Maybe I'm missing something, but if someone were in the unfortunate position to be considering bankruptcy, wouldn't knowing whether this loan is actually dischargeable or not be a big deal to them? It seems like it would be.
I really don't get why some people dislike ISAs. They're way better than student loans.
(1) The “Income share agreement” is a $30K loan with various wrinkles,
(2) Lambda School, for legal reasons, doesn’t use ISAs in California, but a somewhat less obfuscated $30,000 loan, the “Retail Installment Contract”.
> I really don't get why some people dislike ISAs. They're way better than student loans.
They aren’t better than federal student loans, which have an optional income driven repayment plans, which are a similar or lower percentage of discretionary income than most ISAs are of total income.
They may sometimes be better than the available nonfederal loans for people attending institutions not qualified for federal loans, but that’s a pretty low bar.
ISAs seem a lot closer to "student loans" than, like, a new boat. I don't think this is totally unreasonable.
Are you seriously arguing that it is plausible that Lambda School has a good faith mistaken belief that they were qualified to participate in federal Title IV financial aid, but somehow made no mention or use of that qualification other than falsely claiming debts to the school were “qualified education loans” with limited dischargeability in bankruptcy?
Or are you claiming that it is not obvious that Title IV financial aid eligibility is a requirement for loans for a school to be qualified education loans?
That...strains credulity.
> "Lambda made a false statement about the California law"
Actually they broke California law by making a false statement of federal law. (“qualified education loan” is a federal-law category that determines both if the loan qualifies for the student loan interest deduction and if it has the “undue-hardship-only” discharge rule im bankruptcy.)