XML 65 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 14: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Adtalem is subject to lawsuits, administrative proceedings, regulatory reviews and investigations associated with financial assistance programs and other matters arising in the normal conduct of its business. As of September 30, 2019, Adtalem believes it has adequately reserved for potential losses. The following is a description of pending legal and regulatory matters that may be considered other than ordinary, routine and incidental to the business. Descriptions of certain matters from prior SEC filings may not be carried forward in this report to the extent we believe such matters no longer are required to be disclosed or there has not been, to our knowledge, significant activity relating to them. The timing or outcome of the following matters, or their possible impact on Adtalem’s business, financial condition or results of operations, cannot be predicted at this time. The continued defense, resolution or settlement of any of the following matters could require us to expend significant resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows and result in the imposition of significant restrictions on us and our ability to operate. On May 13, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against Adtalem, Daniel Hamburger, Richard M. Gunst, and Timothy J. Wiggins in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased Adtalem common stock between February 4, 2011 and January 27, 2016. The complaint cites the January 27, 2016 Notice of Intent to Limit (the “January 2016 Notice”) and a civil complaint (the “FTC lawsuit”) filed by the FTC on January 27, 2016 against Adtalem, DeVry University, Inc., and DeVry/New York Inc. (collectively, the “Adtalem Parties”), which was resolved with the FTC in 2017, that alleged that certain of DeVry University’s advertising claims were false or misleading or unsubstantiated at the time they were made in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, as the basis for claims that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and the earnings of DeVry University graduates relative to the graduates of other universities and colleges. As a result of these alleged false or misleading statements, the plaintiff alleged that defendants overstated Adtalem’s growth, revenue and earnings potential and made false or misleading statements about Adtalem’s business, operations and prospects. The plaintiff alleged direct liability against all defendants for violations of §10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and asserted liability against the individual defendants pursuant to § 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff sought monetary damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other unspecified relief. On July 13, 2016, the Utah Retirement System (“URS”) moved for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of counsel, which was not opposed by the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers. URS was appointed as lead plaintiff on August 24, 2016. URS filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) on December 23, 2016. The SAC sought to represent a putative class of persons who purchased Adtalem common stock between August 26, 2011 and January 27, 2016 and named an additional individual defendant, Patrick J. Unzicker, Adtalem’s former Chief Financial Officer. Like the original complaint, the SAC asserted claims against all defendants for alleged violations of §10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and asserted liability against the individual defendants pursuant to § 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged material misstatements or omissions regarding DeVry University graduate outcomes. On January 27, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the SAC, which motion was granted on December 6, 2017, without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint (“TAC”) on January 29, 2018. The defendants moved to dismiss the TAC on March 30, 2018. The court denied the motion to dismiss the TAC on December 20, 2018. On February 8, 2019, defendants filed their answer to the TAC wherein defendants denied all material allegations in the TAC. The parties engaged in mediation and reached a tentative resolution. On September 5, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The final approval hearing is set for December 6, 2019. On October 14, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Debbie Petrizzo and five other former DeVry University students, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Petrizzo Case”). The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of those who enrolled in and/or attended classes at DeVry University during and after 2002 and who were unable to find employment within their chosen field of study within six months of graduation. Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of six different states’ consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs seek monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief. On October 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Jairo Jara and eleven others, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Jara Case”). The individual plaintiffs claimed to have graduated from DeVry University in 2001 or later and sought to proceed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of those who obtained a degree from DeVry University and who were unable to find employment within their chosen field of study within six months of graduation. Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of ten different states’ consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief. By order dated November 28, 2016, the district court ordered the Petrizzo Case and the Jara Case be consolidated under the Petrizzo caption for all further purposes. On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on behalf of 38 individual plaintiffs and others similarly situated. The amended consolidated complaint sought to bring claims on behalf of the named individuals and a putative nationwide class of individuals for unjust enrichment and alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and the Illinois Private Businesses and Vocational Schools Act of 2012. In addition, it purported to assert causes of action on behalf of certain of the named individuals and 15 individual state-specific putative classes for alleged violations of 15 different states’ consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. Finally, it sought to bring individual claims under Georgia state law on behalf of certain named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed by the Adtalem Parties and granted by the court, without prejudice, on February 12, 2018. On April 12, 2018, the Petrizzo plaintiffs refiled their complaint with a new lead plaintiff, Renee Heather Polly. The plaintiffs’ refiled complaint is nearly identical to the complaint previously dismissed by the court on February 12, 2018. The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this refiled complaint on May 14, 2018. The court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice on February 13, 2019. On March 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and this matter is currently pending on appeal before the Seventh Circuit. On January 17, 2017, Harriet Myers filed a complaint derivatively on behalf of Adtalem in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against individual defendants Daniel M. Hamburger, Timothy J. Wiggins, Richard M. Gunst, Patrick J. Unzicker, Christopher B. Begley, David S. Brown, Lisa W. Wardell, Ann Weaver Hart, Lyle Logan, Alan G. Merten, Fernando Ruiz, Ronald L. Taylor and James D. White. Adtalem was named as a nominal defendant only. The plaintiff agreed to a stipulated order moving the case to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Citing the FTC lawsuit and settlement, the January 2016 Notice, the negotiated agreement reached by DeVry University and ED on October 13, 2016 (the “ED Settlement”), and the allegations in the lawsuit filed by the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, each referenced above, the plaintiff has alleged that the individual defendants have breached their fiduciary duties and violated federal securities law since at least 2011. The plaintiff has asserted that the individual defendants permitted Adtalem to engage in unlawful conduct, failed to correct misconduct or prevent its recurrence, and failed to ensure the accurate dissemination of information to shareholders. The complaint attempts to state three claims: (i) breach of fiduciary duty by all named defendants for allegedly allowing the illegal conduct to occur, (ii) unjust enrichment by all individual defendants in the receipt of compensation, and (iii) violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to disclose the alleged illegal scheme in proxy statements and falsely stating that compensation was based on “pay for performance” where those performance results were allegedly false. The plaintiff seeks on behalf of Adtalem monetary, injunctive and other unspecified relief. The parties reached an agreement to settle this matter along with the City of Hialeah matter (described below). The settlement approval hearing for the City of Hialeah matter was held on May 17, 2019. The court approved the settlement and the matter was dismissed. On June 20, 2017, the City of Hialeah Employees Retirement System filed a complaint derivatively on behalf of Adtalem in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against individual defendants Daniel M. Hamburger, Christopher B. Begley, Lisa W. Wardell, Lyle Logan, Fernando Ruiz, Ronald L. Taylor and James D. White. Adtalem was named as a nominal defendant only. Citing the FTC lawsuit and settlement, the January 2016 Notice and ED Settlement, and documents produced in response to plaintiff’s request under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, the plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants have breached their fiduciary duties. The plaintiff asserts that the individual defendants permitted Adtalem and DeVry University to make, and failed to stop, false and misleading advertisements in breach of their fiduciary duties and in bad faith. The plaintiff seeks on behalf of Adtalem monetary and other unspecified relief. A motion to dismiss the complaint was filed by the Adtalem Parties on September 1, 2017, which was partially granted as to one count and partially denied as to another count on April 20, 2018. The parties reached an agreement to settle this matter along with the Myers matter (described above). The settlement approval hearing for the City of Hialeah matter was held on May 17, 2019. The court approved the settlement and the matter was dismissed. On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Illinois and who purchased or paid for a DeVry University program between January 1, 2008 and April 8, 2016. The plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to violations of state law. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20, 2018. On March 11, 2019, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead plaintiff, Dave McCormick. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint on April 15, 2019 and the court granted Defendants’ motion on July 29, 2019, with leave to amend. The plaintiff has filed an amended complaint on August 26, 2019. Defendants’ intend to move to dismiss this complaint as it is substantially similar to the one the court previously dismissed. On May 8, 2018, the Carlson Law Firm (“Carlson”) filed a lawsuit against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., on behalf of 71 individual former DeVry University students in Rangel v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. Carlson filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Plaintiffs contend that DeVry University “made deceptive representations about the benefits of obtaining a degree from DeVry University” in violation of Texas state laws and seek full restitution of all monies paid to DeVry University and any student loan lenders, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint on June 5, 2018. On June 27, 2018, Carlson filed a second lawsuit on behalf of 32 former DeVry University students against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. in Lindberg v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. Carlson filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The allegations are identical to the allegations in the lawsuit Carlson filed on May 8, 2018. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that DeVry University “made deceptive representations about the benefits of obtaining a degree from DeVry University” in violation of Texas state laws and seek full restitution of all monies paid to DeVry University and any student loan lenders, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint on August 28, 2018. The court consolidated these two lawsuits on December 10, 2018. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action on December 18, 2018. On January 2, 2019, Carlson filed a motion to intervene on behalf of 13 additional former DeVry University students seeking to join the consolidated lawsuit. The parties re-filed their briefing on the motions to dismiss so that the motion would apply to all three groups of plaintiffs. On April 24, 2019, the Court granted Adtalem’s and DeVry University’s motions to dismiss, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 7, 2019. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on July 5, 2019. That motion is fully briefed and set for oral argument on November 20, 2019. On April 4, 2019, the Carlson Law Firm sent notice pursuant to California Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1750, of 105 individuals who purportedly have claims against DeVry University and Adtalem based on allegedly deceptive comments made about the benefits of obtaining a DeVry University degree; specifically, that 90% of graduates obtained a job in their chosen field of study within six months of graduation, and that graduates were paid more than graduates of other universities. On July 16, 2019, the Carlson Law Firm filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California – San Jose Division against Adtalem and DeVry University on behalf of 102 individual former DeVry University students in Alvarez v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. The plaintiffs contend that defendants misrepresented the benefits of graduating from DeVry University and falsely and misleadingly advertised the employment rate and income rate of their graduates to induce potential students to purchase educational products and services, and to remain students through graduation. The lawsuit seeks exemplary damages, restitution, economic damages, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and the cost of suit. The plaintiffs brought claims for fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, negligent misrepresentation, civil theft, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and violation of California’s False Advertising Law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 1, 2019, and are awaiting Plaintiffs’ response to that motion. On August 13, 2019, a plaintiff, Magana, filed a putative class action lawsuit against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging damages based on allegedly deceptive statements made about the benefits of obtaining a DeVry University degree. Plaintiffs assert claims under the California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, and claims of fraud/material misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment/intentional omission of material facts, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. On June 21, 2018, Stoltmann Law Offices filed a lawsuit against Adtalem in Cook County Circuit Court, alleging that Adtalem breached a contract with Stoltmann Law Offices to pay filing fees associated with arbitration claims Stoltmann Law Offices has filed with the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (“JAMS”). Stoltmann Law Offices is seeking specific performance from the court. Adtalem moved to dismiss this complaint on August 3, 2018. Prior to the court ruling on Adtalem’s motion to dismiss, Stoltmann Law Offices and 399 individuals filed an amended complaint on August 9, 2018, asserting claims for specific performance, declaratory judgment and a petition to compel arbitration. Adtalem moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 31, 2018. The court granted Adtalem’s motion to dismiss on November 30, 2018, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. A single individual plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 3, 2019. Adtalem moved to dismiss the complaint on May 23, 2019. While the motion to dismiss has been fully briefed, a hearing date has not yet been set. On June 7, 2019, Stoltmann Law Offices filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of Michael Forsythe seeking to compel arbitration of his consumer claims before JAMS. Adtalem moved to dismiss the complaint on July 1, 2019. The motion to dismiss is fully briefed, however, a hearing date has not yet been set. Stoltmann Law Offices is representing hundreds of individuals who have filed claims with JAMS alleging fraud-based claims based on DeVry University’s graduate employment statistics. Stoltmann Law Offices has paid the filing fees for eight of these arbitrations to move forward. On June 14, 2019, JAMS sent commencement letters initiating the arbitration process for the claims of James Archibald and Gilbert Caro. Defendants filed their answers to these two claims on June 28, 2019. An arbitration hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 9-12, 2020, to adjudicate the claims of James Archibald, and February 3-6, 2020, to adjudicate the claims of Gilbert Caro. On August 2, 2019, JAMS sent commencement letters initiating the arbitration process for the claims of Sterling Bridges, David Cobb, and Lacresha Houser. Defendants filed their answers to these claims on August 16, 2019. An arbitration hearing is tentatively scheduled to begin on April 14, 2020, to adjudicate the claims of David Cobb. An arbitration hearing is tentatively scheduled to begin on May 11, 2020, to adjudicate the claims of Lacresha Houser. On August 5, 2019, JAMS sent commencement letters initiating the arbitration process for the claims of Micael Pizzo, Damion Tilghman, and Rickya Tillery. Defendants filed their answers on August 19, 2019. An arbitration hearing is tentatively scheduled to begin on July 13, 2020, to adjudicate the claims of Rickya Tillery. On March 29, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Robby Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the Western District of Missouri. The complaint was filed on behalf of himself and two separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Missouri and who purchased or paid for and received any part of a DeVry University program. The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019. On October 9, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment and conversion, allowing the remaining claims to proceed. On or about April 1, 2019, Adtalem, Chamberlain and DeVry University received similar Civil Investigative Demands (“CID”) from the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”). The CIDs were issued pursuant to a False Claims Act inquiry concerning allegations that Adtalem, in particular Chamberlain and Adtalem’s former subsidiary DeVry University, submitted or caused the submission of false claims to the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs for federal funds under the GI Bill Programs and Tuition Assistance Program from 2011 to the date of the CIDs. It is specifically alleged that Chamberlain and DeVry University engaged in unlawful recruitment tactics, and provided incentive payments based directly or indirectly on securing federal financial aid. At this time, we cannot predict the duration or outcome of this investigation, but Adtalem is cooperating fully with this DOJ inquiry and is providing documents and other information requested by the DOJ. On April 3, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by T’Lani Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Georgia who purchased or paid for and received any part of a DeVry University program. The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019. The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a decision by the court.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -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