XML 34 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies |
Commitments and Contingencies | 11. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation In the ordinary conduct of the Company’s business, the Company is subject to lawsuits, arbitrations and administrative proceedings from time to time. The Company believes that the outcome of any existing or known threatened proceedings, even if determined adversely, should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. On September 24, 2015, in connection with an industry-wide investigation styled “In the Matter of the Investigation of For-Profit Virtual Schools,” the Company received a civil investigative subpoena for specified documents and responses to interrogatories from the Attorney General of the State of California, Bureau of Children’s Justice (“BCJ”). On July 8, 2016, K12 and the California Virtual Academy (“CAVA”) charter schools (“CAVA Schools”) entered into: (i) a Settlement Agreement and Release of a previously sealed Qui Tam lawsuit alleging false attendance reporting; (ii) a Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment (“Stipulation”) in connection with the BCJ’s investigation as it pertained to us; and (iii) a Final Judgment enjoining us from engaging in certain business practices in California, and requiring that the Company and CAVA Schools undertake certain Conduct Provisions. The Settlement Agreement and Release provides for us to pay the State of California $2.5 million, and the Qui Tam plaintiff $0.1 million to settle the attendance reporting claims and in which we and the CAVA Schools deny any and all liability and wrongdoing. The Stipulation specifies that the Attorney General, the Company and the CAVA Schools have concluded the BCJ investigation and agreed to implement the Conduct Provisions of the Final Judgment “without admissions of findings of fact or law or wrongdoing, misconduct or illegal acts by K12 or the CAVA Schools, or any facts alleged in the [Attorney General’s] Complaint.” The Final Judgement provides for the Company to pay the State of California $6.0 million “to defray the costs of this action and to fund the investigation and prosecution of enforcement cases to protect the rights of children,” and further includes a release of all legal claims that could be brought by the Attorney General involving the covered conduct. The Conduct Provisions of the Final Judgment require the Company to continue to improve its business practices and compliance programs as they generally relate to the operations and promotional activities of K12 and the CAVA Schools. The proceeding settlement costs were offset by insurance reimbursable administrative costs of approximately $1.5 million reflected in selling, administrative and other operating expenses. The resulting charge of $7.1 million was recorded in selling, administrative and other operating expenses for the year ended June 30, 2016. On July 20, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit captioned Babulal Tarapara v. K12 Inc. et al was filed against the Company, two of its officers and one of its former officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:16-cv-04069 (“Tarapara Case”). The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between November 7, 2013 and October 27, 2015, inclusive, and alleges violations by the Company and the individual defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Additionally, on September 15, 2016, a second securities class action lawsuit captioned Gil Tuinenburg v. K12 Inc. et al was filed against the Company, two of its officers and one of its former officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:16-cv-05305 (“Tuinenburg Case”). On October 6, 2016, the Court consolidated the Tarapara Case and the Tuinenburg Case, appointed Babul Tarapara and Mark Beadle as lead plaintiffs, and recaptioned the matter as In Re K12 Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 4:16-cv-04069-PJH. On December 2, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the Company. The amended complaint named an additional former officer as a defendant and specified a class period start date of October 10, 2013. The amended complaint alleges materially false or misleading statements and omissions regarding the decision of the Agora Cyber Charter School not to renew its managed public school agreement with the Company, student academic and Scantron results, and other statements regarding student academic performance and K12’s academic services and offerings. On January 30, 2017, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On August 30, 2017, as a result of a hearing on April 19, 2017, the Court granted with prejudice the Company’s motion to dismiss the allegations of false statements regarding Scantron scores, but denied the motion on the allegations pertaining to non-disclosure of Agora’s 2012 notice of non-renewal and other statements regarding the Company’s replacement contract with Agora, and permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint with respect to certain statements on the quality and effectiveness of the Company’s programs. The plaintiffs were given until October 2, 2017 to amend. On October 2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint and elected not to pursue their claims regarding the statements pertaining to the quality and effectiveness of the Company’s academic programs, and further dismissed two of the Company’s former officers as defendants in the case. The Court accepted these stipulations on October 4, 2017. On November 16, 2017, the Company filed its answer denying the allegations and asserting its affirmative defenses. Discovery with respect to this matter is proceeding. On March 1, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which was opposed by the Company on June 15, 2018. The Company intends to continue to defend vigorously against each and every allegation and claim set forth in the second amended complaint. Employment Agreements The Company has entered into employment agreements with certain executive officers that provide for severance payments and, in some cases other benefits, upon certain terminations of employment. Except for the agreement with the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer with an amended extended term to September 30, 2019, all other agreements provide for employment on an “at-will” basis. If the employee resigns for “good reason” or is terminated without cause, the employee is entitled to salary continuation, and in some cases benefit continuation, for varying periods depending on the agreement. Off‑Balance Sheet Arrangements As of June 30, 2018, the Company provided guarantees of approximately $2.0 million related to lease commitments on the buildings for certain of the Company’s schools. Previously, the Company had guaranteed two leases which are excluded from the number above, and discussed in more detail below. During the year ended June 30, 2017, the lessee on one of the leases in which the Company served as guarantor defaulted, and under the terms of the guarantee, the obligation was assigned to the Company. Since the default occurred, the Company has taken steps to exit this facility and entered into an agreement to sublet the space. Additionally, during the year ended June 30, 2017, the Company entered into a lease buyout agreement with the landlord on another guaranteed space to exit the lease early under the terms of the original lease (see Note 12, “Restructuring”). In addition, the Company contractually guarantees that certain schools under the Company’s management will not have annual operating deficits and the Company’s management fees from these schools may be reduced accordingly to cover any school operating deficits. Other than these lease and operating deficit guarantees, the Company did not have any off-balance sheet arrangements that have or are reasonably likely to have a current or future effect on the Company’s financial condition, changes in financial condition, revenues or expenses, results of operations, liquidity, capital expenditures or capital resources.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration