I'm inclined to be on your side — the sum total of Lambda's impact on the world is likely highly positive, whatever happens in the details.
But that makes this response confusing — I was hoping to see a refutation of the regulator's claims or, failing that, a thoughtful discussion on what went wrong.
Is the regulator accurate? If so, were the statements significant? If so, what happened?
The response isn't confusing when the first duty of the settlement is to notify existing students and everyone else that the bankruptcy dischargeability provision language is not accurate, and thats what they said in the response
But that makes this response confusing — I was hoping to see a refutation of the regulator's claims or, failing that, a thoughtful discussion on what went wrong.
Is the regulator accurate? If so, were the statements significant? If so, what happened?