Defunct Charlotte Law School and Ex-Students Reach $2.7M Settlement
If approved, the class-action settlement will end four federal suits and 90 state court suits targeting the shuttered law school.
September 12, 2018 at 02:27 PM
5 minute read
Now-closed Charlotte School of Law will pay former students $2.65 million under a proposed class-action settlement.
The school and student plaintiffs on Tuesday asked a federal judge in North Carolina to preliminarily approve the class and the settlement, saying it was the best deal the students could hope to achieve given the dire financial circumstances of the shuttered school and its parent company, InfiLaw Corp. Judge Graham Mullen of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted preliminary approval Wednesday.
Should it move forward, the class-action settlement would end four federal suits and 90 state court suits targeting the school.
Charlotte School of Law ran a net $8 million deficit in 2017, the year it closed, according to the settlement motion. InfiLaw lost more than $7 million in 2017 and $6 million through June 2018, the motion said. The settlement consists of the $2.5 million left from the school's insurance policy, as well as an additional $150,000 directly from InfiLaw.
“They're giving us everything that's left. It's hard to do better than that,” said Anthony Majestro, an attorney with Charleston, West Virginia, firm Powell & Majestro, one of six firms representing the plaintiffs involved in the settlement. “The problem with continuing to litigate is that the way their insurance policy works, it reduces the amount available to pay claims. In another year, there would be nothing left, if not sooner. That's why we believe this is in the best interest of the class.”
An InfiLaw spokesman did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the settlement, but according to the settlement motion the company has “minimal unencumbered assets that are barely sufficient to permit continued operations.”
The proposed class action would resolve all the suits against the law school, including the four pending in federal court and about 90 pending in North Carolina state court, Majestro said. If approved, students would not be able to bring further litigation against either the Charlotte School of Law or InfiLaw and would not be able to opt out of the settlement.
➤➤ Want more reporting on trends in legal education? Sign up here for Ahead of the Curve by Karen Sloan, a new email briefing from Law.com. Each week, Karen examines the transformation of legal education, spotlights innovative programs and breaks down the latest law school news.
However, the proposed settlement does not bar further litigation against Sterling Partners, the Chicago-based private equity firm that owns InfiLaw, Majestro added. The plaintiffs sought to include Sterling Partners in their suits, but a federal judge dismissed the firm last summer on the grounds that the North Carolina court had no jurisdiction over it. That decision was a major blow given that InfiLaw's financial resources are largely depleted. The plaintiffs are considering further actions against Sterling Partners in Illinois, Majestro added.
The U.S. Department of Education booted Charlotte from its federal loan program in December 2016 after it was found out of compliance with the American Bar Association's accreditation standard meant to ensure it enrolls only students who “appear capable” of graduating and passing the bar. A litany of fraud lawsuits followed, with students alleging that Charlotte hid its accreditation problems from students to prevent them from transferring, and that it should have disclosed its accreditation shortcomings much earlier. The school attempted to regain access to federal loans but shuttered in August 2017.
The proposed class consists of Charlotte students who attended between September 2013 and August 2017—an estimated 2,500. On average, they paid $42,000 in annual tuition. Payment amounts would be determined by a number of factors, including how long claimants attended, whether they transferred, and whether they qualified to have their federal loans discharged through the Education Department's closed-school discharge program. Thus, it's impossible to say what amount the average claimant will receive, Majestro said. However, the motion makes clear that the settlement is far below the $105 million needed to refund just one year of tuition for the entire class.
The final settlement amount could increase if the Charlotte School of Law recovers monetary damages from its pending lawsuit against the ABA—one of three suits InfiLaw's for-profit law schools have filed arguing that they were treated unfairly by the accrediting body. A portion of any payout from that suit will be added to the settlement pot, Majestro said.
Not only are Charlotte and InfiLaw's coffers largely empty, but the school's creditors would also get paid before students should the litigation drag on, he added. Charlotte has been sued by its former landlord for $43 million, among other creditors.
The parties held a “hard-fought” two-day settlement conference in April, resulting in the proposed settlement.
If the court approves the class and the settlement, students likely would not receive checks for at least nine months, Majestro said.
“We have got everything that is possible to get as a defendant,” he said. “As sad as it is, when you get almost all of the resources and continued litigation will deplete the resources, we really don't believe we have a choice.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUChicago Law Professors Release Desk Reference Breaking Down Crypto, Web 3 for Attorneys
4 minute readDean Developments: 2 Law Schools Appoint New Leadership, ABF Elects New Fellow
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250