Commitments and Contingencies
From time to time, the Company is a party to various lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. As of June 30, 2011, the Company was not a party, as plaintiff or defendant, to any legal proceedings which, individually or in the aggregate, would be expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. When the Company becomes aware of a claim or potential claim, it assesses the likelihood of any loss or exposure. If it is probable that a loss will result and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records a liability for the loss. If the loss is not probable or the amount of the loss cannot be reasonably estimated, the Company discloses the nature of the specific claim if the likelihood of a potential loss is reasonably possible and the amount involved is material.
OIG Compliance Audit of Ashford University
On January 21, 2011, Ashford University received a final audit report from the OIG regarding the compliance audit commenced in May 2008 and covering the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. The final audit report contained findings of noncompliance and recommendations for certain administrative remedies. For additional information, see Note 22, "Subsequent Events," in Part II, Item 8 of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, filed with the SEC on March 2, 2011.
Rosendahl v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
In January 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed as a class action lawsuit naming the Company, Ashford University and University of the Rockies as defendants. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on January 11, 2011, and is captioned Rosendahl v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. The complaint generally alleges that the Company and the other defendants engaged in improper, fraudulent and illegal behavior in their efforts to recruit and retain students. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.
Iowa Attorney General Civil Investigation of Ashford University
In February 2011, Ashford University received from the Attorney General of the State of Iowa (“Iowa Attorney General”) a Civil Investigative Demand and Notice of Intent to Proceed (“CID”) relating to the Iowa Attorney General's investigation of whether certain of the university's business practices comply with Iowa consumer laws. The CID contains no specific allegations of wrongdoing. Pursuant to the CID, the Iowa Attorney General has requested documents and detailed information for the time period January 1, 2008 to present. Ashford University is responding to the CID and intends to comply with the Iowa Attorney General's request.
Stevens v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
In February 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed as a class action lawsuit naming the Company, Ashford University, LLC, and certain employees as defendants. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego on February 17, 2011, and is captioned Stevens v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. The complaint generally alleges that the plaintiffs and similarly situated employees were improperly denied certain wage and hour protections under California law. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.
Moore v. Ashford University, LLC
In April 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed as a class action lawsuit naming the Company and Ashford University, LLC, as defendants. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego on April 25, 2011, and is captioned Moore v. Ashford University, LLC. The complaint generally alleges that the plaintiff and similarly situated employees were improperly denied certain wage and hour protections under California law. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.
New York Attorney General Investigation of Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
In May 2011, the Company received from the Attorney General of the State of New York (“NY Attorney General”) a Subpoena Duces Tecum (“Subpoena”) relating to the NY Attorney General's investigation of whether the Company and its academic institutions have complied with certain New York state consumer protection, securities and finance laws. Pursuant to the Subpoena, the NY Attorney General has requested from the Company and its academic institutions documents and detailed information for the time period March 17, 2005, to present. The Company is responding to the Subpoena and intends to comply with the NY Attorney General's request.
Sanchez v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
In May 2011, the Company received a copy of a complaint filed as a class action lawsuit naming the Company as a defendant. The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego on May 6, 2011, and is captioned Sanchez v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc. The complaint generally alleges that the plaintiff and similarly situated employees were improperly denied certain wage and hour protections under California law. The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.