Navient Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit Over Student Loan Reporting
Navient Corp. is challenging assertions in a securities class action that top executives at the Wilmington-based Sallie Mae spin-off knew the firm was underreporting to investors the number of delinquent accounts in its student loan portfolio.
April 18, 2018 at 05:58 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
Navient Corp. Photo Credit: Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock.com
Navient Corp. is challenging assertions in a securities class action that top executives at the Wilmington-based Sallie Mae spin-off knew the firm was underreporting to investors the number of delinquent accounts in its student loan portfolio.
Attorneys for the company argued in a court filing this week that a class of investors had based their allegations on the accounts of four “low-level collection personnel” with no access to senior management, as Navient wrapped up briefing on its second attempt to escape a securities suit that has followed the firm for more than two years.
The plaintiffs, led by mutual fund manager Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund Inc., are seeking to recover more than $13 million they say the company lost as a result of Navient's ”pervasive and systemic” practice of granting forbearances to struggling student-loan borrowers instead of marking the accounts delinquent or in default.
The latest round of arguments follow U.S. District Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the District of Delaware's decision in September to toss the original complaint for “puzzle pleading” that at times made the February 2016 document ”very difficult” to follow. The dismissal, however, was without prejudice, and Sleet gave the plaintiffs a chance to patch their pleading deficiencies late last year.
But Navient has said many of the issues remain, arguing in court documents that Lord Abbett could point to no confidential witnesses who had direct contact with senior management or any stock sales to suggest a motive for executives to fraudulently prop Navient's securities.
“Such alleged facts are necessary to sustain serious claims of securities fraud—and despite having had 15 months from the filing of the original complaint to investigate their claims, plaintiff's [amended] complaint is devoid of them,” Navient said in January.
Lord Abbett and its Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein lawyers have blasted Navient's position as a campaign to discredit the witnesses, whose testimony, they said, had been corroborated by multiple government investigations into Navient's conduct.
The dispute over the credibility goes to the central question of whether Navient knowingly concealed risk from its investors.
Lord Abbett said that the firsthand testimony of the witnesses, who are not identified in court filings, had helped to establish that the directive to mark the delinquent accounts as current came from the firm's senior vice president of default prevention, who reported directly to chief operating officer John Kane.
“Given the pervasiveness of improper loan-servicing activities at Navient—supported by the CWs' accounts and the facts recited in the government complaints and the CFPB's September 2015 report—it would be highly implausible to infer that the individual defendants were unaware of them,” Lord Abbett said in response to Navient's motion.
On Monday, however, Navient maintained that Lord Abbett had still not established the essential elements of its claims.
“Plaintiffs' primary claims rely on anecdotes from low-level collections agents and untested allegations from consumer protection complaints filed in other cases—allegations that are insufficient to support their charge that Navient systematically pushed borrowers into forbearance, or their logically deficient theory that Navient's alleged forbearance practices were connected to any stock losses,” the company said.
The case, captioned Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund v. Navient, also names Kane, president and CEO John F. Remondi and executive vice president and CFO Somsak Chivavibul.
It was not yet clear when Sleet would rule on Navient's motion to dismiss.
Navient and the individual defendants are represented by attorneys from Latham & Watkins and Richards, Layton & Finger.
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 AllLatham, Finnegan Win $115M Muscular Dystrophy Drug Patent Verdict for Counterclaimant
2 minute readDelaware Supreme Court Adopts Broad Interpretation of Case Law on Anticompetition Provisions
3 minute read3rd Circuit Nominee Mangi Sees 'No Pathway to Confirmation,' Derides 'Organized Smear Campaign'
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Avoiding Franchisor Failures: Be Cautious and Do Your Research
- 2De-Mystifying the Ethics of the Attorney Transition Process, Part 1
- 3Alex Spiro Accuses Prosecutors of 'Unethical' Comments in Adams' Bribery Case
- 4Cannabis Took a Hit on Red Wednesday, but Hope Is On the Way
- 5Ben Brafman Defending Celebrity Rabbi in Lawsuit by Miami Hotel
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