What was the FTC settlement with the University of Phoenix?
Under the settlement between the FTC and the University of Phoenix, the University will cancel $141 million in debts that are owed directly to the school by people who first enrolled at the school between October 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016.
How is the equity in the marital home split?
Dividing the home equity in divorce can be handled many ways, depending on the individual circumstances of the parties involved. The following questions and answer can help you understand the various options that exist when dividing the true value available in your home when you divorce. How is the equity in the marital home split?
Can a man Sue Me for negative equity?
If there is enough marital property so that you could get cash or property now it is possible, but the problem is you have no way of knowing how much the house would sell for, so it is hard to calculate what half of that will be. Can he sue me for 1/2 of the negative equity in the house?
What’s the divorce settlement for Ken and Jan?
Marital Profile: Ken and Jan have been married for five years and have no children. They both entered into the marriage with established careers, earning similar salaries. Divorce Settlement: The marital assets are split 50/50 between the spouses. There is no spousal support or child support.
Why did the FTC take action against student loan companies?
The defendants allegedly charged illegal upfront fees that they led consumers to believe went towards consumers’ student loans, and falsely promised that their services would permanently lower or even eliminate consumers’ loan payments or balances.
How much did UOP pay in FTC settlement?
Under the settlement unanimously approved by the Commission, UOP will pay $50 million in cash as well as cancel $141 million in debts owed to the school by students who were harmed by the deceptive ads.
What did the FTC do about student advocates team?
In its complaint against Student Advocates Team and Equitable Acceptance Corporation, the FTC alleges that a different set of defendants engaged in deceptive and abusive practices for several years that were similar to those alleged against MBV, charging consumers up to $1,400 and also enrolling their customers in EAC’s financing program.
Why did the FTC take action against EAC?
EAC is also charged in both cases with violating the Truth in Lending Act by failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose in writing necessary information concerning the closed-end credit that it offered.