstanding position that the Higher Education Act dictates the disclosure requirements in the servicing of student loans and does not allow states to set up other disclosure requirements.
				&ldquo;Navient consistently met and surpassed its requirements to inform borrowers about income-driven repayment options to help them navigate an overly complicated federal student loan repayment process.
				&ldquo;We look forward to working through each of the plaintiff&rsquo;s claims with the District Court to show they are preempted.&rdquo;
				Hartwick cited several points in the court&rsquo;s ruling that he said illustrate the strength of Navient&rsquo;s arguments.
				&ldquo;They provide Navient with a clear path to have claims preempted by federal law,&rdquo; Hartwick said in an email. &ldquo;We are eager to move forward to the phase of arguing the actual facts of the case.&rdquo;
				On page 34 of the ruling, it states: &ldquo;The Commonwealth cannot fault Navient for failing to provide consumers with more information about IDR plans or re-certification, but it can fault Navient for providing misinformation.&rdquo;
				And on page 35: &ldquo;It is possible that on remand (especially if Navient again moves for dismissal) the District Court may need to conduct a closer, allegation-by-allegation, assessment of which claims in the Commonwealth&rsquo;s complaint are based on affirmative misrepresentations and which are possibly based on failures of disclosure.&rdquo;
				About the case
				&#8226; In October 2017, Shapiro sued Navient for engaging in unfair and deceptive lending and failing to offer proper repayment plans to students.
				&#8226; In December 2018, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied Navient&rsquo;s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.
				&#8226; Navient appealed this ruling and, today, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court&rsquo;s ruling.
				&#8226; As a result of this court order, discovery will resume and the case will proceed towards trial.
				From Shapiro&rsquo;s office
				Shapiro&rsquo;s office provided a few key conclusions in the 42-page order:
				&#8226; The Court rejected Navient&rsquo;s core argument, that the Federal Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) prohibits states from bringing CFPA claims where there is already a pending lawsuit by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to address the same violative conduct. The Court wrote that CFPA&rsquo;s &ldquo;plain meaning&rdquo; is &ldquo;that the Pennsylvania attorney general may bring an action to enforce the [CFPA].&rdquo;
				&#8226; Shapiro said the court rejected Navient&rsquo;s argument that parallel state and federal lawsuits would waste judicial resources. Among other reasons, the court wrote that, &ldquo;states may be able to pick up slack when the federal government fails to enforce and regulate. If the bureau were under pressure to settle or withdraw its lawsuit, states would still be free to protect the rights of consumers in their states.&rdquo;
				According to Shapiro&rsquo;s office, a total of 1.76 million Pennsylvanians collectively owed $70.9 billion in private and federal student loans as of December 2019.
				The average student loan debt for a new college graduate in Pennsylvania was $37,061 in 2018 &mdash; second highest among all states.

Court allows AG Shapiro’s case against Navient to move forward