Heightened Scrutiny of University Reporting of Contributions from Foreign Sources
Client Alert | 2 min read | 03.25.20
The U.S. Department of Education recently has reinvigorated its enforcement of a decades old provision requiring the reporting of foreign gifts and contracts. Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. § 1011(f), enacted in 1986 to address concern over the growing number of financial arrangements between American universities and foreign sources, requires institutions of higher education to report to the Department of Education contracts with and gifts from a foreign source that, alone or combined, are valued at $250,000 or more in a calendar year. As part of its efforts to make Section 117 reporting more transparent, the Department of Education has posted a public report of the foreign gifts reported by institutions between January 2013 and June 2019 on its website. In the past, Section 117 was largely ignored. While the Department previously had provided only sparse guidance regarding Section 117, it recently has engaged in a flurry of enforcement activity and issued sub-regulatory guidance providing more clarification regarding its expectations for reporting. Universities therefore should thoroughly evaluate the reporting requirements and their compliance efforts in light of the Department of Education’s renewed focus on Section 117.
Over the past year, the Department has opened no fewer than eight investigations into major research institutions’ reporting practices under Section 117. One institution was cited for a failure to “report a single foreign source gift or contract in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017,” despite purporting to have considerable presence abroad, including assistance in setting up jointly run laboratories with Chinese universities funded by Chinese granting agencies. To verify compliance, the Department requested records from this institution regarding any contributions specifically from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, Huawei (a Chinese telecom giant and frequent focus of American national security concern), ZTE Corp. (another Chinese telecom giant), and the National University of Singapore, among others. A different institution was notified that the Department “[wa]s aware of information suggesting [that it] lacks appropriate institutional controls and, as a result, its statutory Section 117 reporting may not include and/or fully capture all reportable gifts….” The Department then requested extensive records, including records regarding contributions from China and its telecom giants, Qatar, Russia, and Iran.
On February 10, 2020, the Department posted a notice in the Federal Register of a new information collection form it proposes to use to collect information from institutions of higher education regarding receipt of foreign contributions. Two days later, Secretary Devos emphasized: “If colleges and universities are accepting foreign money and gifts, their students, donors, and taxpayers deserve to know how much and from whom . . . We will continue to hold colleges and universities accountable and work with them to ensure their reporting is full, accurate, and transparent, as required by the law.” Notably, the Department’s proposal appears to require institutions to report the name and address of foreign sources to verify compliance with Section 117 as “the statute does not carve out an exception for institutions to withhold the name or address of an anonymous party.” Institutions should be aware of the potential adverse effects of such a requirement and generally should plan for and adapt to heightened scrutiny by the Department. In short: institutions must consider seriously Section 117 reporting requirements and improve processes for tracking and reporting contributions from foreign sources.
For more information please join us for a Crowell & Moring webinar on April 9. Click here to register.
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25
On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending. Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss. And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit. Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage. Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending. While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.06.25
FinCEN Delays Implementation Date and Reopens AML/CFT Rule for Investment Advisers
Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.06.25
Series of Major Data Breaches Targeting the Insurance Industry
Client Alert | 11 min read | 08.06.25
