ILNews

Indiana joins suit against for-profit college company

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana has filed a joint complaint in a whistleblower suit against Education Management Corp., which alleges the for-profit college company and two of its subsidiaries received more than $12 million in state financial aid after making false claims and misrepresentations to the state.

This is the first time Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s office has used a whistleblower lawsuit to seek civil penalties due to false claims paid out of state financial aid, rather than out of Medicaid.

The lawsuit was originally filed by private plaintiffs in U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania. It alleges that EDMC and subsidiaries violated a federal law that bans incentive compensation for college admissions employees based on the number of students they enroll. The companies are accused of violating Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 by improperly compensating college recruiters with bonuses such as expensive vacations based on the number of students they recruited to enroll. The defendants of the Indiana portion of the suit are The Art Institute of Indianapolis and Brown Mackie College, which operates in five Indiana cities.

The Indiana portion of the complaint alleges a total of 16,814 student financial aid awards were claimed by the six EDMC schools operating here that falsely represented their compliance and eligibility to the state. The lawsuit says that EDMC defrauded the State of Indiana by claiming more than $12 million in student financial aid for which it was not eligible since 2003.

Indiana seeks civil penalties of at least $5,000 for each false claim submitted, treble damages, attorney fees, litigation costs and interest. A copy of the suit is available on the attorney general’s website. The state is demanding a jury trial.

The states of California, Florida, and Illinois, as well as the United States, also intervened in the suit.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT