Government Regulation and Financial Aid	12 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2024
Risks and Uncertainties [Abstract]
Government Regulation and Financial Aid	Note 23 - Government Regulation and Financial Aid Our institutions are subject to extensive regulatory requirements imposed by a wide range of federal and state agencies, as well as by institutional and programmatic accreditors. These requirements, which are frequently being revisited, revised, and expanded, cover virtually every aspect of our schools’ operations, and our institutions are subject to periodic audits and program compliance reviews by various external agencies for compliance with these requirements. Each of our institutions’ administration of the federal programs of student financial assistance under Title IV of the HEA (“Title IV Programs”) also must be audited annually by independent accountants and the resulting audit report submitted to ED for review. The approvals granted by these regulatory entities permit our schools to operate and to participate in a variety of government-sponsored financial aid programs, including Title IV Programs. If our institutions fail to comply with any of these regulatory requirements, our regulators could take an array of adverse actions, up to and including revocation of the approval granted by the agency. Such adverse actions could have a material adverse effect on our academic or operational initiatives, cash flows, results of operations, or financial condition. Below, we discuss certain, specific elements of this regulatory environment. State Authorization To operate and offer postsecondary programs, and to be certified to participate in Title IV Programs, each of our institutions must obtain and maintain authorization from the state in which it is physically located (“Home State”). To engage in educational or recruiting activities outside of its Home State, each institution also may be required to obtain and maintain authorization from the states in which it is educating or recruiting students. The level of regulatory oversight varies substantially from state to state and is extensive in some states. State laws may establish standards for instruction, qualifications of faculty, location and nature of facilities and equipment, administrative procedures, marketing, recruiting, student outcomes reporting, disclosure obligations to students, limitations on mandatory arbitration clauses in enrollment agreements, financial operations, and other operational matters. Some states prescribe standards of financial responsibility and mandate that institutions post surety bonds. Many states have requirements for institutions to disclose institutional data to current and prospective students, as well as to the public, and some states require that our schools meet prescribed performance standards as a condition of continued approval. States can and often do revisit, revise, and expand their regulations governing postsecondary education and recruiting. Institutions that offer distance education instruction outside of their Home State must comply with federal regulations governing state authorization for distance education in order to participate in the Title IV student financial aid programs. All UTI institutions and the Concorde, Kansas City and Memphis institutions are authorized to participate in the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (“SARA”). SARA is an agreement among member states, districts and territories of the United States of America that establishes comparable national standards for interstate offering of post-secondary distance education courses and programs. SARA is overseen by a national council (“NC-SARA”) and administered by four regional education compacts. Forty-nine states (all but California), the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have joined SARA. Each of our institutions holds the state or SARA authorizations required to operate and offer postsecondary education programs, and to recruit in the states in which it engages in recruiting activities. We also have received approval from the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (“ACCSC”) and the Council on Occupational Education (“COE”) to offer blended format programs that utilize both distance and on-ground education. Additionally, we have received approvals from all required state education authorizing agencies to offer blended format programs. We continue to work to ensure that we comply with applicable distance education rules and standards. We also will closely monitor any new rulemakings that concern state authorization or distance education. State Licensing Boards Many educational programs leading to professional licensure in a regulated profession require approval from, and are subject to, ongoing oversight by state agencies or boards. For example, certain Concorde healthcare programs, such as the Vocational Nursing, Practical Nursing, Dental Assistant, Massage Therapy, Nursing Practice (RN) programs, require and have obtained state licensure. Such programs are required to meet the standards of the state licensure agency or board and must periodically renew their licenses by completing a comprehensive license renewal process. Institutional Accreditation Institutional accreditation is a non-governmental process through which an institution voluntarily submits to ongoing qualitative reviews by an organization of peer institutions. Institutional accreditation by an ED-recognized accreditor is required for an institution to be certified to participate in Title IV Programs. All of the UTI institutions and 14 of the Concorde institutions are accredited by the ACCSC. The remaining two Concorde institutions are accredited by the COE. Both ACCSC and COE are accrediting agencies recognized by ED. ACCSC and COE review the academic quality of each institution’s instructional programs, as well as the administrative and financial operations of the institution to ensure that it has the resources necessary to perform its educational mission, implement continuous improvement processes, and support student success. Our institutions are subject to periodic review to confirm accreditation standards are met, and must submit annual reports, and at times, supplemental reports, to demonstrate ongoing compliance and improvement. ACCSC and COE require institutions to disclose certain institutional information to current and prospective students, as well as to the public, and require that our schools and programs meet various performance standards as a condition of continued accreditation. ACCSC and COE often revisit, revise, and expand their standards and policies. Institutions must periodically renew their accreditation by completing a comprehensive renewal of accreditation process. Programmatic Accreditation In addition to institutional accreditation, programmatic accreditation may be required for particular educational programs. Programmatic accreditors review specialized and professional programs in a range of fields and disciplines within an institution to ensure the public that an academic program has undergone a rigorous review process and been found to meet high standards for educational quality. Certain Concorde healthcare programs, including the Physical Therapist Assistant, Dental Hygiene, Neurodiagnostic Technology, Polysomnographic Technology, Respiratory Therapy, Surgical Technology, Radiologic Technology, Diagnostic Medical Sonography, Cardiovascular Sonography, Practical Nursing, Pharmacy Technician, and Occupational Therapy Assistant programs, have obtained programmatic accreditation. Such programs are required to meet the standards of their programmatic accreditor and must periodically renew their accreditation by completing a comprehensive programmatic accreditation renewal process. Title IV Programs The federal government provides a substantial part of its support for postsecondary education through Title IV Programs in the form of grants and loans to students who can use those funds at any institution that has been certified as eligible to participate by ED. All of our institutions are certified to participate in Title IV Programs. Significant factors relating to Title IV Programs that could adversely affect us include: •The 90/10 Rule. As a condition of participation in Title IV Programs, proprietary institutions must agree when they sign their PPA to comply with the 90/10 rule. Under the 90/10 rule, to remain eligible to participate in the federal student aid programs, a proprietary institution must derive at least 10% of its revenue from sources other than “Federal education assistance funds.” “Federal education assistance funds” are defined as “federal funds that are disbursed or delivered to or on behalf of a student to be used to attend such institution.” •Administrative Capability. To continue its participation in Title IV Programs, an institution must demonstrate that it remains administratively capable of providing the education it promises and of properly managing its Title IV Programs. ED assesses the administrative capability of each institution that participates in Title IV Programs under a series of standards listed in the regulations, which cover a wide range of operational and administrative topics, including the designation of capable and qualified individuals, the quality and scope of written procedures, the adequacy of institutional communication and processes, the timely resolution of issues, the sufficiency of recordkeeping, the provision of adequate career services, and the frequency of findings of noncompliance. ED’s administrative capability standards also include thresholds and expectations for federal student loan cohort default rates, satisfactory academic progress, clinical and externship opportunities, gainful employment programs, and loan counseling. Failure to satisfy any of the standards may lead ED to find the institution ineligible to participate in Title IV Programs, require the institution to repay Title IV Program funds, change the method of payment of Title IV Program funds, place the institution on provisional certification as a condition of its continued participation in Title IV Programs, or take other actions against the institution. •Three-Year Student Loan Default Rates. An institution whose cohort default rate exceeds 30% in consecutive fiscal years may be subject to conditions and restrictions and will lose eligibility if the rate remains above 30% three years in a row. An institution also will lose eligibility if its rate exceeds 40% for any fiscal year. None of our institutions had a three-year cohort default rate of 30% or greater for 2021, 2020 and 2019, the three most recent FFYs with published rates. An institution whose three-year cohort default rate is 15% or greater for any one of the three preceding years is subject to a 30-day delay in receiving the first disbursement on federal student loans for first-time borrowers. None of our institutions had a three-year cohort default rate of 7% or greater for 2021, 2020, or 2019, which are the three most recent FFYs with published rates. •Financial Responsibility. All institutions participating in Title IV Programs also must satisfy specific ED standards of financial responsibility. Among other things, an institution must meet all of its financial obligations, including required refunds to students and any Title IV Program liabilities and debts, be current in its debt payments, comply with certain past performance requirements, and not receive an adverse, qualified, or disclaimed opinion by its accountants in its audited financial statements. Each year, ED also evaluates institutions’ financial responsibility by calculating a “composite score,” which measures an institution’s overall financial health. The composite score utilizes information provided in the institutions’ annual audited financial statements and is based on three ratios: (1) the equity ratio which measures the institution’s capital resources, ability to borrow and financial viability; (2) the primary reserve ratio which measures the institution’s ability to support current operations from expendable resources; and (3) the net income ratio which measures the institution’s ability to operate at a profit. Between composite score calculations, ED also will reevaluate the financial responsibility of an institution following the occurrence of certain “triggering events,” which must be timely reported to the agency. •Borrower Defense to Repayment. Under the HEA and its implementing regulations, students may file a claim with ED to discharge their federal Direct Loans (or Direct Consolidated Loans) if, generally, their institution misled them or engaged in other misconduct related to the making of their federal loans or the provision of their educational services. This is referred to as a “borrower defense to repayment” or “BDR” claim. On November 1, 2022, the Biden administration promulgated a revised version of the BDR rule, which took effect on July 1, 2023. On August 7, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, enjoining the implementation of the borrower defense and closed school provisions of that rule. While this case is decided, the previous versions of the borrower defense and closed school provisions are in effect. •Substantial Misrepresentation. The regulatory definitions of “misrepresentation” and “substantial misrepresentation” enforced by ED are exceptionally broad and do not require intent by the institution to misrepresent, or actual reliance by the person to whom the alleged misrepresentation was made. Therefore, it is possible that a statement made by an institution or one of its service providers or representatives could be construed by ED to constitute a substantial misrepresentation, even if the statement was made in error, without intent to misrepresent, and the person to whom it was made did not actually rely upon it. •Incentive Compensation. The “incentive compensation” prohibition forbids institutions from providing any commission, bonus, or other incentive payment based in any part, directly or indirectly, on success in securing enrollments or the award of financial aid to any person or entity engaged in any student recruiting or admission activities or in making decisions regarding the awarding of Title IV Program funds. We believe our compensation practices for our admissions representatives comply with the current regulations and ED’s guidance. We will continue to evaluate other compensation options under these regulations and guidance. •Title IV Program Rulemaking. ED is almost continuously engaged in one or more negotiated rulemakings, which is the process pursuant to which it revisits, revises, and expands the complex and voluminous Title IV Program regulations. We devote significant effort to understanding the effects of ED regulations and rulemakings on our business and to developing compliant solutions that also are congruent with our business, culture, and mission to serve our students and industry relationships. ED has recently undertaken, or proposed to undertake, rulemakings on the following topics: ◦On October 28, 2022, ED published a final rule amending regulations governing Pell Grants for prison education programs, the 90/10 rule, and changes in ownership and control, effective July 1, 2023. On November 1, 2022, ED published a final rule governing borrower defense to repayment rule, closed school loan discharges, pre-dispute arbitration and class action waiver clauses, interest capitalization on Federal student loans, Public Student Loan Forgiveness, total and permanent disability discharges, and false certification discharges, also effective July 1, 2023. ◦On October 10, 2023, ED published a final rule related to financial value transparency and gainful employment, effective July 1, 2024. On October 31, 2023, ED published final rules relating to (1) financial responsibility, (2) administrative capability, (3) certification procedures; and (4) ability to benefit, effective July 1, 2024. ◦ED established a Student Loan Relief Committee to consider revisions to sections of 34 C.F.R. Parts 30, 682 and 685 addressing provisions related to the modification, waiver, release or compromise of Federal student loans. The Student Loan Relief Committee completed four negotiating sessions in October, November and December 2023 and February 2024. On April 17, 2024, ED issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announcing proposed regulatory changes addressing the Secretary’s discretionary authority to waive loan repayment obligations. ED has collected comments on the proposed regulatory changes but has not yet issued final regulatory updates. ◦ED established a Program Integrity and Institutional Quality Committee to consider proposed changes to regulations addressing (1) the Secretary’s recognition of accrediting agencies; (2) institutional eligibility, including State authorization; (3) distance education; (4) return of Title IV funds; (5) cash management; and (6) the Federal TRIO Programs. ED also announced a Federal TRIO Programs Subcommittee to include additional expertise and to make recommendations to the full committee on the subject. The full Committee met for three negotiating sessions in January, February and March 2024, and the Subcommittee met twice in January and February 2024. On July 24, 2024, ED issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announcing proposed regulatory changes addressing (a) distance education; (b) return of Title IV funds; and (c) the Federal TRIO Programs. ED has collected comments on the proposed regulatory changes but has not yet issued final regulatory updates. ED also has not yet announced any proposed regulatory changes addressing (x) the Secretary’s recognition of accrediting agencies; (y) institutional eligibility, including State authorization; and (z) cash management. •Non-Discrimination Rulemakings. On April 29, 2024, ED published a final rule amending the regulations implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, effective August 1, 2024. This rule represents a significant revision of the Title IX rules. As of September 30, 2024, pursuant to various Federal court orders, ED was enjoined from enforcing the 2024 Title IX rule in 26 states, including Florida, Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas, and at a list of institutions identified by a federal district court in Kansas, including Universal Technical Institute of Arizona Inc. ED also has indicated that it will be proposing a rule to amend regulations related to nondiscrimination on the basis of disability. Other Benefit or Aid Programs The Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), the Department of Defense, the Department of Labor, the Department of Education (through non-Title IV programs), and certain states provide support to postsecondary students through programs, grants, benefits, loans, or scholarships. All of our institutions that engage in such programs must comply with the eligibility and participation requirements applicable to each of these funding programs, which vary by funding agency and program. In 2024, we derived approximately 11% of our revenues, on a cash basis, from veterans’ benefits programs, which include the Post-9/11 GI Bill, the Montgomery GI Bill, the Reserve Education Assistance Program (“REAP”) and VA Vocational Rehabilitation. To continue participation in veterans’ benefits programs, an institution must comply with certain requirements established by the VA. Additionally, some states provide financial aid to our students in the form of grants, loans or scholarships. For example, the UTI campuses in Long Beach, Rancho Cucamonga and Sacramento, California, as well as the Concorde campuses in Garden Grove, North Hollywood, San Bernardino and San Diego, California, for example, are currently eligible to participate in the Cal Grant program. All of our institutions must comply with the eligibility and participation requirements applicable to each of these funding programs, which vary by funding agency and program. Consumer Protections Laws and Regulations As a postsecondary educational institution, we are subject to a broad range of consumer protection and other laws, such as those that relate to recruiting, marketing, the protection of personal information, student financing and payment servicing. Such laws and regulations are enforced by federal agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and by various state agencies and state attorneys general. We received a January 18, 2022 letter from the CFPB explaining that it was assessing whether UTI “is subject to the CFPB’s supervisory authority based on its activities related to student lending.” The CFPB’s letter then requested certain information about extensions of credit to UTI students; generally explained the source and scope of the CFPB’s regulatory authority; and advised that, after it reviewed the requested materials, the CFPB “anticipates providing guidance regarding whether UTI is subject to CFPB’s supervisory authority.” We have provided the requested information and are awaiting further guidance, if any, from the CFPB. Both UTI and Concorde, along with 68 other proprietary institutions, received an October 6, 2021 letter from the FTC providing notice that engaging in deceptive or unfair conduct in the education marketplace violates consumer protection laws and could lead to significant civil penalties. The notice stated that an institution’s receipt of the letter “does not reflect any assessment as to whether they have engaged in deceptive or unfair conduct,” and the FTC did not request any information. We devote significant effort to complying with state and federal consumer protection laws and regulations.

Our institutions are subject to extensive regulatory requirements imposed by a wide range of federal and state agencies, as well as by institutional and programmatic accreditors. These requirements, which are frequently being revisited, revised, and expanded, cover virtually every aspect of our schools’ operations, and our institutions are subject to periodic audits and program compliance reviews by various external agencies for compliance with these requirements. Each of our institutions’ administration of the federal programs of student financial assistance under Title IV of the HEA (“Title IV Programs”) also

must be audited annually by independent accountants and the resulting audit report submitted to ED for review. The approvals granted by these regulatory entities permit our schools to operate and to participate in a variety of government-sponsored financial aid programs, including Title IV Programs. If our institutions fail to comply with any of these regulatory requirements, our regulators could take an array of adverse actions, up to and including revocation of the approval granted by the agency. Such adverse actions could have a material adverse effect on our academic or operational initiatives, cash flows, results of operations, or financial condition. Below, we discuss certain, specific elements of this regulatory environment.

To operate and offer postsecondary programs, and to be certified to participate in Title IV Programs, each of our institutions must obtain and maintain authorization from the state in which it is physically located (“Home State”). To engage in educational or recruiting activities outside of its Home State, each institution also may be required to obtain and maintain authorization from the states in which it is educating or recruiting students. The level of regulatory oversight varies substantially from state to state and is extensive in some states. State laws may establish standards for instruction, qualifications of faculty, location and nature of facilities and equipment, administrative procedures, marketing, recruiting, student outcomes reporting, disclosure obligations to students, limitations on mandatory arbitration clauses in enrollment agreements, financial operations, and other operational matters. Some states prescribe standards of financial responsibility and mandate that institutions post surety bonds. Many states have requirements for institutions to disclose institutional data to current and prospective students, as well as to the public, and some states require that our schools meet prescribed performance standards as a condition of continued approval. States can and often do revisit, revise, and expand their regulations governing postsecondary education and recruiting.

Institutions that offer distance education instruction outside of their Home State must comply with federal regulations governing state authorization for distance education in order to participate in the Title IV student financial aid programs. All UTI institutions and the Concorde, Kansas City and Memphis institutions are authorized to participate in the State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (“SARA”). SARA is an agreement among member states, districts and territories of the United States of America that establishes comparable national standards for interstate offering of post-secondary distance education courses and programs. SARA is overseen by a national council (“NC-SARA”) and administered by four regional education compacts. Forty-nine states (all but California), the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands have joined SARA.

Each of our institutions holds the state or SARA authorizations required to operate and offer postsecondary education programs, and to recruit in the states in which it engages in recruiting activities. We also have received approval from the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (“ACCSC”) and the Council on Occupational Education (“COE”) to offer blended format programs that utilize both distance and on-ground education. Additionally, we have received approvals from all required state education authorizing agencies to offer blended format programs. We continue to work to ensure that we comply with applicable distance education rules and standards. We also will closely monitor any new rulemakings that concern state authorization or distance education.

Many educational programs leading to professional licensure in a regulated profession require approval from, and are subject to, ongoing oversight by state agencies or boards. For example, certain Concorde healthcare programs, such as the Vocational Nursing, Practical Nursing, Dental Assistant, Massage Therapy, Nursing Practice (RN) programs, require and have obtained state licensure. Such programs are required to meet the standards of the state licensure agency or board and must periodically renew their licenses by completing a comprehensive license renewal process.

Institutional accreditation is a non-governmental process through which an institution voluntarily submits to ongoing qualitative reviews by an organization of peer institutions. Institutional accreditation by an ED-recognized accreditor is required for an institution to be certified to participate in Title IV Programs. All of the UTI institutions and 14 of the Concorde institutions are accredited by the ACCSC. The remaining two Concorde institutions are accredited by the COE. Both ACCSC and COE are accrediting agencies recognized by ED. ACCSC and COE review the academic quality of each institution’s instructional programs, as well as the administrative and financial operations of the institution to ensure that it has the resources necessary to perform its educational mission, implement continuous improvement processes, and support

student success. Our institutions are subject to periodic review to confirm accreditation standards are met, and must submit annual reports, and at times, supplemental reports, to demonstrate ongoing compliance and improvement. ACCSC and COE require institutions to disclose certain institutional information to current and prospective students, as well as to the public, and require that our schools and programs meet various performance standards as a condition of continued accreditation. ACCSC and COE often revisit, revise, and expand their standards and policies. Institutions must periodically renew their accreditation by completing a comprehensive renewal of accreditation process.

In addition to institutional accreditation, programmatic accreditation may be required for particular educational programs. Programmatic accreditors review specialized and professional programs in a range of fields and disciplines within an institution to ensure the public that an academic program has undergone a rigorous review process and been found to meet high standards for educational quality. Certain Concorde healthcare programs, including the Physical Therapist Assistant, Dental Hygiene, Neurodiagnostic Technology, Polysomnographic Technology, Respiratory Therapy, Surgical Technology, Radiologic Technology, Diagnostic Medical Sonography, Cardiovascular Sonography, Practical Nursing, Pharmacy Technician, and Occupational Therapy Assistant programs, have obtained programmatic accreditation. Such programs are required to meet the standards of their programmatic accreditor and must periodically renew their accreditation by completing a comprehensive programmatic accreditation renewal process.

The federal government provides a substantial part of its support for postsecondary education through Title IV Programs in the form of grants and loans to students who can use those funds at any institution that has been certified as eligible to participate by ED. All of our institutions are certified to participate in Title IV Programs. Significant factors relating to Title IV Programs that could adversely affect us include:

•The 90/10 Rule. As a condition of participation in Title IV Programs, proprietary institutions must agree when they sign their PPA to comply with the 90/10 rule. Under the 90/10 rule, to remain eligible to participate in the federal student aid programs, a proprietary institution must derive at least 10% of its revenue from sources other than “Federal education assistance funds.” “Federal education assistance funds” are defined as “federal funds that are disbursed or delivered to or on behalf of a student to be used to attend such institution.”

•Administrative Capability. To continue its participation in Title IV Programs, an institution must demonstrate that it remains administratively capable of providing the education it promises and of properly managing its Title IV Programs. ED assesses the administrative capability of each institution that participates in Title IV Programs under a series of standards listed in the regulations, which cover a wide range of operational and administrative topics, including the designation of capable and qualified individuals, the quality and scope of written procedures, the adequacy of institutional communication and processes, the timely resolution of issues, the sufficiency of recordkeeping, the provision of adequate career services, and the frequency of findings of noncompliance. ED’s administrative capability standards also include thresholds and expectations for federal student loan cohort default rates, satisfactory academic progress, clinical and externship opportunities, gainful employment programs, and loan counseling. Failure to satisfy any of the standards may lead ED to find the institution ineligible to participate in Title IV Programs, require the institution to repay Title IV Program funds, change the method of payment of Title IV Program funds, place the institution on provisional certification as a condition of its continued participation in Title IV Programs, or take other actions against the institution.

•Three-Year Student Loan Default Rates. An institution whose cohort default rate exceeds 30% in consecutive fiscal years may be subject to conditions and restrictions and will lose eligibility if the rate remains above 30% three years in a row. An institution also will lose eligibility if its rate exceeds 40% for any fiscal year. None of our institutions had a three-year cohort default rate of 30% or greater for 2021, 2020 and 2019, the three most recent FFYs with published rates. An institution whose three-year cohort default rate is 15% or greater for any one of the three preceding years is subject to a 30-day delay in receiving the first disbursement on federal student loans for first-time borrowers. None of our institutions had a three-year cohort default rate of 7% or greater for 2021, 2020, or 2019, which are the three most recent FFYs with published rates.

•Financial Responsibility. All institutions participating in Title IV Programs also must satisfy specific ED standards of financial responsibility. Among other things, an institution must meet all of its financial obligations, including required refunds to students and any Title IV Program liabilities and debts, be current in its debt payments, comply with certain past performance requirements, and not receive an adverse, qualified, or disclaimed opinion by its accountants in its audited financial statements. Each year, ED also evaluates institutions’ financial responsibility by calculating a “composite score,” which measures an institution’s overall financial health. The composite score utilizes information provided in the institutions’ annual audited financial statements and is based on three ratios: (1) the equity ratio which measures the institution’s capital resources, ability to borrow and financial viability; (2) the primary reserve ratio which measures the institution’s ability to support current operations from expendable resources; and (3) the net income ratio which measures the institution’s ability to operate at a profit. Between composite score calculations, ED also will reevaluate the financial responsibility of an institution following the occurrence of certain “triggering events,” which must be timely reported to the agency.

•Borrower Defense to Repayment. Under the HEA and its implementing regulations, students may file a claim with ED to discharge their federal Direct Loans (or Direct Consolidated Loans) if, generally, their institution misled them or engaged in other misconduct related to the making of their federal loans or the provision of their educational services. This is referred to as a “borrower defense to repayment” or “BDR” claim. On November 1, 2022, the Biden administration promulgated a revised version of the BDR rule, which took effect on July 1, 2023. On August 7, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, enjoining the implementation of the borrower defense and closed school provisions of that rule. While this case is decided, the previous versions of the borrower defense and closed school provisions are in effect.

•Substantial Misrepresentation. The regulatory definitions of “misrepresentation” and “substantial misrepresentation” enforced by ED are exceptionally broad and do not require intent by the institution to misrepresent, or actual reliance by the person to whom the alleged misrepresentation was made. Therefore, it is possible that a statement made by an institution or one of its service providers or representatives could be construed by ED to constitute a substantial misrepresentation, even if the statement was made in error, without intent to misrepresent, and the person to whom it was made did not actually rely upon it.

•Incentive Compensation. The “incentive compensation” prohibition forbids institutions from providing any commission, bonus, or other incentive payment based in any part, directly or indirectly, on success in securing enrollments or the award of financial aid to any person or entity engaged in any student recruiting or admission activities or in making decisions regarding the awarding of Title IV Program funds. We believe our compensation practices for our admissions representatives comply with the current regulations and ED’s guidance. We will continue to evaluate other compensation options under these regulations and guidance.

•Title IV Program Rulemaking. ED is almost continuously engaged in one or more negotiated rulemakings, which is the process pursuant to which it revisits, revises, and expands the complex and voluminous Title IV Program regulations. We devote significant effort to understanding the effects of ED regulations and rulemakings on our business and to developing compliant solutions that also are congruent with our business, culture, and mission to serve our students and industry relationships. ED has recently undertaken, or proposed to undertake, rulemakings on the following topics:

◦On October 28, 2022, ED published a final rule amending regulations governing Pell Grants for prison education programs, the 90/10 rule, and changes in ownership and control, effective July 1, 2023. On November 1, 2022, ED published a final rule governing borrower defense to repayment rule, closed school loan discharges, pre-dispute arbitration and class action waiver clauses, interest capitalization on Federal student loans, Public Student Loan Forgiveness, total and permanent disability discharges, and false certification discharges, also effective July 1, 2023.

◦On October 10, 2023, ED published a final rule related to financial value transparency and gainful employment, effective July 1, 2024. On October 31, 2023, ED published final rules relating to (1) financial responsibility, (2) administrative capability, (3) certification procedures; and (4) ability to benefit, effective July 1, 2024.

◦ED established a Student Loan Relief Committee to consider revisions to sections of 34 C.F.R. Parts 30, 682 and 685 addressing provisions related to the modification, waiver, release or compromise of Federal student loans. The Student Loan Relief Committee completed four negotiating sessions in October, November and

December 2023 and February 2024. On April 17, 2024, ED issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announcing proposed regulatory changes addressing the Secretary’s discretionary authority to waive loan repayment obligations. ED has collected comments on the proposed regulatory changes but has not yet issued final regulatory updates.

◦ED established a Program Integrity and Institutional Quality Committee to consider proposed changes to regulations addressing (1) the Secretary’s recognition of accrediting agencies; (2) institutional eligibility, including State authorization; (3) distance education; (4) return of Title IV funds; (5) cash management; and (6) the Federal TRIO Programs. ED also announced a Federal TRIO Programs Subcommittee to include additional expertise and to make recommendations to the full committee on the subject. The full Committee met for three negotiating sessions in January, February and March 2024, and the Subcommittee met twice in January and February 2024. On July 24, 2024, ED issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking announcing proposed regulatory changes addressing (a) distance education; (b) return of Title IV funds; and (c) the Federal TRIO Programs. ED has collected comments on the proposed regulatory changes but has not yet issued final regulatory updates. ED also has not yet announced any proposed regulatory changes addressing (x) the Secretary’s recognition of accrediting agencies; (y) institutional eligibility, including State authorization; and (z) cash management.

•Non-Discrimination Rulemakings. On April 29, 2024, ED published a final rule amending the regulations implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, effective August 1, 2024. This rule represents a significant revision of the Title IX rules. As of September 30, 2024, pursuant to various Federal court orders, ED was enjoined from enforcing the 2024 Title IX rule in 26 states, including Florida, Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas, and at a list of institutions identified by a federal district court in Kansas, including Universal Technical Institute of Arizona Inc. ED also has indicated that it will be proposing a rule to amend regulations related to nondiscrimination on the basis of disability.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), the Department of Defense, the Department of Labor, the Department of Education (through non-Title IV programs), and certain states provide support to postsecondary students through programs, grants, benefits, loans, or scholarships. All of our institutions that engage in such programs must comply with the eligibility and participation requirements applicable to each of these funding programs, which vary by funding agency and program.

In 2024, we derived approximately 11% of our revenues, on a cash basis, from veterans’ benefits programs, which include the Post-9/11 GI Bill, the Montgomery GI Bill, the Reserve Education Assistance Program (“REAP”) and VA Vocational Rehabilitation. To continue participation in veterans’ benefits programs, an institution must comply with certain requirements established by the VA.

Additionally, some states provide financial aid to our students in the form of grants, loans or scholarships. For example, the UTI campuses in Long Beach, Rancho Cucamonga and Sacramento, California, as well as the Concorde campuses in Garden Grove, North Hollywood, San Bernardino and San Diego, California, for example, are currently eligible to participate in the Cal Grant program. All of our institutions must comply with the eligibility and participation requirements applicable to each of these funding programs, which vary by funding agency and program.

As a postsecondary educational institution, we are subject to a broad range of consumer protection and other laws, such as those that relate to recruiting, marketing, the protection of personal information, student financing and payment servicing. Such laws and regulations are enforced by federal agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and by various state agencies and state attorneys general.

We received a January 18, 2022 letter from the CFPB explaining that it was assessing whether UTI “is subject to the CFPB’s supervisory authority based on its activities related to student lending.” The CFPB’s letter then requested certain information about extensions of credit to UTI students; generally explained the source and scope of the CFPB’s regulatory authority; and advised that, after it reviewed the requested materials, the CFPB “anticipates providing guidance regarding whether UTI is

Both UTI and Concorde, along with 68 other proprietary institutions, received an October 6, 2021 letter from the FTC providing notice that engaging in deceptive or unfair conduct in the education marketplace violates consumer protection laws and could lead to significant civil penalties. The notice stated that an institution’s receipt of the letter “does not reflect any assessment as to whether they have engaged in deceptive or unfair conduct,” and the FTC did not request any information.