XML 29 R13.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.4.0.3

Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2016
Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies | 8. CONTINGENCIES An accrual for estimated legal fees and settlements of $1.9 million and $2.7 million at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, is presented within other current liabilities on our condensed 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. Student Litigation 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 California Culinary Academy (“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 class purports to consist of persons who executed Parent Plus loans or co-signed loans for students who attended CCA at any time between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008. 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. A hearing on the motions was conducted on March 14, 2014. Thereafter, the Court issued two separate orders granting the motion to strike the class allegations and the motion to dismiss without leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended complaint and/or for reconsideration of the Court’s orders. On May 9, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider its order striking the class allegations and granted plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint as to some, but not all, of plaintiffs’ claims. On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the Court’s ruling with respect to the motion to strike the class allegations. On February 4, 2016, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order striking the class allegations and the case has since been remitted back to the trial court for further proceedings as to the seven named plaintiffs. 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. (“WCI”) 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 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. On August 6, 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. The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and on January 21, 2016, the appellate court reversed the trial court and held that the claims by the 1,062 individual class members referenced above should be compelled to arbitration. 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. 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 remained pending against defendants was 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. On September 29, 2014, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in our favor. On October 2, 2014, relators filed a notice of appeal. The appeal was stayed pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. U.S. ex rel. Carter, No. 12-1497. The Supreme Court issued its decision and relators moved to lift the stay and remand the case to the district court. The case has been remanded to the district court. The district court is currently considering additional arguments regarding whether it has jurisdiction over relators’ remaining claims. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise on remand to the district court, 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 would receive a portion of the federal government’s recovery. An 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 the relator’s alleged claims. On March 17, 2014, the Court granted this motion in part, limiting the timeframe and geographical scope of the relator’s claims. On June 13, 2014, the Court granted the remaining Company defendants’ motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in their favor. On July 9, 2014, relator filed a notice of appeal. On June 8, 2015, the appellate court affirmed the district court. On July 2, 2015, relator filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied on August 4, 2015. On December 2, 2015, relator filed his petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Defendants filed their opposition to the petition on February 3, 2016. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise on 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 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. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action. United States of America, ex rel. Ann Marie Rega v. Career Education Corporation, et al. On May 16, 2014, Relator Ann Marie Rega, a former employee of Sanford-Brown Iselin, filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and almost all of the Company’s individual schools on behalf of herself and the federal government. She alleges claims under 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. Relator failed to comply with the statutory requirement that all False Claims Act cases be filed under seal. On June 16, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice as to relator for failure to file her complaint under seal in accordance with the requirements of the False Claims Act. The motion is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a ruling from the Court. 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 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 have completed fact discovery as to the issue of liability. On March 24, 2015, we filed a motion for summary judgment which the court granted on December 18, 2015. Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal on January 16, 2016. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise on 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. Other Litigation In addition to the legal proceedings and other matters described above, we are also subject to a variety of other claims, lawsuits and investigations that arise from time to time out of the conduct of our business, including, but not limited to, claims involving prospective students, students or graduates, alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, both individually and on behalf of a putative class, 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 Attorney General of Connecticut is serving as the point of contact for inquiries received from the attorneys general of the following: Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington (January 24, 2014); Illinois (December 9, 2011); Tennessee (February 7, 2014); Hawaii (May 28, 2014 ); New Mexico (May 2014); Maryland (March 16, 2015); and the District of Columbia (June 3, 2015) (these 18 attorneys general are collectively referred to as the “Multi-State AGs”). In addition, the Company has received inquiries from the attorneys general of Florida (November 5, 2010), Massachusetts (September 27, 2012), Colorado (August 27, 2013) and Minnesota (September 18, 2014). 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. In this regard, over the past several months the Company has participated in several meetings with representatives of the Multi-State AGs about the Company’s business and to engage in a dialogue towards a resolution of these inquiries. 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. In addition, all of the Company’s institutions have been issued provisional program participation agreements that extend through December 31, 2016. Each of our institutions will need to apply for recertification by September 30, 2016 in order to continue its eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs. We cannot predict whether, or to what extent, any of these inquiries or future resolutions of these inquiries might impact our Title IV eligibility. Depending on the circumstances of any resolution of these inquiries, ED may revoke, limit, suspend, delay or deny the institution’s or all of the Company’s institutions’ Title IV eligibility, or impose fines. 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. In addition to the aforementioned inquiries, from time to time, we receive informal requests from state Attorneys General and other government agencies relating to specific complaints they have received from students or former students which seek information about the student, our programs, and other matters relating to our activities in the relevant state. These requests can be broad and time consuming to respond to, and there is a risk that they could expand and/or lead to a formal inquiry or investigation into our practices in a particular state. Federal Trade Commission Inquiry On August 20, 2015, the Company received a request for information pursuant to a Civil Investigative Demand from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). The request was made pursuant to a November 2013 resolution by the FTC directing an investigation to determine whether unnamed persons, partnerships, corporations, or others have engaged or are engaging in deceptive or unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in the advertising, marketing or sale of secondary or postsecondary educational products or services, or educational accreditation products or services. The information request requires the Company to provide documents and information regarding a broad spectrum of the business and practices of its subsidiaries and institutions for the time period of January 1, 2010 to the present. The Company is cooperating with the FTC with a view towards resolving these inquiries as promptly as possible. Because the FTC inquiry is in the early stages and because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, we cannot predict the outcome of the inquiry. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential monetary or non-monetary impact this inquiry might have on the Company because it is uncertain what remedies, if any, the FTC might ultimately seek in connection with this inquiry. Regulatory Matters ED Inquiry and HCM1 Status In December 2011, the U.S. Department of Education (“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 previous 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 or reporting of placement rates or other disclosures to students or prospective students or finds any other basis in the materials we are providing, ED may revoke, limit, suspend, delay or deny the institution’s or all of the Company’s institutions Title IV eligibility, or impose fines. In addition, all of the Company’s institutions have been issued provisional program participation agreements that extend through December 31, 2016. Each of our institutions will need to apply for recertification by September 30, 2016 in order to continue its eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs. We cannot predict whether, or to what extent, ED’s inquiry might impact this recertification process. 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 Higher Education Act or related regulations, ED may impose monetary or program level sanctions, impose some period of delay in the Company’s receipt of Title IV funds 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 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 (the “Audit Period”), 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 covering the Audit Period 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. On April 29, 2016, ED directed CTU to perform these same two file reviews for an additional time period that extended from the end of the Audit Period through June 30, 2011. ED also requested an additional file review related to whether CTU appropriately performed calculations regarding any required return of Title IV Program funds for students that failed to earn passing grades within a term. This additional file review covers the period from July 5, 2009 to June 30, 2011 and is a review of whether students should be deemed to have unofficially withdrawn from the institution based on each student’s last known academically-related activity. Due to the preliminary nature of the additional reviews requested by ED on April 29, 2016, we cannot reasonably assess any potential additional liability at this time. As of March 31, 2016, the Company has a $0.8 million reserve recorded related to this matter.

X
- Definition Contingencies disclosure. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | ceco_ContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | ceco_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration