The Biden administration continued its efforts Thursday to expand student debt relief, canceling another $5.8 billion in federal loans for nearly 78,000 borrowers, including teachers, firefighters and others who work largely in the public sector .

To date, the government has canceled $143.6 billion in loans for nearly four million borrowers through various measures, remedies and federal relief programs. That’s the largest amount of student debt eliminated since the government began making loans more than 60 years ago, but it’s still far less than President Biden’s original proposal, which called for up to $400 billion in debt for 43 million borrowers would have forgiven, but was blocked by the Supreme Court.

The latest debt forgiveness applies to government and nonprofit employees in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, allowing their balances to be eliminated after 120 payments. The PSLF program, which has been plagued by administrative and other problems, has improved in recent years after the administration made a series of improvements.

“For too long, our nation’s teachers, nurses, social workers, firefighters and other public servants faced logistical challenges and trapdoors as they tried to access the debt relief they were entitled to under the law,” said Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona .

As of October 2021, more than 871,000 public sector and nonprofit workers have received debt forgiveness totaling $62.5 billion; prior to that, only 7,000 people had achieved forgiveness since the program was created over fifteen years ago.

Starting next week, borrowers set to receive the latest round of debt forgiveness through the PSLF program will receive an email notification from Mr. Biden — a reminder of his administration’s work just eight months before the presidential election.

Another 380,000 federal borrowers in the PSLF program, who are on track to have their loans forgiven in less than two years, will receive emails from the President informing them that they are eligible for debt forgiveness if they make their public continue to provide services within that period.

Many of these borrowers have been helped by programs which sought to address past mistakes that may have failed to credit individuals for payments. As a result, many borrowers received account adjustments or additional credits, bringing them closer to the repayment finish line.

Millions of borrowers with certain types of loans will still qualify for some of these adjustments, but they will need to apply to consolidate These loans must be eligible by April 30th.

“There are many people who need to consolidate before this deadline in order to take advantage and potentially access life-changing student loans,” said Abby Shafroth, co-director of advocacy at the National Consumer Law Center. This includes borrowers with private loans in the Federal Family and Education Loan, Perkins Loan and Health Education Assistance Loan programs, she added. (People with direct or Department of Education loans don’t need to do anything to have their payment numbers adjusted; this happens automatically.)

In addition to PSLF, the government has expanded assistance through a number of other federal relief programs: About 935,500 borrowers were approved for $45.6 billion in debt forgiveness through income-driven repayment plans, which base monthly payments on the borrower’s income and household size. After a certain repayment period, usually twenty years, the remaining debt is forgiven.

Another 1.3 million people had $22.5 billion wiped out by the federal credit protection program, which provides relief to those defrauded by their schools.

The government’s latest round of completed debt relief comes on the heels of the botched rollout of the new Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which was supposed to simplify the process. Instead, technical and other issues have caused delays, leaving colleges without the financial information about students they need to make aid offers. Students are in limbo and can’t decide where to go to college.

Patrick S. Nelson is under siege.

An early player in the off-campus student housing industry, Mr. Nelson built his property management company by raising money from major lenders and hundreds of wealthy individuals. But his business has deteriorated in recent years, and Mr. Nelson — who has so far reneged on his promises to pay back some of those partners — now faces more than a dozen lawsuits and a dogfight with a private equity firm.

Mr. Nelson faces at least $115 million, which he has failed to pay, despite escalating fines and interest and being twice ordered into civil contempt by judges for alleged misuse of company funds. His resistance has frustrated investors and lenders, and irritated some judges who heard those disputes.

“I see a lot of money moving around, and I don’t like it,” New York County Superior Court Judge Melissa Crane said in February during a hearing involving Fortress Investment Group, a private equity firm trying to seize a of Mr. Nelson’s property. In January, Judge Crane held Mr. Nelson in contempt of court after finding he violated court restraints by using nearly $3 million from his business to pay personal expenses, including bank mortgages. luxury vacation rental ranch in Utah and a house in California, golf trips and credit card bills.

“There were bills we had to pay,” Mr. Nelson testified at a follow-up hearing on March 12. Mr. Nelson declined to be interviewed but said in written comments to the New York Times that he is “doing everything he can to fulfill his obligations.” He said the civil contempt findings were without merit.

Mr Nelson, 51, started Nelson Partners Student Housing in 2018 after parting ways with his brother, with whom he ran a student housing company for almost two decades. The siblings were among the first to spot an opportunity that has become a $10 billion-a-year market. In 2017, Inc. magazine placed their former company on the annual list of the fastest growing private companies. Great players love Blackstone has entered the market in recent yearslured by the promise of rent payments that are virtually guaranteed because of the student loan money.

Mr Nelson buys student accommodation with the money he raises and uses the rent to pay mortgages and dividends to investors, as well as for the general maintenance of the buildings, charging fees and collecting a commission when he eventually sells them sells. Through Nelson Partners, he manages 18 properties – each managed as a separate company with separate finances under contractual agreements with investors.

In his written statement, Mr. Nelson said his business would have thrived without the pandemic, which led to reduced occupancy at some buildings, and articles in The Times about investors suing his company and complaints from student residents about the condition of the properties. . Mr. Nelson said he had never lost money for investors before The Times articles, which he said also “crushed the ability to get loans.”

Mr Nelson has insisted that once he secures new financing and sells properties at a profit, there will be more than enough money to pay investors and service his debts. On Tuesday, he testified that he was trying to sell three student housing apartment complexes.

Since 2021, more than twenty lawsuits have been filed against him; about half remain active. Tens of millions in claims are still pending. He owes $57 million to Fortress, $50 million to investors and smaller amounts to other lenders and vendors. He has forced companies owning five properties into bankruptcy after defaulting on their loans. And the Internal Revenue Service placed a $3 million tax lien on one of his homes in Southern California.

The first major lawsuits against Mr. Nelson and some of his companies came in early 2021 when hundreds of investors in a luxury student housing apartment tower called Skyloft, near the University of Texas at Austin, said they had been defrauded out of tens of millions. of dollars.

One of Mr. Nelson’s companies had bought Skyloft in 2019 for $124 million, with $75 million coming from small investors — mostly wealthy retirees, lawyers, doctors and engineers — and the rest from a hedge fund and a major bank. When the pandemic moved classes online, Mr. Nelson said cash flow issues led him to halt monthly dividend payments to investors in Skyloft and other properties.

In 2022, he reached a $50 million settlement with Skyloft investors. The same year he sold two buildings: one for a profit before the Skyloft settlement, the other for slightly above the purchase price. He returned tens of millions of dollars to investors in those properties, although some received significantly less than they invested.

But last fall, Judge Karin Crump of Travis County, Texas, held Mr. Nelson in contempt of court after finding that he had violated the terms of his settlement by using money that was intended to go to a restitution fund for legal bills, and collect a commission. on the sale of another building instead of returning that money to investors.

Judy Sims said she and her husband, both retired, had invested $250,000 in a Nelson Partners student housing project near the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley, Colorado, but expected to lose much of their investment after the lender foreclosed. had placed on the building. in 2023.

“He sounded very nice on the phone when he wanted our money,” said Mrs. Sims, who lives with her husband in Chelan, Washington. “But what makes me so angry is that he doesn’t accept any responsibility.”

In court, Mr Nelson’s lawyers described the disputed money transfers, including those intended for his personal use, as legitimate “inter-company loans”, in line with the way he has always run his business. They have argued that Mr. Nelson is simply doing what is necessary to keep his company from going bankrupt. Mr. Nelson testified at the March 12 hearing that he was concerned that the 130 people Nelson Partners employs would lose their jobs. He also said he wanted to “leave a legacy for my daughters.”

“I really don’t understand what his end game is,” said George Wong, 64, a marketing executive in Los Altos, California, who has invested in three of Mr. Nelson’s deals.

One of Mr. Nelson’s biggest disputes is with Fortress, the New York investment firm. For more than two years, Fortress, which secured a $52 million loan to a Nelson Partners company that owns the Auraria Student Lofts in downtown Denver, has been trying to foreclose on the building. But the action was suspended after Mr Nelson declared that property bankrupt in 2022.

A bankruptcy filing halts a foreclosure and gives the borrower more time to potentially negotiate a deal, but it doesn’t necessarily prevent losses for investors.

Last summer, Fortress obtained a judgment allowing it to collect on the loan, now worth $57 million, with interest, that Mr. Nelson had personally agreed to repay. That set the stage for the current round of contempt proceedings before Judge Crane.

Mr Nelson has called Fortress a “greedy” investor who acquired the loan on Auraria during the pandemic and is now “essentially trying to put me out of business.”

The two parties are due to appear before Judge Crane again on Monday as she grapples with Mr Nelson’s failure to comply with her previous court orders.

Martin Goodman, 60, a real estate broker who lives in San Diego, California, said he had been trying to rally investors in the Greeley student housing complex to come up with a plan to avoid a bankruptcy by Fannie Mae, the federally backed mortgage , to prevent. financial giant. Fannie recently received court approval to seize in April.

Mr Goodman said he expected Mr Nelson to go bankrupt again.

“Ultimately we could very well lose the property,” Mr Goodman said. “All because Pat won’t get up.”

Alain Delaqueriere research contributed.

A 19-year-old student pilot from Northern Virginia who repeatedly tried to enter the cockpit of an Alaska Airlines flight from California to Virginia earlier this month has been charged with interfering with a flight crew, according to court documents.

The man, Nathan Jones, was traveling on Alaska Airlines Flight 322 from San Diego International Airport to Washington Dulles International Airport on March 3 when he “interfered and intimidated flight crew members and companions,” according to an affidavit filed the next day. the district was filed. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

His attorney filed a motion this week arguing that Mr. Jones may not be mentally fit to stand trial.

The affidavit stated that Mr. Jones, a passenger in seat 6E, attempted three times to go to the front of the plane and “open the cockpit door of the aircraft.” Flight attendants requested assistance from off-duty law enforcement officers, who restrained Mr. Jones with flexible restraints and remained seated on either side of him for the remainder of the flight.

Flight attendants used a drinks cart to block the cockpit, the affidavit said. When they asked Mr Jones why he was trying to access the cockpit, he said he was ‘testing’ them.

The Federal Aviation Administration said in an emailed statement Thursday that the crew reported a “passenger disturbance” aboard the Boeing 737 and was investigating. The flight landed safely in Dulles at about 3:30 p.m. local time, the report said.

Agents searched Mr. Jones’ belongings after landing and found notebooks with descriptions of how to fly a plane, including takeoff, aerial and landing techniques, and a wallet containing his student pilot’s driver’s license, the affidavit said .

His attorney, Robert Lee Jenkins Jr., filed a motion Wednesday requesting a hearing on the mental competency of Mr. Jones, who is being held at a detention center in Alexandria, Virginia. Mr. Jenkins said that Mr. Jones made statements to him that raised “serious concerns about whether he understands the allegations and the reason for his detention.”

The motion included a letter from an Alexandria therapist describing Mr. Jones as having symptoms “indicative of a serious mental illness” and following “suicide protocols.” It said he was restrained several times a day and required hospital care to stabilize his mental state.

“It appears there is an acute mental health episode,” Mr. Jenkins said in an interview. “I have sought an order from the court to have him assessed as to his competency to stand trial and also for possible insanity at the time of the crime.”

Mr. Jenkins said Mr. Jones had traveled to Alaska to visit his father and would return to Virginia through a connection in San Diego.

His next hearing is scheduled for March 18. Mr Jenkins said that would discuss the bond terms and his request for a review.

“Unions are tricky for college sports,” ESPN basketball analyst Jay Bilas said recently on the phone, “because you have public and private institutions and different state laws.”

“It’s not impossible to have a union of college athletes,” he said, “but it would be difficult.”

Bilas, an outspoken critic of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, was of course referring to Tuesday’s news that the Dartmouth College men’s basketball team had voted 13-2 to form a union. He was skeptical that this latest shot across the NCAA’s bow would go anywhere. Still, it was the latest example of the pressure the league is facing to finally abandon “amateurism” — the NCAA’s long-held dogma that prevents college athletes from getting paid. Naturally, many athletes have been able to put money in their pockets in recent years, thanks to so-called NIL payments (NIL stands for name, image and likeness). But that’s an ad hoc system, organized largely by athletic department supporters, that allows some athletes to rake in millions while others earn nothing. It’s not the same as colleges paying the athletes they employ.

Bilas said it was clear that schools would soon have to pay their athletes in big-money sports like football and men’s basketball. And he’s not the only one. Jeffrey Kessler, the lawyer who won the major antitrust case against the NCAA before a unanimous Supreme Court in 2021, has another case against the organization that will go to trial in January. The lawsuit alleges that college athletes have been illegally deprived of any payments because their names, images and likenesses have been used in promotional broadcasts that have earned millions for major athletic conferences such as the Big Ten. If he were to win that case — and the odds are in his favor — the NCAA and its conferences could be liable for up to $4 billion.

While the NCAA remains stubbornly resistant to settling the antitrust cases against it, the prospect of paying billions in damages could ultimately bring the organization to the table. Whether through a court victory or a settlement, Kessler said the lawsuit could lead to “the complete transformation of the current structure so that the athletes who generate all the revenue can receive fair compensation for what they contribute.”

But if a new structure were to emerge to compensate players, what would it look like? Andy Schwarz, an economist deeply involved in the fight to transform the NCAA, told me he could easily see unions playing a role — but it would be a different kind of union than what the Dartmouth players were trying to do . “You would have conference-level unions to negotiate terms of employment and define an athlete’s rights and obligations in contracts,” he wrote in an email. “In my opinion, the schools would provide the education and the conferences would employ the athletes as participants in a television program.” In other words, each conference, just like in professional sports, would agree to some sort of collective bargaining agreement with a players’ association.

Which still leaves the question of how individual players are paid under the umbrella of the collective bargaining agreement. Bilas told me that every time he was asked that question, he replied, “This is very simple. Just have a contract between the athlete and the school. Just like the rest of corporate America does.”

The contract may include more than just compensation. It could include buyout clauses, including financial penalties if a player jumps to another school, or if a school lets go of the player. It could be multi-year, which would create incentives for athletes to stay in school beyond the first year. A clause could even be included to ensure that the athlete receives a real education, rather than pursuing a “major in fitness” as is so often the case these days.

“In the beginning,” Bilas said, “some players may be overpaid and others may be underpaid, but soon a market will emerge and you will know what players are worth.”

Would Bilas’ idea further separate the big sports schools, like Ohio State and Alabama, from the smaller schools, like Ball State or Eastern Michigan, that don’t have the money to pay their athletes? Certainly. But that gap already exists.

“The walls are closing in quickly on the NCAA,” Kessler said. “Nine Supreme Court judges have recognized how exploitative this system is. How long can they hold on? It’s up to them. They can join the resolution and come up with a system for everyone, or they can go kicking and screaming into the night.” —Joe Nocera

HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING

President Biden is going after big corporations and billionaires. In his State of the Union address, Biden signaled that he wanted to raise taxes on corporations and wealthy people. The policy wish list contrasted with Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, even though it is unlikely to become law as long as the Republican Party controls both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

China announced its economic growth targets. Chinese Premier Li Qiang said the world’s second-largest economy would target 5 percent growth in 2024, as it did last year. But he undermined investor hopes that Beijing would also announce measures to stimulate the economy, with some analysts saying slow growth was the new normal.

Apple changed course to enable a competitive app store in Europe. The move to allow Epic Games to develop a game store for iPhones and iPads in Europe highlights how Apple is adapting its operations to meet the Digital Markets Act, a sweeping new law designed to help small businesses compete with the largest. It came days after Apple was fined 1.8 billion euros ($1.95 billion) for thwarting competition from rival music streaming services through its dominant App Store.

TikTok is coming under new pressure from US lawmakers. The House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party introduced one bill that would ban TikTok from U.S. app stores unless ByteDance, the Chinese parent company, divests. The company urged its users to tell their representatives in Washington to vote against the bill, resulting in congressional offices being flooded with calls.

Three questions for Rohit Chopra

A year after a rapid run on deposits at regional banks raised fears of a financial crisis, forcing government intervention, banks are gearing up for a major battle with their regulators.

Those regulators want to roll out a new proposal for banks to set aside more liquidity to weather an emergency — a risk that Wednesday’s $1 billion bailout of New York Community Bank by private investors made clear.

But the big banks are already resisting an existing plan to force them to hold more capital. And their protests could be successful: Fed Chairman Jay Powell signaled this week that plans to allow the largest banks to hold more capital may be revised.

DealBook spoke with Rohit Chopra, head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, about what went wrong last year and how to fix it. His answers have been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

What do you think of Powell’s signal that regulators could back away from new capital requirements for big banks?

No final rule has yet been published. That is an ongoing regulation. But big banks need more involvement. Certainly, much of the financial industry told us in 2022 that everything is great: “We don’t see any risk of significant failure on the horizon.” And last March we had a domino effect: several banks went bankrupt, and without emergency intervention, even more would have gone bankrupt. So I don’t think we live in a world where we can count on big banks always being fine. And because they take a lot of insured deposits, they get a lot of implicit and explicit federal subsidies, and their failure could trigger global financial crises, we need to make sure that their shareholders are the ones holding the bag when something goes wrong. That’s the reason to do it.

What other solutions are available?

We now have a system where smaller banks have limits, but the very largest can essentially hand out free unlimited deposit insurance because there is a perception that if they mess up they would be bailed out, that they are implicitly insured. That seems fundamentally unfair to me. I would be in favor of substantially increasing the deposit insurance limit so that there is some parity between small players and the largest players.

I also support more restrictions on banks that rely heavily on these so-called uninsured deposits. If we look at Silicon Valley Bank, it grew very quickly and relied heavily on uninsured deposits. There is obviously more that can be done, but I would definitely put this on the list.

Is the situation at NYCB, where the problems have been caused by increasing losses on commercial real estate, a repeat of last year?

The problems we saw last year didn’t have much to do with commercial real estate. There are still many outstanding issues to ensure that last year’s bank failures are not repeated. But at the same time, there are the looming risks and protecting the system for that, including commercial real estate.

Thank you for reading! We’ll see you Monday. In the meantime, remember the clocks in the United States Jump forward this evening.

We would like your feedback. Send your ideas and suggestions by email to dealbook@nytimes.com.

“Unions are tricky for college sports,” ESPN basketball analyst Jay Bilas said recently on the phone, “because you have public and private institutions and different state laws.”

“It’s not impossible to have a union of college athletes,” he said, “but it would be difficult.”

Bilas, an outspoken critic of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, was of course referring to Tuesday’s news that the Dartmouth College men’s basketball team had voted 13-2 to form a union. He was skeptical that this latest shot across the NCAA’s bow would go anywhere. Still, it was the latest example of the pressure the league is facing to finally abandon “amateurism” — the NCAA’s long-held dogma that prevents college athletes from getting paid. Naturally, many athletes have been able to put money in their pockets in recent years, thanks to so-called NIL payments (NIL stands for name, image and likeness). But that’s an ad hoc system, organized largely by athletic department supporters, that allows some athletes to rake in millions while others earn nothing. It’s not the same as colleges paying the athletes they employ.

Bilas said it was clear that schools would soon have to pay their athletes in big-money sports like football and men’s basketball. And he’s not the only one. Jeffrey Kessler, the lawyer who won the major antitrust case against the NCAA before a unanimous Supreme Court in 2021, has another case against the organization that will go to trial in January. The lawsuit alleges that college athletes have been illegally deprived of any payments because their names, images and likenesses have been used in promotional broadcasts that have earned millions for major athletic conferences such as the Big Ten. If he were to win that case — and the odds are in his favor — the NCAA and its conferences could be liable for up to $4 billion.

While the NCAA remains stubbornly resistant to settling the antitrust cases against it, the prospect of paying billions in damages could ultimately bring the organization to the table. Whether through a court victory or a settlement, Kessler said the lawsuit could lead to “the complete transformation of the current structure so that the athletes who generate all the revenue can receive fair compensation for what they contribute.”

But if a new structure were to emerge to compensate players, what would it look like? Andy Schwarz, an economist deeply involved in the fight to transform the NCAA, told me he could easily see unions playing a role — but it would be a different kind of union than what the Dartmouth players were trying to do . “You would have conference-level unions to negotiate terms of employment and define an athlete’s rights and obligations in contracts,” he wrote in an email. “In my opinion, the schools would provide the education and the conferences would employ the athletes as participants in a television program.” In other words, each conference, just like in professional sports, would agree to some sort of collective bargaining agreement with a players’ association.

Which still leaves the question of how individual players are paid under the umbrella of the collective bargaining agreement. Bilas told me that every time he was asked that question, he replied, “This is very simple. Just have a contract between the athlete and the school. Just like the rest of corporate America does.”

The contract may include more than just compensation. It could include buyout clauses, including financial penalties if a player jumps to another school, or if a school lets go of the player. It could be multi-year, which would create incentives for athletes to stay in school beyond the first year. A clause could even be included to ensure that the athlete receives a real education, rather than pursuing a “major in fitness” as is so often the case these days.

“In the beginning,” Bilas said, “some players may be overpaid and others may be underpaid, but soon a market will emerge and you will know what players are worth.”

Would Bilas’ idea further separate the big sports schools, like Ohio State and Alabama, from the smaller schools, like Ball State or Eastern Michigan, that don’t have the money to pay their athletes? Certainly. But that gap already exists.

“The walls are closing in quickly on the NCAA,” Kessler said. “Nine Supreme Court judges have recognized how exploitative this system is. How long can they hold on? It’s up to them. They can join the resolution and come up with a system for everyone, or they can go kicking and screaming into the night.” —Joe Nocera

HERE’S WHAT’S HAPPENING

President Biden is going after big corporations and billionaires. In his State of the Union address, Biden signaled that he wanted to raise taxes on corporations and wealthy people. The policy wish list contrasted with Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, even though it is unlikely to become law as long as the Republican Party controls both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

China announced its economic growth targets. Chinese Premier Li Qiang said the world’s second-largest economy would target 5 percent growth in 2024, as it did last year. But he undermined investor hopes that Beijing would also announce measures to stimulate the economy, with some analysts saying slow growth was the new normal.

Apple changed course to enable a competitive app store in Europe. The move to allow Epic Games to develop a game store for iPhones and iPads in Europe highlights how Apple is adapting its operations to meet the Digital Markets Act, a sweeping new law designed to help small businesses compete with the largest. It came days after Apple was fined 1.8 billion euros ($1.95 billion) for thwarting competition from rival music streaming services through its dominant App Store.

TikTok is coming under new pressure from US lawmakers. The House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party introduced one bill that would ban TikTok from U.S. app stores unless ByteDance, the Chinese parent company, divests. The company urged its users to tell their representatives in Washington to vote against the bill, resulting in congressional offices being flooded with calls.

Three questions for Rohit Chopra

A year after a rapid run on deposits at regional banks raised fears of a financial crisis, forcing government intervention, banks are gearing up for a major battle with their regulators.

Those regulators want to roll out a new proposal for banks to set aside more liquidity to weather an emergency — a risk that Wednesday’s $1 billion bailout of New York Community Bank by private investors made clear.

But the big banks are already resisting an existing plan to force them to hold more capital. And their protests could be successful: Fed Chairman Jay Powell signaled this week that plans to allow the largest banks to hold more capital may be revised.

DealBook spoke with Rohit Chopra, head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, about what went wrong last year and how to fix it. His answers have been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

What do you think of Powell’s signal that regulators could back away from new capital requirements for big banks?

No final rule has yet been published. That is an ongoing regulation. But big banks need more involvement. Certainly, much of the financial industry told us in 2022 that everything is great: “We don’t see any risk of significant failure on the horizon.” And last March we had a domino effect: several banks went bankrupt, and without emergency intervention, even more would have gone bankrupt. So I don’t think we live in a world where we can count on big banks always being fine. And because they take a lot of insured deposits, they get a lot of implicit and explicit federal subsidies, and their failure could trigger global financial crises, we need to make sure that their shareholders are the ones holding the bag when something goes wrong. That’s the reason to do it.

What other solutions are available?

We now have a system where smaller banks have limits, but the very largest can essentially hand out free unlimited deposit insurance because there is a perception that if they mess up they would be bailed out, that they are implicitly insured. That seems fundamentally unfair to me. I would be in favor of substantially increasing the deposit insurance limit so that there is some parity between small players and the largest players.

I also support more restrictions on banks that rely heavily on these so-called uninsured deposits. If we look at Silicon Valley Bank, it grew very quickly and relied heavily on uninsured deposits. There is obviously more that can be done, but I would definitely put this on the list.

Is the situation at NYCB, where the problems have been caused by increasing losses on commercial real estate, a repeat of last year?

The problems we saw last year didn’t have much to do with commercial real estate. There are still many outstanding issues to ensure that last year’s bank failures are not repeated. But at the same time, there are the looming risks and protecting the system for that, including commercial real estate.

Thank you for reading! We’ll see you Monday. In the meantime, remember the clocks in the United States Jump forward this evening.

We would like your feedback. Send your ideas and suggestions by email to dealbook@nytimes.com.

Mexican police officers shot dead a student at a rural teacher training college in the country’s western party on Thursday evening. The episode comes at a time of increasing tension between the government and the university’s students, linked to one of the worst atrocities in Mexico’s recent history.

The shooting occurred Thursday in Guerrero state after state police officers tried to stop a white pickup truck that had been reported stolen and was met with gunfire, according to state authorities.

Authorities said that in the ensuing shootout, one person in the vehicle, Yanqui Kothan Gómez Peralta, 23, was shot in the head by police and later died at a hospital. A second person in the truck was arrested and a firearm and drugs were found in the vehicle, police said.

Guerrero State Secretary General Ludwig Reynoso told reporters after the shooting that Mr Gómez Peralta was a student at the Escuela Normal Rural Raúl Isidro Burgos – a teacher training college in a rural area of ​​Guerrero with a history of activism and social protest.

In 2014, a group of 43 students from the school were attacked by armed men, including local police officers whose commanders had taken direct orders from local drug traffickers – as evidenced by a trove of text messages, witness statements and investigative files.

The students were kidnapped and never seen again. Ten years later, the remains of only three bodies have been officially identified.

The teachers’ council on Friday condemned the actions of police in the pickup truck encounter, suggesting it was an unprovoked attack.

“One of our colleagues was brutally shot,” the school said in a statement. “We hold the state government directly responsible for the armed attack.”

State officials said they regretted the killing but explained that officers were responding to a crime.

“There is no attack on a student, because we did not know he was a student, but on a person who drove a vehicle with a theft report and did not stop at the request of the authorities,” said René Posselt. a spokesperson for the state government of Guerrero.

The killing of Mr. Gómez Peralta came days after a group of protesters rammed the wooden doors of the National Palacewhere the country’s president lives, demanding answers about the investigation into the case of the 43 missing students – which protesters said the government had halted.

The president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, downplayed the protest, calling it a provocation.

After the death of Mr. Gómez Peralta, some teacher training students staged a protest in Chilpancingo, the state capital, setting fire to a police vehicle.

José Filiberto Velázquez, a local minister and director of the human rights group Minerva Bello in Guerrero, said a third student who got out of the pickup to go to a nearby store alerted the college to what had happened.

Other students then called Mr. Velázquez, who disputed the official story that the students had attacked the police first.

“For us, this was an extrajudicial killing,” Mr. Velázquez said. “It is the result of a tendency to abuse power, of police violence that is already a habit.”

Santiago Aguirre, the lead lawyer representing the families of the 43 missing students, said there has been a pattern of disproportionate use of lethal force by state authorities in Guerrero, adding that human rights groups have documented cases of police officers destroying evidence at crime scenes posted.

“The prudent call is for a thorough investigation that is not conducted with bias and that exhausts all necessary lines of inquiry,” Mr. Aguirre said.

On Friday morning, Mr. López Obrador expressed his dismay over the killing of Mr. Gómez Peralta and said prosecutors would thoroughly investigate Thursday’s incident. He also reiterated his intention to get answers about what happened to the 43 missing students.

“We will not respond with violence in any way. We are not oppressors,” said Mr. López Obrador, whose government is leading the investigation into the missing students. “Knowing what happened, punishing those responsible and finding the young people – that is my commitment, and I am working on it.”

The teacher training college and the families of the missing students have criticized the government’s handling of the investigation.

Last year, a panel of international experts investigating the students’ kidnapping announced it was ending its investigation and leaving the country after members of the panel said they had been repeatedly lied to and misled by the Mexican armed forces about the military activities of the army. role in the crime.

A spokesman for the Mexican military said the Defense Ministry was no longer authorized to speak on the case of missing students.

“It is the president who is talking about this,” he said.