Following the misunderstandings between Bridgepoint and Education, Inc. And Ashford, there was an agreement that, which was made to settle the disputes. According to court rulings, the Attorney General said that, the procedure used to enroll students in Ashford University was inacceptable. It was further argued that, the university used misleading information to convince student to enroll in the university. Although Bridgepoint and Education, Inc. And Ashford repudiated their mistakes, they decided to enter into an agreement to resolve their issues. Ashford settlement Iowa was made on May 15, 2014.
Here are some issues that led to the disagreement between the two parties included, use of misleading information to enroll students in university. There was also use of unfair and unethical methods to advertise the institution in attempt to persuade students to join the college. In addition, the university did not reveal the relevant material facts to students. Furthermore, there was a claim the school imposed a technology fee to students after six weeks of enrollment.
At the time the two parties were entering into the agreement, a need of appointing an administrator arose. The main role of this administrator was to provide general control on matters pertaining to the adherence to provisions the settlement. Moreover, he was to report to Attorney General of particular state concerning his findings.
There was also an issue of whether the administrator was to work for university or Bridgepoint Education, Inc. It was agree that the administrator was supposed to be a neutral party. His job was to evaluate whether the settlement terms were effective in solving the misunderstanding. After three years of closely monitoring the two parties, he was to submit his report the Iowa A. G.
As part of the settlement, Bridgepoint Education, Inc. (BPI) and the university were required to contribute an mount worth 7, 250,000 dollars. This money was to be used for various purposes. For instance, a portion of it was to go to those students who had been enrolled in the institution before and during the agreement. The attorney general was the appointed to authorize how and who were eligible to get a share of these money.
During the agreement, a question arose as to who were eligible to get some shares of these money. The settlement terms were to clarify this issue so the individual who were eligible to get this money could apply. Those who were eligible included residents who were enrolled before and during the settlement. It was also clear that, the administrator possessed no authority to decide who was to receive this money.
To the students, the award brought many changes. For instance, they the students were to get genuine, complete and accurate information concerning the university. The settlement also prohibited use of misleading information. In addition, they were not to engage in all sorts of unfair practices.
In case someone has a burning issue concerning settlement terms, there were clear channels of communication, which were laid down to facilitate communication. The conducts of administrator were given. He was the first person to handle any case arising. For challenging cases, the Attorney General of state was to be involved to resolve the issues.
Here are some issues that led to the disagreement between the two parties included, use of misleading information to enroll students in university. There was also use of unfair and unethical methods to advertise the institution in attempt to persuade students to join the college. In addition, the university did not reveal the relevant material facts to students. Furthermore, there was a claim the school imposed a technology fee to students after six weeks of enrollment.
At the time the two parties were entering into the agreement, a need of appointing an administrator arose. The main role of this administrator was to provide general control on matters pertaining to the adherence to provisions the settlement. Moreover, he was to report to Attorney General of particular state concerning his findings.
There was also an issue of whether the administrator was to work for university or Bridgepoint Education, Inc. It was agree that the administrator was supposed to be a neutral party. His job was to evaluate whether the settlement terms were effective in solving the misunderstanding. After three years of closely monitoring the two parties, he was to submit his report the Iowa A. G.
As part of the settlement, Bridgepoint Education, Inc. (BPI) and the university were required to contribute an mount worth 7, 250,000 dollars. This money was to be used for various purposes. For instance, a portion of it was to go to those students who had been enrolled in the institution before and during the agreement. The attorney general was the appointed to authorize how and who were eligible to get a share of these money.
During the agreement, a question arose as to who were eligible to get some shares of these money. The settlement terms were to clarify this issue so the individual who were eligible to get this money could apply. Those who were eligible included residents who were enrolled before and during the settlement. It was also clear that, the administrator possessed no authority to decide who was to receive this money.
To the students, the award brought many changes. For instance, they the students were to get genuine, complete and accurate information concerning the university. The settlement also prohibited use of misleading information. In addition, they were not to engage in all sorts of unfair practices.
In case someone has a burning issue concerning settlement terms, there were clear channels of communication, which were laid down to facilitate communication. The conducts of administrator were given. He was the first person to handle any case arising. For challenging cases, the Attorney General of state was to be involved to resolve the issues.
About the Author:
Our website gives former students and employees the opportunity to learn about Ashford settlement Iowa law. Come and meet the administration team online at http://www.ashfordsettlement.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment