COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	13. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES An accrual for estimated legal fees and settlements of $20.3 million and $5.8 million at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively, is presented within other current liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets. We record a liability when we believe that it is both probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. We evaluate, at least quarterly, developments in our legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that was previously accrued, and make adjustments as appropriate. Significant judgment is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount. We may be unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss due to various reasons, including, among others: (1) if the damages sought are indeterminate; (2) if the proceedings are in early stages; (3) if there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals, motions, or settlements; (4) if there are significant factual issues to be determined or resolved; and (5) if there are novel or unsettled legal theories presented. In such instances, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss, if any. Litigation We are, or were, a party to the following legal proceedings that we consider to be 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 campuses’ 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 (the “Class”). 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. Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims and contentions alleged by plaintiffs in the action and all charges of wrongdoing or liability against them. On June 12, 2013, the parties agreed to settle the litigation, subject to Court approval and settlement of the shareholder derivative actions and subsequent related claims described below (“Proposed Derivative Settlement”). Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the Class will receive a total of $27.5 million in consideration of the proposed settlement and for the benefit of Class members participating in the settlement. The Company’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurers have paid $22.5 million of the settlement amount, subject to final Court approval, $10.0 million of which is to be funded pursuant to the terms of the Proposed Derivative Settlement, as to which the Company recorded a receivable in the second quarter of 2013. The Company paid the remaining $5.0 million for the benefit of the Class. However, the Company is seeking recovery of that amount from one of its insurers, Axis Insurance Company, but has not recorded a receivable for this additional amount as it is not deemed probable as of December 31, 2013. As described below, Axis Insurance Company is seeking a declaration of no coverage. In exchange for the $27.5 million cash consideration, among other things, upon final Court approval, the lead plaintiffs will dismiss the litigation with prejudice and the parties will release all claims. On November 6, 2013, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement reached by the parties and providing that any Class member requests for exclusion from the settlement be mailed by March 22, 2014. A final approval hearing is currently set for April 16, 2014. Axis Insurance Company v. Career Education Company, et al. On December 11, 2013, Axis Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, naming the Company and various individuals as defendants in connection with coverage for the recently settled securities class action and Derivative Litigation. Axis seeks a declaration of no coverage. The Company and most of the individual defendants accepted service of the suit on January 10, 2014, and have until March 11, 2014 to respond to the complaint. *Shareholder Derivative Actions and Demands* On June 12, 2013, the parties to the derivative actions described below, including Bangari, Cook and Alex, and subsequent related claims (“Derivative Litigation”) agreed to the Proposed Derivative Settlement, subject to Court approval, pursuant to which the Company’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurers have paid the Company $20.0 million, $10.0 million of which will be applied to the settlement of the Ross securities litigation described above. With the remaining $10.0 million, the Company will be required to pay $5.0 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses to derivative plaintiffs’ counsel, subject to Court approval. The net recovery from the Proposed Derivative Settlement may be used by the Company for any purpose. On January 28, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois finally approved the Proposed Derivative Settlement and dismissed the Cook and Alex actions described below with prejudice. With respect to the Proposed Derivative Settlement, on May 24, 2013, the Company’s Board of Directors formed a Special Committee for the purpose of conducting an independent inquiry. The Board of Directors delegated to the Special Committee the full authority to take such actions as the Special Committee deems appropriate and in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders regarding such Proposed Derivative Settlement. On October 16, 2013, the Special Committee concluded that the Proposed Derivative Settlement described above was fair, reasonable and adequate, conferred substantial benefits upon the Company and its shareholders, and was in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders, and so directed its counsel to enter into the Proposed Derivative Settlement, subject to Court approval. 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 alleged 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 campuses’ placement rates or to comply with relevant accreditation standards regarding placement practices and determinations. Plaintiff asked for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On November 5, 2013, the Court stayed the action pending the Proposed Derivative Settlement. On February 3, 2014, the Court dismissed this action with prejudice. 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 alleged 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 asserted 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 asked for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. As mentioned above, on January 28, 2014, the Court entered an order finally approving the Proposed Derivative Settlement and dismissing this action with prejudice. 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 alleged 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 asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against certain individual defendants. Plaintiff asked for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On January 28, 2014, the Court entered an order finally approving the Proposed Derivative Settlement and dismissing this action with prejudice. *Student Litigation* Abarca v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al. (filed June 3, 2011; 115 plaintiffs); Andrade, et al. v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al (filed June 15, 2011; 31 plaintiffs); Aprieto, et al. v. California Culinary Academy (filed August 12, 2011; five plaintiffs); Coleman, et al. v. California Culinary Academy (filed January 18, 2013; two plaintiffs). These four actions are pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court and generally allege: fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract and violation of the repealed California Education Code. Plaintiffs contend that California Culinary Academy (“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. The plaintiffs in these actions seek damages, including consequential damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. All of the plaintiffs in these four actions either opted out of or did not fit the class definition in a previously settled class action captioned Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation; Adams, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation. None of these four actions are being prosecuted as a class action. All of these cases have been deemed related and have been transferred to the same judge who handled the Amador case. Currently there are 80 remaining plaintiffs who have not settled or dismissed their claims. CCA has filed answers to the complaints filed by the remaining 80 individual plaintiffs. The parties have agreed to participate in a mediation session in early April 2014. The Court has set a trial date on eight test cases for August 4, 2014. The test cases will be tried to the Court and not to a jury. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in the future, 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. Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Superior Court State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that CCA materially misrepresented the placement rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to the culinary school was competitive and that the school had an excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service providers, represented that the culinary schools were well-regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school provided graduates with career placement services for life. The plaintiffs or putative class members here co-signed the loans for students to attend CCA, some of whom were Amadorclass members. Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action allegations on October 31, 2013. The motions are fully briefed and the Court has set a hearing date for March 14, 2014. Discovery is stayed pending a ruling on those motions. Because of the many questions of fact and law 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. 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. The complaint was thereafter amended to add additional Plaintiffs. As a result of these amendments, there were at one time approximately 1,438 plaintiffs, the majority of whom enrolled between 2003 and 2008 (about 10 of the plaintiffs enrolled in 2009 and 2010). 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 approximately 54 plaintiffs. Nine arbitration demands were filed before the American Arbitration Association, one of which was tried to a final award and eight of which were settled. The remaining plaintiffs’ claims were settled prior to arbitration demands being filed. The total liability for all of these claims was an immaterial amount. Following the resolution of these claims, other settlements, and the voluntary dismissal of certain claims, there are approximately 1,047 remaining plaintiffs in the consolidated action. On January 24, 2014, defendants accepted a mediator’s proposal to settle the consolidated action, subject to the execution of a formal agreement memorializing the terms of the proposal and the terms of the settlement agreements to be entered into with each individual plaintiff. Pursuant to this settlement arrangement, defendants will pay a maximum of $17.5 million in the aggregate to fund the individual plaintiff settlements, attorneys’ fees and administrative costs of the settlement, subject to certain excluded costs which defendants will be separately responsible for. The settlement amounts for each individual plaintiff will be determined by a third party. If any plaintiff decides not to accept the settlement, then the amount allocated to that plaintiff will be returned to defendants. Defendants have the right not to proceed with the settlement if a specified number of plaintiffs do not accept the settlement. Defendants’ liability pursuant to the settlement is estimated to be $15.5 million to $17.5 million; however, defendants do not have a reasonable basis to estimate where in that range the liability is likely to be. Accordingly, for the quarter ended December 31, 2013, the Company recorded a reserve of $15.5 million based on its assessment that the settlement is probable. *False Claims Act* 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 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. 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 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. 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. On December 16, 2013, we filed a motion for summary judgment on a variety of substantive grounds. 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, if we were to be found liable. Moreover, the case presents novel legal issues. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action. United States of America, ex rel. Brent M. Nelson v. Career Education Corporation, Sanford-Brown, Ltd., and Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc. On April 18, 2013, defendants were served with an amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The original complaint was filed under seal on July 30, 2012 by a former employee of Sanford-Brown College Milwaukee on behalf of himself and the federal government. On February 27, 2013, the Court ordered the complaint unsealed and we were notified that the U.S. Department of Justice declined to intervene in the action. After the federal government declined to intervene in this case, the relator elected to pursue the litigation on behalf of the federal government. If he is successful he will receive a portion of the federal government’s recovery. The amended complaint was filed by the relator on April 12, 2013 and alleges violations of the False Claims Act, including allegedly providing false certifications to the federal government regarding compliance with certain provisions of the Higher Education Act and accreditation standards. Relator claims 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. Relator seeks treble damages plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. On June 11, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on a variety of grounds. The Court ruled on that motion, dismissing CEC from the case and dismissing several of the Relator’s factual claims. On November 27, 2013, Sanford Brown, LTD., and Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc., the remaining Company defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to prior public disclosures of Relator’s alleged claims and on January 3, 2014, the remaining Company defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on a variety of substantive grounds. The Court has set the case for jury trial beginning on April 14, 2014. 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, if we were to be found liable. Moreover, the case presents novel legal issues. 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 (“ARSC”) 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. On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling on plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim but reversed and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. On September 13, 2013, we filed a petition for rehearing to seek review of the panel’s decision on the breach of contract claim and for certification of question to the Illinois Supreme Court, but the petition was denied. The case now is on remand to the district court for further proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC’s termination of the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The parties are scheduled to appear for a status hearing on April 9, 2014. Because the matter is in its early stages and 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. 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 (“IWPCA”) 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 [d]efendants 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.” On February 27, 2013, defendants filed their answers to the complaint and motion to dismiss the IWPCA count of the complaint. On June 14, 2013, plaintiff filed her motion for class certification. The parties subsequently reached an agreement to settle the matter for an immaterial amount. On November 29, 2013, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and setting March 25, 2014 for the final approval hearing. *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 out of the 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 On January 24, 2014, the Company received inquiries from the Attorneys General of Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington regarding the Company’s business practices, and on February 7, 2014 the Company received a related inquiry from the Attorney General of Tennessee. The Attorney General of Connecticut has informed the Company that it will serve as the point of contact for these 13 inquiries. In addition, the Company has received inquiries from the Attorneys General of Florida (November 5, 2010), Illinois (December 9, 2011), Massachusetts (September 27, 2012) and Colorado (August 27, 2013). The inquiries are civil investigative demands or subpoenas which relate to the investigation by the attorneys general of whether the Company and its schools have complied with certain state consumer protection laws, and generally focus on the Company’s practices relating to the recruitment of students, graduate placement statistics, graduate certification and licensing results and student lending activities, among other matters. Depending on the state, the documents and information sought by the attorneys general in connection with their investigations cover time periods as early as 2006 to the present. The Company intends to cooperate with the states involved with a view towards resolving these inquiries as promptly as possible. We cannot predict the scope, duration or outcome of these attorney general investigations. At the conclusion of any 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 and/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 of 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. Additionally, we have responded to follow-up requests from regulators for information regarding the terms of our August 2013 settlement with the New York Attorney General, including from the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and the Middle States Commission on Higher 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 campuses and review of placement determination practices at all of the Company’s other domestic campuses 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 Company completed these file reviews and provided supporting documentation to ED on April 10, 2013. As of December 31, 2013, the Company has a $0.8 million reserve recorded related to this matter.

13. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

An accrual for estimated legal fees and settlements of $20.3 million and $5.8 million at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively, is presented within other current liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets.

We record a liability when we believe that it is both probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. We evaluate, at least quarterly, developments in our legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that was previously accrued, and make adjustments as appropriate. Significant judgment is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount. We may be unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss due to various reasons, including, among others: (1) if the damages sought are indeterminate; (2) if the proceedings are in early stages; (3) if there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals, motions, or settlements; (4) if there are significant factual issues to be determined or resolved; and (5) if there are novel or unsettled legal theories presented. In such instances, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss, if any.

Litigation

We are, or were, a party to the following legal proceedings that we consider to be 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 campuses’ 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 (the “Class”). 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. Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims and contentions alleged by plaintiffs in the action and all charges of wrongdoing or liability against them.

On June 12, 2013, the parties agreed to settle the litigation, subject to Court approval and settlement of the shareholder derivative actions and subsequent related claims described below (“Proposed Derivative Settlement”). Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the Class will receive a total of $27.5 million in consideration of the proposed settlement and for the benefit of Class members participating in the settlement. The Company’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurers have paid $22.5 million of the settlement amount, subject to final Court approval, $10.0 million of which is to be funded pursuant to the terms of the Proposed Derivative Settlement, as to which the Company recorded a receivable in the second quarter of 2013. The Company paid the remaining $5.0 million for the benefit of the Class. However, the Company is seeking recovery of that amount from one of its insurers, Axis Insurance Company, but has not recorded a receivable for this additional amount as it is not deemed probable as of December 31, 2013. As described below, Axis Insurance Company is seeking a declaration of no coverage. In exchange for the $27.5 million cash consideration, among other things, upon final Court approval, the lead plaintiffs will dismiss the litigation with prejudice and the parties will release all claims.

On November 6, 2013, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement reached by the parties and providing that any Class member requests for exclusion from the settlement be mailed by March 22, 2014. A final approval hearing is currently set for April 16, 2014.

Axis Insurance Company v. Career Education Company, et al. On December 11, 2013, Axis Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, naming the Company and various individuals as defendants in connection with coverage for the recently settled securities class action and Derivative Litigation. Axis seeks a declaration of no coverage. The Company and most of the individual defendants accepted service of the suit on January 10, 2014, and have until March 11, 2014 to respond to the complaint.

Shareholder Derivative Actions and Demands

On June 12, 2013, the parties to the derivative actions described below, including Bangari, Cook and Alex, and subsequent related claims (“Derivative Litigation”) agreed to the Proposed Derivative Settlement, subject to Court approval, pursuant to which the Company’s directors’ and officers’ liability insurers have paid the Company $20.0 million, $10.0 million of which will be applied to the settlement of the Ross securities litigation described above. With the remaining $10.0 million, the Company will be required to pay $5.0 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses to derivative plaintiffs’ counsel, subject to Court approval. The net recovery from the Proposed Derivative Settlement may be used by the Company for any purpose. On January 28, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois finally approved the Proposed Derivative Settlement and dismissed the Cook and Alex actions described below with prejudice.

With respect to the Proposed Derivative Settlement, on May 24, 2013, the Company’s Board of Directors formed a Special Committee for the purpose of conducting an independent inquiry. The Board of Directors delegated to the Special Committee the full authority to take such actions as the Special Committee deems appropriate and in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders regarding such Proposed Derivative Settlement. On October 16, 2013, the Special Committee concluded that the Proposed Derivative Settlement described above was fair, reasonable and adequate, conferred substantial benefits upon the Company and its shareholders, and was in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders, and so directed its counsel to enter into the Proposed Derivative Settlement, subject to Court approval.

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 alleged 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 campuses’ placement rates or to comply with relevant accreditation standards regarding placement practices and determinations. Plaintiff asked for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On November 5, 2013, the Court stayed the action pending the Proposed Derivative Settlement. On February 3, 2014, the Court dismissed this action with prejudice.

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 alleged 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 asserted 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 asked for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. As mentioned above, on January 28, 2014, the Court entered an order finally approving the Proposed Derivative Settlement and dismissing this action with prejudice.

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 alleged 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 asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against certain individual defendants. Plaintiff asked for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On January 28, 2014, the Court entered an order finally approving the Proposed Derivative Settlement and dismissing this action with prejudice.

Student Litigation

Abarca v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al. (filed June 3, 2011; 115 plaintiffs); Andrade, et al. v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al (filed June 15, 2011; 31 plaintiffs); Aprieto, et al. v. California Culinary Academy (filed August 12, 2011; five plaintiffs); Coleman, et al. v. California Culinary Academy (filed January 18, 2013; two plaintiffs). These four actions are pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court and generally allege: fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract and violation of the repealed California Education Code. Plaintiffs contend that California Culinary Academy (“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. The plaintiffs in these actions seek damages, including consequential damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

All of the plaintiffs in these four actions either opted out of or did not fit the class definition in a previously settled class action captioned Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation; Adams, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation. None of these four actions are being prosecuted as a class action. All of these cases have been deemed related and have been transferred to the same judge who handled the Amador case.

Currently there are 80 remaining plaintiffs who have not settled or dismissed their claims. CCA has filed answers to the complaints filed by the remaining 80 individual plaintiffs. The parties have agreed to participate in a mediation session in early April 2014. The Court has set a trial date on eight test cases for August 4, 2014. The test cases will be tried to the Court and not to a jury.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in the future, 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.

Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Superior Court State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that CCA materially misrepresented the placement rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to the culinary school was competitive and that the school had an excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service providers, represented that the culinary schools were well-regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school provided graduates with career placement services for life. The plaintiffs or putative class members here co-signed the loans for students to attend CCA, some of whom were Amadorclass members. Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action allegations on October 31, 2013. The motions are fully briefed and the Court has set a hearing date for March 14, 2014. Discovery is stayed pending a ruling on those motions.

Because of the many questions of fact and law 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.

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. The complaint was thereafter amended to add additional Plaintiffs. As a result of these amendments, there were at one time approximately 1,438 plaintiffs, the majority of whom enrolled between 2003 and 2008 (about 10 of the plaintiffs enrolled in 2009 and 2010).

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 approximately 54 plaintiffs. Nine arbitration demands were filed before the American Arbitration Association, one of which was tried to a final award and eight of which were settled. The remaining plaintiffs’ claims were settled prior to arbitration demands being filed. The total liability for all of these claims was an immaterial amount. Following the resolution of these claims, other settlements, and the voluntary dismissal of certain claims, there are approximately 1,047 remaining plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

On January 24, 2014, defendants accepted a mediator’s proposal to settle the consolidated action, subject to the execution of a formal agreement memorializing the terms of the proposal and the terms of the settlement agreements to be entered into with each individual plaintiff. Pursuant to this settlement arrangement, defendants will pay a maximum of $17.5 million in the aggregate to fund the individual plaintiff settlements, attorneys’ fees and administrative costs of the settlement, subject to certain excluded costs which defendants will be separately responsible for. The settlement amounts for each individual plaintiff will be determined by a third party. If any plaintiff decides not to accept the settlement, then the amount allocated to that plaintiff will be returned to defendants. Defendants have the right not to proceed with the settlement if a specified number of plaintiffs do not accept the settlement. Defendants’ liability pursuant to the settlement is estimated to be $15.5 million to $17.5 million; however, defendants do not have a reasonable basis to estimate where in that range the liability is likely to be. Accordingly, for the quarter ended December 31, 2013, the Company recorded a reserve of $15.5 million based on its assessment that the settlement is probable.

False Claims Act

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 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. 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 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. 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. On December 16, 2013, we filed a motion for summary judgment on a variety of substantive grounds.

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, if we were to be found liable. Moreover, the case presents novel legal issues. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action.

United States of America, ex rel. Brent M. Nelson v. Career Education Corporation, Sanford-Brown, Ltd., and Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc. On April 18, 2013, defendants were served with an amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The original complaint was filed under seal on July 30, 2012 by a former employee of Sanford-Brown College Milwaukee on behalf of himself and the federal government. On February 27, 2013, the Court ordered the complaint unsealed and we were notified that the U.S. Department of Justice declined to intervene in the action. After the federal government declined to intervene in this case, the relator elected to pursue the litigation on behalf of the federal government. If he is successful he will receive a portion of the federal government’s recovery. The amended complaint was filed by the relator on April 12, 2013 and alleges violations of the False Claims Act, including allegedly providing false certifications to the federal government regarding compliance with certain provisions of the Higher Education Act and accreditation standards. Relator claims 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. Relator seeks treble damages plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. On June 11, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on a variety of grounds. The Court ruled on that motion, dismissing CEC from the case and dismissing several of the Relator’s factual claims. On November 27, 2013, Sanford Brown, LTD., and Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc., the remaining Company defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to prior public disclosures of Relator’s alleged claims and on January 3, 2014, the remaining Company defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on a variety of substantive grounds. The Court has set the case for jury trial beginning on April 14, 2014.

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 (“ARSC”) 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. On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling on plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim but reversed and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. On September 13, 2013, we filed a petition for rehearing to seek review of the panel’s decision on the breach of contract claim and for certification of question to the Illinois Supreme Court, but the petition was denied.

The case now is on remand to the district court for further proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC’s termination of the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The parties are scheduled to appear for a status hearing on April 9, 2014.

Because the matter is in its early stages and 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. 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 (“IWPCA”) 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 [d]efendants 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.”

On February 27, 2013, defendants filed their answers to the complaint and motion to dismiss the IWPCA count of the complaint. On June 14, 2013, plaintiff filed her motion for class certification. The parties subsequently reached an agreement to settle the matter for an immaterial amount. On November 29, 2013, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and setting March 25, 2014 for the final approval hearing.

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 out of the 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

On January 24, 2014, the Company received inquiries from the Attorneys General of Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington regarding the Company’s business practices, and on February 7, 2014 the Company received a related inquiry from the Attorney General of Tennessee. The Attorney General of Connecticut has informed the Company that it will serve as the point of contact for these 13 inquiries. In addition, the Company has received inquiries from the Attorneys General of Florida (November 5, 2010), Illinois (December 9, 2011), Massachusetts (September 27, 2012) and Colorado (August 27, 2013). The inquiries are civil investigative demands or subpoenas which relate to the investigation by the attorneys general of whether the Company and its schools have complied with certain state consumer protection laws, and generally focus on the Company’s practices relating to the recruitment of students, graduate placement statistics, graduate certification and licensing results and student lending activities, among other matters. Depending on the state, the documents and information sought by the attorneys general in connection with their investigations cover time periods as early as 2006 to the present. The Company intends to cooperate with the states involved with a view towards resolving these inquiries as promptly as possible.

We cannot predict the scope, duration or outcome of these attorney general investigations. At the conclusion of any 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 and/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 of 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. Additionally, we have responded to follow-up requests from regulators for information regarding the terms of our August 2013 settlement with the New York Attorney General, including from the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and the Middle States Commission on Higher 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 campuses and review of placement determination practices at all of the Company’s other domestic campuses 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 Company completed these file reviews and provided

supporting documentation to ED on April 10, 2013. As of December 31, 2013, the Company has a $0.8 million reserve recorded related to this matter.