XML 97 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2012
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 13. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES An accrual for estimated legal fees and settlements of $6.5 million and $15.4 million at December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, is presented within other current liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets. Litigation We are, or were, a party to the following legal proceedings that are outside the scope of ordinary routine litigation incidental to our business. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these matters. An unfavorable outcome of any one or more of these matters could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial position. Securities Litigation Ross, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al. On January 13, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, naming the Company and various individuals as defendants and claiming that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) by making material misstatements in and omitting material information from the Company’s public disclosures concerning its schools’ job placement rates and its compliance with accreditation standards. The complaint further claimed that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their positions as control persons of the Company. Plaintiff asks for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On March 23, 2012, the Court appointed KBC Asset Management NV, the Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement Systems, and the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, as lead plaintiffs in the action. On May 3, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, asserting the same claims alleged in the initial complaint, and naming the Company and two former executive officers as defendants. Lead plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company’s common stock between February 19, 2009 and November 21, 2011. On October 30, 2012, the Court ruled on defendants’ motion to dismiss, granting it as to one of the former executive officer defendants and denying it as to the other defendants. On January 28, 2013, defendants filed answers to the consolidated amended complaint. A status hearing is scheduled for April 25, 2013. Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of damages and the number of potential class members who might be entitled to recover damages, if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action. Shareholder Derivative Actions and Demands Bangari v. Lesnik, et al. On December 7, 2011, a derivative action was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division on behalf of the Company naming the Company’s Board of Directors at that time as individual defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of control by the individual defendants in connection with the Company’s alleged ongoing failure to have proper internal controls in place to appropriately determine its schools’ placement rates or to comply with relevant accreditation standards regarding placement practices and determinations. Plaintiff asks for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On February 10, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss or stay the complaint. On August 21, 2012, the Court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss, and granted defendants’ request for a stay. A status hearing is scheduled for March 22, 2013. Cook v. McCullough, et al. On December 22, 2011, a derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of the Company naming the Company’s Board of Directors at that time as well as various current and former officers as individual defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control and gross mismanagement by all of the individual defendants based on allegations similar to those asserted in Bangari, described above, and on defendants’ alleged failure to prevent the Company’s disclosure of allegedly misleading statements relating to placement rates. Plaintiff also asserts a claim of unjust enrichment against certain individual defendants due to their receipt of incentive-based compensation based on allegedly inflated short-term financial performance. Plaintiff asks for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On March 16, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss or stay the complaint. The Court granted the motions to stay pending resolution of the motions to dismiss. On August 13, 2012, the Court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss and ordered the parties to engage in certain preliminary discovery. Defendants filed answers to the complaint on October 22, 2012. A status hearing is scheduled for March 28, 2013. Alex v. McCullough, et al. On November 5, 2012, a derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of the Company naming the Company’s Board of Directors at that time as well as various current and former officers as individual defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment by all of the individual defendants based on allegations similar to those asserted in Bangari and Cook, described above. In addition, in connection with the Company’s reporting of placement rates, plaintiff also asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against certain individual defendants. Plaintiff asks for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. Defendants’ response to the complaint is currently due February 26, 2013. A status hearing is scheduled for March 6, 2013. The Company’s Board of Directors has addressed forming a Special Litigation Committee (“SLC’) for the purpose of conducting a thorough and independent investigation into the allegations raised in the Bangari and Cook derivative actions described above and subsequent related claims. The SLC would be delegated the authority to take any and all actions as the SLC deems appropriate and in the best interests of the Company regarding what, if any, actions the Company should undertake with respect to the findings of the SLC. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of these actions and investigation is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for these matters because they are in their early stages and the complaints do not seek a specified amount of damages. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with these matters. Student Litigation Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation; Adams, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation. On September 27, 2007, Allison Amador and 36 other current and former students of the California Culinary Academy (“CCA”) filed a complaint in the California Superior Court in San Francisco. Plaintiffs plead their original complaint as a putative class action and allege four causes of action: fraud; constructive fraud; violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs contend that CCA made a variety of misrepresentations to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process. The alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school’s reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of the admissions process, and the students’ employment prospects upon graduation, including the accuracy of statistics published by CCA. On April 3, 2008, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in the Amador action filed the Adams action on behalf of Jennifer Adams and several other unnamed members of the Amador putative class. The Adams action also was styled as a class action and was based on the same allegations underlying the Amador action and attempted to plead the same four causes of action pled in the Amador action. The Adams action was deemed related to the Amador action and was being handled by the same judge. The parties executed a formal settlement agreement as of November 1, 2010. On April 18, 2012, the Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement and on April 19, 2012, the Court entered a final judgment on the settlement. On June 3, 2011, the same attorneys representing the class in the Amador action filed a separate complaint in the San Francisco County Superior Court entitled Abarca v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al , on behalf of 115 individuals who are opt outs in the Amador action and/or non-class members, and therefore not subject to the Amador settlement. On June 15, 2011, the same attorneys filed another action in the San Francisco County Superior Court entitled Andrade, et al. v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al. , on behalf of another 31 individuals who are opt outs in the Amador action and/or non-class members, and therefore not subject to the Amador settlement. On August 12, 2011, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a third action on behalf of five individuals who opted out of or were not parties to the Amador settlement entitled Aprieto, et al. v. California Culinary Academy. New counsel has substituted in to represent 78 of the individuals and the Court has entered orders allowing class counsel to withdraw from representing the remaining individuals. On January 18, 2013, new counsel filed a complaint entitled Coleman, et al. v. California Culinary Academy on behalf of two individuals who appear to be persons who opted out of the class action settlement. None of these four suits are being prosecuted as a class action. They each allege the same claims as were previously alleged in the Amador action, plus claims for breach of contract and violations of the repealed California Education Code. The plaintiffs in these cases seek damages, including consequential damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. We have not responded to these four complaints, which have been deemed related and transferred to the same judge who handled the Amador case, because they have been stayed pending a final determination as to which of the remaining individual plaintiffs have viable claims that are not barred by the final judgment on the Amador settlement. There are 96 total plaintiffs who have not settled or dismissed their claims. 80 of these plaintiffs are represented by counsel. Based on the Company’s records and the records of the class settlement, the 16 plaintiffs not represented by counsel received notice of the settlement and did not file claims, and therefore their individual claims are expected to be barred. The Court has ordered all parties to appear at a further case management conference in March 2013. Discovery is proceeding as to the plaintiffs who are represented by counsel. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise as discovery and pre-trial proceedings progress, the outcome of the Abarca, Andrade, Aprieto and Coleman legal proceedings with respect to the remaining plaintiffs is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for these actions because these matters are in their early stages and involve many unresolved issues of fact and law. Accordingly, we have not recognized any future liability associated with these actions. Lilley, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al. On February 11, 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, naming the Company and Sanford-Brown College, Inc. as defendants. Plaintiffs filed amended complaints on September 5, 2008 and September 24, 2010. The five plaintiffs named in the amended complaint are former students who attended a medical assistant program at Sanford-Brown College located in Collinsville, Illinois. The amended complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, for alleged unfair conduct and deceptive conduct under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as well as common law claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent omission. In the amended complaint filed on September 24, 2010, the plaintiffs allege that the school’s enrollment agreements contained false and misleading information regarding placement statistics, job opportunities and salaries and that Admissions, Financial Aid and Career Services personnel used standardized materials that allegedly contained false and/or deceptive information. Plaintiffs also allege that the school misused a standardized admissions test to determine program placement when the test was not intended for that purpose; failed to provide allegedly statutorily required loan repayment information; and misrepresented the transferability of credits. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, treble and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of all tuition monies received from medical assistant students, attorneys’ fees, costs and injunctive relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 20, 2010. On October 27, 2010 the Court granted defendants’ motion with respect to plaintiffs’ fraudulent omission claims. The Court denied the motion with respect to the statutory claims under the Private Schools Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the common law fraudulent misrepresentation claim. By Order dated December 3, 2010, the Court certified a class consisting of all persons who attended Sanford-Brown College in Collinsville, Illinois and enrolled in the Medical Assisting Program during the period from July 1, 2003 through November 29, 2010. This class consists of approximately 2,300 members. On February 10, 2011, the Fifth District Court of Appeals granted defendants’ petition for leave to appeal the trial court’s class certification order. By Order filed on October 25, 2012, the Appellate Court reversed the class certification order. The Appellate Court also ruled that the four named plaintiffs can proceed with their individual causes of action and, if successful, receive an award of actual damages, treble damages if fraud is proven, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs have filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court, and our response is due on March 5, 2013. Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of damages and the number of potential class members who might be entitled to recover damages, if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action. Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation. On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and the Company as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (“UTPA”) and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege that Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. (“WCI”) made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI’s placement statistics, students’ employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs’ claims under Oregon’s UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12, 2008. On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting class certification on part of plaintiff’s UTPA and fraud claims purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest of those claims and denying certification of the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1, 2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the school for academic reasons. Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on December 7, 2010, which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett. Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately 2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI. On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. WCI filed an appeal from the Court’s Order and on August 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI’s motion to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the case. Thus, all proceedings with the trial court have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of damages and the number of class members who might be entitled to recover damages, if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action. Vasquez, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation. On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in connection with the admissions process during the alleged class period. The alleged class is defined as including “all persons who purchased educational services from California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. (“CSCA”), or graduated from CSCA, within the limitations periods applicable to the alleged causes of action (including, without limitation, the period following the filing of the action).” Defendants successfully demurred to the constructive fraud claim and the Court has dismissed it. Defendants also successfully demurred to plaintiffs’ claims based on alleged violations of California’s former Private Postsecondary and Vocational Educational Reform Act of 1989 (“the Reform Act”). Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was denied by the Court on March 6, 2012. Plaintiffs’ counsel have filed eight separate but related “multiple plaintiff actions” originally involving a total of approximately 1,000 former students entitled Banks, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Abrica v. California School of Culinary Arts; Aguilar, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Alday v. California School of Culinary Arts; Ackerman, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Arechiga, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Anderson, et al., v. California School of Culinary Arts; and Allen v. California School of Culinary Arts. All eight cases are pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the allegations in these cases are essentially the same as those asserted in the Vasquez class action case. The individual plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of tuition monies received, attorneys’ fees, costs and injunctive relief. All of these cases have been deemed related to the Vasquez class action and therefore are pending before the same judge who is presiding over the Vasquez case. On June 15, 2012, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Vasquez action consolidating all eight of the separate actions referenced above. Defendants’ response to the consolidated complaint was filed on July 13, 2012. The Court has lifted the stay on actions that were consolidated and the parties are now engaged in discovery. On June 22, 2012, defendants filed motions to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims. On August 10, 2012, the Court granted the motions with respect to two later versions of the arbitration agreement at issue, and denied the motions with respect to the earliest version signed by certain of the plaintiffs. Approximately 54 individuals signed the later two versions of the arbitration agreement, and their claims are subject to arbitration. Nine of those individuals have filed arbitration demands before the American Arbitration Association to date. Among other causes of action, the consolidated complaint alleges a claim under the repealed Reform Act. On September 25, 2012, the Court sustained defendants’ demurrers to the Reform Act claims without leave to amend, and overruled defendants’ demurrers to the breach of contract claims which seek remedies under the Reform Act. Defendants issued offers to compromise pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure to 1,119 individual plaintiffs, 334 of which were accepted. The total amount that has been or will be paid to eliminate these claims is approximately $2.1 million. This aggregate amount was recorded in the third quarter of 2012 and the majority of the payments were made by September 30, 2012. Due to the recent addition of new plaintiffs, there are currently approximately 1,379 active plaintiffs in the consolidated action. Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of these legal proceedings is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for these actions with respect to the current plaintiffs because our possible liability depends on an assessment of the appropriate measure of damages, if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with these actions except as described above. Kishia Houck, et al. v. Career Education Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc., and Juan Antonio Morales, et al. v. Career Education Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc. On May 23, 2012, a putative class action was filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida, captioned, Kishia Houck, et al. v. Career Education Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc. The Houck plaintiffs alleged causes of action under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. They alleged that the defendants made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to salary and employment prospects, instructor qualifications, transferability of credits, career placement services, the reputation of the International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc., the value and quality of the education, the overall cost to attend the school, and relevant student loan information. The putative class was defined as including all students who are or have enrolled in defendants’ degree programs at IADT’s Tampa and Orlando, Florida campuses during an undetermined time period. The Houck plaintiffs sought to recover damages and also sought declaratory and injunctive relief. On July 5, 2012, the action was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On August 3, 2012, the Houck plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On September 7, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the Houck plaintiffs’ claims and to compel arbitration. On October 12, 2012, the parties jointly moved the Court to postpone most case activity until it decides whether to refer the case for arbitration. On September 11, 2012, a second putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned, Juan Antonio Morales, et al. v. Career Education Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc. The Morales plaintiffs alleged essentially the same factual bases and causes of action as in Houck, but added a request for punitive damages. The definition of the putative class in Morales was the same as in Houck. On October 23, 2012, the Morales plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint in which, among other things, they added several plaintiffs, including a proposed class representative, and a claim for civil conspiracy. Thus, Morales included causes of action under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy. On November 2, 2012, the Court ordered Morales closed, incorporated it into Houck, and ordered that all further pleadings be filed in Houck. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on November 11, 2012, which included all plaintiffs from both Houck and Morales and added a cause of action for violation of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. On November 30, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, a motion to compel arbitration, and a motion to strike the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims. Plaintiffs’ filed their responses to the motion to compel arbitration, motion to dismiss, and motion to strike on February 11, 2013. Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of these legal proceedings is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for these actions because, among other things, our potential liability depends on whether a class is certified and, if so, the composition and size of any such class, as well as on an assessment of the appropriate measure of damages if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action. David Cohen, et al. v. Career Education Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc. On January 14, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned, David Cohen, et al. v. Career Education Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc. The Cohen plaintiffs allege causes of action under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, and violation of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. They allege that defendants made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to salary and employment prospects, instructor qualifications, transferability of credits, career placement services, the reputation of the International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc., the value and quality of the education, the overall cost to attend the school, and relevant student loan information. The putative class is defined as including all students who are or have enrolled in defendants’ degree programs at its Tampa and Orlando, Florida campuses during an undetermined time period. The Cohen plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages and also seek declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint is essentially identical to the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint previously filed in Kishia Houck, et al. v. Career Education Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc., raising the same claims and including the same class definition, with the exception that the Cohen plaintiffs, unlike the Houck plaintiffs, have not raised a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss, a motion to compel arbitration, and a motion to strike plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims on February 11, 2013. Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because, among other things, our potential liability depends on whether a class is certified and, if so, the composition and size of any such class, as well as on an assessment of the appropriate measure of damages if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action. Danielle Brainard, et al. v. Career Education Corporation and Sanford-Brown Limited, Inc. On September 11, 2012, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned, Danielle Brainard, et al. v. Career Education Corporation and Sanford-Brown Limited, Inc. d/b/a Sanford-Brown College and d/b/a Sanford-Brown Institute-Orlando. In their complaint, plaintiffs allege causes of action under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs allege that defendants made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to salary and employment prospects, instructor qualifications, transferability of credits, the necessity for completing a medical assistant program before enrolling in other technical programs, career placement services, the reputation of Sanford-Brown College and Sanford-Brown Institute, the value and quality of the education, the overall cost to attend the school, and relevant student loan information. The putative classes are defined as including: (1) all students who are or have enrolled in defendants’ degree programs at its Tampa and Orlando, Florida campuses during an undetermined time period, and (2) all students who are or have enrolled in defendants’ degree programs at any of their Sanford-Brown campuses throughout the U.S. during an undetermined period who were told by defendants that they had to complete a medical assistant program prior to enrolling in other technical programs. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages and also seek declaratory and injunctive relief. On October 18, 2012, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint. In this amended pleading, plaintiffs added several additional plaintiffs and a claim for civil conspiracy. On November 5, 2012, defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, a motion to dismiss, and a motion to strike plaintiffs’ demand for punitive damages. Plaintiffs responded to all three motions on December 28, 2012. The Court has not yet ruled on or set a hearing date for these motions. Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because, among other things, our potential liability depends on whether a class or classes are certified and, if so, the composition and size of any such class(es), as well as on an assessment of the appropriate measure of damages if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action. Ronald Cernohorsky, et al. v. Career Education Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc. On January 14, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida, captioned, Ronald Cernohorsky, et al. v. Career Education Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc., d/b/a IADT Online. The Cernohorsky plaintiffs allege causes of action against CEC and IADT Online under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. They allege that defendants made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to salary and employment prospects, instructor qualifications, transferability of credits, career placement services, the reputation of IADT Online, the value and quality of the education, the overall cost to attend the school, and relevant student loan information. The putative class is defined as including all students who are or have enrolled in defendants’ online degree programs during an undetermined time period. The Cernohorsky plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages and also seek declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint is similar to the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint previously filed in Kishia Houck, et al. v. Career Education Corporation and International Academy of Merchandising & Design, Inc., but focuses on students enrolled in IADT’s online degree programs, rather than at its Tampa and Orlando, Florida campuses. Defendants’ filed a motion to dismiss, a motion to compel arbitration, and a motion to strike plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims on February 11, 2013. Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because, among other things, our potential liability depends on whether a class is certified and, if so, the composition and size of any such class, as well as on an assessment of the appropriate measure of damages if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action. False Claims Act False Claims Act Lawsuit. On July 28, 2009, we were served with a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The complaint was originally filed under seal on July 14, 2008 by four former employees of the Dunwoody campus of our American InterContinental University on behalf of themselves and the federal government. The case is captioned United States of America, ex rel. Melissa Simms Powell, et al. v. American InterContinental University, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Career Education Corp., a Delaware Corporation and John Doe Nos. 1-100. On July 27, 2009, the Court ordered the complaint unsealed and we were notified that the U.S. Department of Justice declined to intervene in the action. When the federal government declines to intervene in a False Claims Act action, as it has done in this case, the private plaintiffs (or “relators”) may elect to pursue the litigation on behalf of the federal government and, if they are successful, receive a portion of the federal government’s recovery. The action alleges violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) and (2), and promissory fraud, including allegedly providing false certifications to the federal government regarding compliance with certain provisions of the Higher Education Act and accreditation standards. Relators claim that defendants’ conduct caused the government to pay federal funds to defendants and to make payments to third-party lenders, which the government would not have made if not for defendants’ alleged violation of the law. Relators seek treble damages plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. The lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase. On July 12, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss for a lack of jurisdiction, the claims related to incentive compensation and proof of graduation. Thus, the only claim that remains pending against defendants is based on relators’ contention that defendants misled the school’s accreditor, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, during the accreditation process. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because the complaint does not seek a specified amount of damages and it is unclear how damages would be calculated. Moreover, the case presents novel legal issues and discovery is in its early stages. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action. Employment Litigation Wilson, et al. v. Career Education Corporation. On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former Admissions Representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The two-count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from our decision to terminate our Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation Plan. In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated Admissions Representatives who also were affected by termination of the plan. On October 6, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 13, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14, 2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the final judgment of the trial court. Briefing was completed on October 30, 2012, and oral argument was held on December 3, 2012. The Seventh Circuit has not yet ruled on the appeal. Because plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action. Gonzalez, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al. On September 16, 2011, Karla Gonzalez and 19 other current and former employees of Southern California School of Culinary Arts, Ltd. (“SCSCA”) who worked primarily as admissions representatives filed a complaint in California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, Northeast District. The complaint names us, SCSCA, Le Cordon Bleu, Inc. and two former SCSCA employees as defendants. In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants (i) failed to pay them overtime and rest break compensation in violation of the California Labor Code; (ii) owe statutory penalties under the California Labor Code for unpaid wages; (iii) engaged in unfair competition and unfair business practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code relating to false time records and failure to pay wages owed; (iv) breached contracts by failing to pay bonuses for enrolling students; (v) engaged in unfair competition and unfair business practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code by failing to report and intending to evade taxes; (vi) are responsible for statutory penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) for violations of various sections of the California Code; and (vii) committed fraud by failing to pay allegedly promised bonuses and by altering time records. In their PAGA claim, plaintiffs seek recovery of penalties for violations of various wage and hour provisions of the California Code on behalf of themselves and all other similar current and former employees in California. In a first amended complaint filed in December 2011, plaintiffs dropped the individual defendants as defendants without prejudice. The remaining defendants responded to the first amended complaint on January 18, 2012, denying all material allegations. On June 1, 2012, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in which they re-alleged counts (i) – (vii) as identified above against the corporate defendants, and asserted count (vii) against the individual defendant. It also added new counts for violation of public policy relating to retaliation (new count viii) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (new count ix). The new counts were brought against all of the defendants. On August 15, 2012, the judge sustained demurrers regarding all but two of the new counts. The counts that survived were fraud against the one individual defendant for alleged promises about bonus payments and violation of public policy relating to retaliation against the corporate defendants. The infliction of emotional distress claims were dismissed without leave to amend as to all defendants. The defendants have answered the third amended complaint by denying all allegations, and the parties are engaged in discovery. Since the third amended complaint was filed, two plaintiffs have agreed to voluntarily dismiss their claims and one has after one accepted an offer to compromise issued pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure. There are 17 remaining plaintiffs. Motions for summary judgment are due on May 31, 2013. Trial is scheduled to commence on September 16, 2013. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because these matters are in their early stages, and involve many unresolved issues of fact and law. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action. Nimely, et al. v. Randstad General Partners, Randstad USA, Randstad Inhouse Services L.P., and Career Education Corporation. On December 30, 2012, April R. Nimely, a former hourly, non-exempt call center employee based in Illinois filed a putative class and collective action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and various entities of the staffing firm Randstad, which the Company used to supplement its own staff at some of its call centers. The complaint asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act arising from the alleged failure to pay wages for work performed before and after shifts and during breaks. The putative collective class was defined as “[a]ll persons who worked for Defendants as telephone dedicated employees, however titled, who were compensated, in part or in full, on an hourly basis throughout the United States at any time between December 30, 2009 and the present who did not receive the full amount of overtime wages earned and owed to them.” Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because these matters are in their early stages, and involve many unresolved issues of fact and law. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action. Other Litigation In addition to the legal proceedings and other matters described above, we are also subject to a variety of other claims, suits and investigations that arise from time to time in the ordinary conduct of our business, including, but not limited to, claims involving students or graduates and routine employment matters. While we currently believe that such claims, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial position, cash flows or results of operations, these other matters are subject to inherent uncertainties, and management’s view of these matters may change in the future. Were an unfavorable final outcome to occur in any one or more of these matters, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, reputation, financial position, cash flows, and the results of operations for the period in which the effect becomes probable and reasonably estimable. State Investigations The Company received from the Attorney General of the State of New York (“NYAG”) a Subpoena Duces Tecum dated May 17, 2011 (the “Subpoena”), relating to the NYAG’s investigation of whether the Company and certain of its schools have complied with certain New York state consumer protection, securities, finance and other laws. Pursuant to the Subpoena, the NYAG has requested from the Company, and certain of its schools, documents and detailed information on a broad spectrum of business practices, including such areas as marketing and advertising, student recruitment and admissions, education financing, training and compensation of admissions and financial aid personnel, programmatic accreditation, student employment outcomes, placement rates of graduates and other disclosures made to students. The documents and information sought by the NYAG in connection with its investigation cover the time period from May 17, 2005 to the present. As previously disclosed, at the direction of the Company’s Board of Directors, an independent internal investigation was conducted into the determination of placement rates at the Company’s Health Education segment schools as well as a review of such practices at all of its other domestic schools. The Company has reported the results of this investigation to the NYAG. The Company continues to cooperate with the NYAG with a view towards resolving this inquiry as promptly as possible. The Florida campuses of Sanford-Brown Institute received a notice on November 5, 2010 from the State of Florida Office of the Attorney General that it has commenced an investigation into possible unfair and deceptive trade practices at these schools. The notice includes a subpoena to produce documents and detailed information for the time period from January 1, 2007 to the present about a broad spectrum of business practices at such schools. The Florida campuses of Sanford-Brown Institute have responded to the subpoena and continue to cooperate with the Florida Attorney General with a view towards resolving this inquiry as promptly as possible. The Company received from the Attorney General of the State of Illinois (“IL AG”) a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) dated December 9, 2011. The CID relates to the IL AG’s investigation of whether the Company and its schools operating in Illinois have complied with certain Illinois state consumer protection laws. Pursuant to the CID, the IL AG has requested from the Company and its schools documents and detailed information on a broad spectrum of business practices, including such areas as marketing and advertising, student recruitment and admissions, education financing, training and compensation of admissions and financial aid personnel, programmatic accreditation, student employment outcomes, placement rates of graduates and other financial and organizational information. The documents and information sought by the IL AG in connection with its investigation cover the time period from January 1, 2006 to the present. The Company is cooperating with the IL AG’s office with a view towards resolving this inquiry as promptly as possible. The Company received from the Department of Justice of the State of Oregon (“OR DOJ”) an Investigative Demand (“ID”) dated January 3, 2012. The ID relates to the OR DOJ’s investigation of whether the Company and AIU operating in Oregon have complied with certain Oregon state consumer protection laws. Pursuant to the ID, the OR DOJ has requested from the Company and AIU documents and detailed information on a broad spectrum of business practices, including such areas as consumer practices, accreditation, advertisements, recruitment, enrollment and admission of students, financial aid, records of discrimination complaints, academic performance, certain degree programs and student disclosures. The documents and information sought by the OR DOJ in connection with its investigation cover the time period from January 1, 2004 to the present. The Company is cooperating with the OR DOJ’s office with a view towards resolving this inquiry as promptly as possible. The Company received from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General (“MA AG”) a Civil Investigative Demand dated September 27, 2012. The CID relates to the MA AG’s investigation of whether certain of the Company’s schools have complied with Massachusetts consumer protection laws in connection with marketing and advertising, job placement and student outcomes, the recruitment of students, and the financing of education. Pursuant to the CID, the MA AG has requested from the Company documents and detailed information covering a broad spectrum of areas, including student information, programs of study, externships, tuition, financial aid, default rates, graduation rates, employment outcomes, recruitment and admissions, career services, student disclosures, employee compensation, accreditation, advertising, and complaints relating to operations, recruitment, placement, retention, graduation and quality of education. The documents and information sought by the MA AG in connection with its investigation generally cover the time period from January 1, 2008 to the present, with some specific requests covering time periods as early as January 1, 2003 to the present. The Company is cooperating with the MA AG’s office with a view towards resolving this inquiry as promptly as possible. We cannot predict the scope, duration or outcome of these investigations. At the conclusion of these matters, the Company or certain of its schools may be subject to claims of failure to comply with state laws or regulations and may be required to pay significant financial penalties or curtail or modify their operations. Other state attorneys general may also initiate inquiries into the Company or its schools. If any of the foregoing occurs, our business, reputation, financial position, cash flows and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential monetary or non-monetary impact these investigations might have on the Company because it is uncertain what remedies, if any, these regulators might ultimately seek in connection with these investigations. SEC Inquiry and Other Information Requests During the second quarter of 2012, the Company was advised by the Chicago Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) that it is conducting an inquiry pertaining to our previously reported 2011 investigation and review of student placement rate determination practices and related matters. We are cooperating fully with the inquiry. We cannot determine the eventual duration, scope or outcome of this matter. The Company and its institutions have responded to requests for information regarding its 2011 investigation and review of placement determination practices and related matters from the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department Education Division of Higher and Career Education, the Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education, the Minnesota Office of Higher Education and the Florida Commission for Independent Education. We cannot predict the outcome of these information requests and any legal proceeding, claim or other matter that may arise relating thereto. Regulatory Matters ED Inquiry and HCM1 Status In December 2011, ED advised the Company that it is conducting an inquiry concerning possible violations of ED misrepresentation regulations related to placement rates reported by certain of the Company’s institutions to accrediting bodies, students and potential students. This inquiry stems from the Company’s self-reporting to ED of its internal investigation into student placement determination practices at the Company’s Health Education segment schools and review of placement determination practices at all of the Company’s other domestic schools in 2011. The Company has been cooperating with ED in connection with this inquiry. If ED determines that the Company or any of its institutions violated ED misrepresentation regulations with regard to the publication of placement rates or other disclosures to students or prospective students, ED may revoke, limit, suspend or deny the institution’s Title IV eligibility, or impose fines. Any such action would first likely require reasonable prior notice and an opportunity for an administrative hearing (as recently confirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia), and would be subject to appeal. In December 2011, ED also moved all of the Company’s institutions from the “advance” method of payment of Title IV Program funds to cash monitoring status (referred to as Heightened Cash Monitoring 1, or HCM1, status). Although the Company’s prior practices substantially conformed to the requirements of this more restrictive method of drawing down students’ Title IV Program funds, if ED finds violations of the HEA or related regulations, ED may impose monetary or program level sanctions, or transfer the Company’s schools to the “reimbursement” or Heightened Cash Monitoring 2 (“HCM2”) methods of payment of Title IV Program funds. While on HCM2 status, an institution must disburse its own funds to students, document the students’ eligibility for Title IV Program funds and comply with certain waiting period requirements before receiving such funds from ED, which results in a significant delay in receiving those funds. The process of re-establishing a regular schedule of cash receipts for the Title IV Program funds if ED places our schools on “reimbursement” or HCM2 payment status could take several months, and would require us to fund ongoing operations substantially out of existing cash balances. If our existing cash balances are insufficient to sustain us through this transition period, we would need to pursue other sources of liquidity, which may not be available or may be costly. OIG Audit Our schools and universities are also subject to periodic audits by various regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). The OIG audit services division commenced a compliance audit of CTU in June 2010, covering the period July 5, 2009 to May 16, 2010, to determine whether CTU had policies and procedures to ensure that CTU administered Title IV Program and other federal program funds in accordance with applicable federal law and regulation. On January 13, 2012, the OIG issued a draft report identifying three findings, including one regarding the documentation of attendance of students enrolled in online programs and one regarding the calculation of returns of Title IV Program funds arising from student withdrawals without official notice to the institution. CTU submitted a written response to the OIG, contesting these findings, on March 2, 2012. CTU disagreed with the OIG’s proposed determination of what constitutes appropriate documentation or verification of online academic activity during the time period covered by the audit. CTU’s response asserted that this finding was based on the retroactive application of standards adopted as part of the program integrity regulations that first went into effect on July 1, 2011. The OIG final report, along with CTU’s response to the draft report, was forwarded to ED’s Office of Federal Student Aid on September 21, 2012. On October 24, 2012, CTU provided a further response challenging the findings of the report directly to ED’s Office of Federal Student Aid. As a result of ED’s review of these materials, on January 31, 2013, CTU received a request from ED that it perform two file reviews to determine potential liability on two discrete issues associated with one of the above findings. The first file review relates to any potential aid awarded to students who engaged in virtual classroom attendance activities prior to the official start date of a course and for which no further attendance was registered during the official class term. The second file review relates to students that were awarded and paid Pell funds for enrollment in two concurrent courses, while only registering attendance in one of the two courses. The results of our file review are due to ED on or about March 2, 2013. As of the date of this filing, the Company has estimated the potential liability relating to this audit to be no greater than $3.0 million, and has considered this along with other matters outstanding when assessing the adequacy of its legal reserves.

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 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration