Struggling online program management operation 2U has this year been under investigation by both the Federal Trade Commission and California’s attorney general, filings in federal bankruptcy court reveal.
Maryland-based 2U, which has faced scrutiny and lawsuits over alleged deceptive practices and has struggled with heavy debt, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in federal court in Manhattan in July. The company emerged from bankruptcy on September 13, after a federal court approved its restructuring plan, but not before at least two filings in the case indicated that the FTC and the California AG are probing the company.
The very last page of a 128-page filing that 2U’s lawyers submitted in the bankruptcy case on September 4 notes that the FTC and California’s AG requested language in the court’s proposed order “that explicitly preserves governmental claims.” Since there are apparently no contractual or business ties between 2U and the FTC or the California AG, the governmental claims almost certainly relate to a law enforcement request or investigation that could potentially result in penalties or judgments against the company. The notation indicates that 2U reached agreement with the federal and state law enforcement agencies that their claims would not be voided by the proposed bankruptcy restructuring.
Similarly, a September 23 filing includes an extensive list of 2U’s creditors — entities that may be owed money by the company. One entity on that list is “UNITED STATES FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION” and the contact listed is the email address for Kimberly Nelson, an attorney in the FTC’s enforcement division, the branch, within the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, that investigates and brings actions against companies for deceptive and unfair business practices. (The California attorney general’s office does not appear on that particular list of creditors.)
An FTC spokesperson declined to comment. A spokesperson for the California Department of Justice emailed a statement saying, “To protect its integrity, we’re unable to comment on, even to confirm or deny, a potential or ongoing investigation.”
2U did not respond to a request for comment.
David Vladeck, a former director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, told me today that he “can’t imagine any other reason” that the FTC and the California AG would appear in these bankruptcy documents other than that those agencies were “looking at” 2U. “The FTC often gets involved when a company under investigation is in bankruptcy,” Vladeck said. “I think it is absolutely fair to say that the FTC and the California AG are investigating this company.”
Vladeck also said that, at least when he was at the FTC (from 2009 to 2012), a vote of the FTC commissioners would have been required to authorize commission lawyers to submit a filing in a bankruptcy case that would disclose a potential investigation of a company.
Until its reorganization became effective on September 23, 2U was a publicly-traded company, and therefore was required to report significant events, such as the existence of a federal or state law enforcement investigation, in public filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission. I can’t, however, find any reference to an FTC or California AG investigation in 2U’s SEC filings this year. Company practices regarding an SEC disclosure threshold vary, and I don’t know if the FTC and California AG communications with 2U were of sufficient magnitude that they should have triggered such a reporting obligation for 2U.
2U has long been a leader in the OPM space, partnering with colleges and universities to offer programs online. As of earlier this year, more than 67,000 students were enrolled in 2U programs, including more than 43,000 pursuing degrees at programs branded by public and private colleges. But advocates and students charge that 2U has offered low-quality programs using deceptive marketing and recruiting, often misleading students into thinking they are interacting with personnel of a well-known school rather than 2U employees.
In February, 2U had warned in Securities and Exchange Commission filings that it may not be able to stay in business. Yet in March, the company approved nearly $5 million in bonuses for a handful of top executives, including $2.3 million for CEO Paul Lalljie.
[Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Republic Report.]
Halperin is to be congratulated for catching this particular wording, investigating further, and for writing up his findings.
ReplyDeleteI don't think policy makers in higher education fully realize the extent to which colleges and universities hiring OPMs are off-loading their responsibilities, their accountability, onto third-party providers. Based on California's requests for detailed information about the use of OPMs this past year, however, that state is on the verge of getting to the truth. And US ED has awakened from its slumbers, too, after re-examining OPM loopholes that, apparently, 2U had written into the regulations.
I agree with you about Halperin. Am less sanguine about ED. In 2025, any attempts at oversight will probably be removed.
ReplyDelete