XML 31 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.8.0.1

Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2017
Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies | 11. CONTINGENCIES An accrual for estimated legal fees and settlements of $8.7 million and $34.5 million at December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, 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, reputation, results of operations, cash flows and financial position. 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 alleged 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. The Company entered into a settlement agreement as of February 2, 2018 pursuant to which the Company will make a payment to settlement class members who complete, sign and return a claim form within 90 days of mailing of the claim form. The amount of the payment to each settlement class member returning a form will be 44% of the total charged to that person by WCI for tuition, books and fees, less institutional grants and scholarships received by the person, amounts charged by WCI but not paid by the person and refunds applied as a result of withdrawal by the person. The settlement class consists of 1,169 individuals who enrolled at WCI primarily from 2006-2007. The institution is no longer in operation and closed in 2017. Unless they opt out, settlement class members will release the Company from all claims against the Company alleged in the case. If more than 30 settlement class members opt out of the settlement, the Company will have the option of withdrawing from the settlement. The Company makes no admission of liability pursuant to the terms of the settlement. On February 8, 2018, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. The final approval hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2018. The Company’s liability pursuant to the settlement will depend on how many settlement class members return valid claim forms, but is estimated to be at least $2.8 million. If all settlement class members returned valid claim forms the total amount would be approximately $14.0 million. Because it is uncertain how many class members will return valid claim forms, the Company does not have a best estimate where in that range the liability is likely to be. Accordingly, for the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company recorded a reserve of $2.8 million related to this matter. The settlement terms also provide that the court will determine the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs payable by the Company to counsel for plaintiffs, although the parties have agreed that the attorneys’ fees and costs awarded shall be in the range of $3.75 to $8.0 million. Because the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs that the court will determine is uncertain, the Company does not have a best estimate where in that range the liability is likely to be. Accordingly, for the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company recorded a reserve of $3.75 million related to the attorneys’ fees and costs. In addition to the settlement class members, there are approximately 1,100 individuals that have been compelled to arbitration pursuant to a January 21, 2016 appellate court ruling. The number of individuals, if any, which may pursue arbitration separately on their own behalf is uncertain. 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 that the defendants allegedly provided 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 October 6, 2017, the United States filed its Notice of Election to Decline Intervention in the matter. On October 10, 2017, the court ordered that the complaint be unsealed. On January 22, 2018, the court issued a call for dismissal of the case for relator’s failure to serve defendants with the complaint. Because relator did not respond by the deadline set by the court we expect the court to dismiss the case shortly. Other Litigation. In addition to the legal proceedings and other matters described above, we are also subject to a variety of other claims, lawsuits, arbitrations and investigations that arise from time to time out of the conduct of our business, including, but not limited to, matters involving prospective students, students or graduates, alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, both individually and on behalf of a putative class, and 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 and cash flows. 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, October 25, 2016). 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 continues to cooperate with the states involved with a view towards resolving these inquiries as promptly as possible. In this regard, the Company continues to participate in 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 attorneys 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. Based on information available to us at present and the uncertain outcome of these investigations, 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 continues to respond to supplemental requests for information and is cooperating with the FTC with a view towards resolving this inquiry as promptly as possible. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot predict the outcome of this inquiry or estimate the nature or amount of possible remedies, if any, that the FTC might ultimately seek in connection with this matter. Regulatory Matters ED Inquiry and HCM1 Status In December 2011, ED advised the Company that it was conducting an inquiry concerning possible violations of ED misrepresentation regulations related to placement rates reported by certain of the Company’s former institutions to accrediting bodies, students and potential students. This inquiry stemmed from the Company self-reporting to ED 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. In connection with the inquiry, ED 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). The Company has cooperated with ED in connection with its inquiry; however, almost all of the schools that were the principal subjects of the inquiry are now closed. If ED finds violations of the Higher Education Act or related regulations, ED may impose monetary sanctions, some period of delay in the Company’s future receipt of Title IV Program funds or other adverse actions. OIG Audit Our schools and universities are subject to periodic audits by various regulatory bodies, including ED’s Office of Inspector General ("OIG"). In June 2010, the OIG commenced an audit of CTU’s administration of Title IV and other federal program funds covering the period July 5, 2009 to May 16, 2010 (the “Audit Period”). On January 13, 2012, the OIG issued a draft report identifying three findings which were subsequently contested by CTU on March 2, 2012. On October 24, 2012, CTU provided a further response challenging the findings directly to ED's Office of Federal Student Aid. ED’s review of the OIG’s audit findings and CTU’s response led them to request that CTU perform two complete file reviews for the Audit Period to determine potential liability on two issues associated with one of the three findings. The Company completed these file reviews and provided supporting documentation to ED on April 10, 2013. On April 29, 2016, ED revisited its earlier request and further 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, which CTU promptly completed and submitted to ED. On April 29, 2016, 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. In August 2016, CTU sought reconsideration of the request for this additional file review. As of December 31, 2017, the Company has a $1.0 million reserve recorded related to this matter. This reserve does not include any amount relating to the additional file review requested by ED on April 29, 2016 because it is uncertain.

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 Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration