N. Victor Goodman Appointed To Board Of Directors Of The Council For Higher Education Accreditation
October 30, 2023
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP is pleased to announce the appointment of N. Victor Goodman to a three-year term on the 17-person, board of directors of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). Mr. Goodman is a partner in Benesch, Friedlander’s Public Law Practice Group and a member of the firm’s executive committee.
CHEA is a national, private, nonprofit membership organization of 3,000 degree-granting colleges and universities and 60 institutional programmatic accreditors. It is the sole coordinating organization of accreditation, quality assurance, and quality improvement of higher education in the United States.
Latest News
Social Media Might Have to Rethink Platform Design and Features as Courts Reject Communications Decency Act, Section 230 Defense
On April 10, 2026, on appeal from a motion to dismiss, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act did not bar Massachusetts’s claims that Meta engaged in unfair business practices by creating a platform that was addictive to teens and failing to warn the public about it.
Law360 Highlights Benesch’s Continued Success Defeating Fake Price Markdown Class Actions
Law360 Pulse recently spotlighted Benesch’s latest appellate victory for retailers, detailing how the firm successfully defeated proposed class action claims …
SDNY Bankruptcy Court: Solvent Debtors Face Higher Hurdle to Avoid Default Interest Under 11 U.S.C. § 506(b)
Key Takeaways Following a recent decision from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, solvent debtors …
$2B Trade Secrets Verdict Overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court
Recently, the Virginia Supreme Court vacated a $2B jury award and ordered a new trial in a state trade secrets action. The justices held that the circuit court judge made four significant errors leading to Virginia’s largest jury award. Significantly, according to the justices, the circuit court judge put an improper burden of proof on defendants to show that its sales were unrelated to the misappropriation to avoid plaintiff being awarded defendant’s full sales revenue as opposed to the plaintiff having the burden to show defendant’s actions proximately caused plaintiff’s damages.