Commitments And Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments And Contingencies	8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES An accrual for estimated legal fees and settlements of $16.6 million and $15.4 million at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, is presented within other current liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets. Litigation We are, or were, a party to the following legal proceedings that are outside the scope of ordinary routine litigation incidental to our business. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these matters. An unfavorable outcome of any one or more of these matters could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial position. *Securities Litigation* Ross, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al. On January 13, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, naming the Company and various individuals as defendants and claiming that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by making material misstatements in and omitting material information from the Company's public disclosures concerning its schools' job placement rates and its compliance with accreditation policies. The complaint further claimed that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their positions as control persons of the Company. Plaintiff asks for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On March 23, 2012, the Court appointed KBC Asset Management NV, the Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement Systems, and the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, as lead plaintiffs in the action. On May 3, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, asserting the same claims alleged in the initial complaint, and naming the Company and various individuals as defendants. Lead plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between February 19, 2009 and November 21, 2011. Defendants' motion to dismiss is currently due June 3, 2012. 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 potential 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. *Shareholder Derivative Actions and Demands* Bangari v. Lesnik, et al. On December 7, 2011, a derivative action was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division on behalf of the Company naming the Company's current Board of Directors as individual defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of control by the individual defendants. Plaintiff asks for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On February 10, 2012, the defendants filed motions to dismiss or stay the complaint. A hearing on defendants' motions is scheduled for August 21, 2012. Cook v. McCullough, et al. On December 22, 2011, a derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of the Company naming the Company's current Board of Directors as well as various current and former employees as individual defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control and gross mismanagement by all of the individual defendants and unjust enrichment by certain individual defendants. Plaintiff asks for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On March 16, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss or stay the complaint. The Court granted the motions to stay pending resolution of the motions to dismiss. Plaintiff's opposition to the motions is currently due May 4, 2012, and defendants' reply briefs are due on June 8, 2012. The Company has received demands from purported shareholders requesting that the Board investigate, institute litigation, and take other actions with regard to the Company's student placement and retention rates and that the Company provide books and records regarding the same. The Company has responded to such requests indicating that they are either premature or inappropriate. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of these demands is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for these actions because the complaints do not seek a specified amount of damages and because these matters are in their early stages. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with these actions. *Student Litigation* Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation; Adams, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation. On September 27, 2007, Allison Amador and 36 other current and former students of the California Culinary Academy ("CCA") filed a complaint in the California Superior Court in San Francisco. Plaintiffs plead their original complaint as a putative class action and allege four causes of action: fraud; constructive fraud; violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs contend that CCA made a variety of misrepresentations to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process. The alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of the admissions process, and the students' employment prospects upon graduation, including the accuracy of statistics published by CCA. On April 3, 2008, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in the Amador action filed the Adams action on behalf of Jennifer Adams and several other unnamed members of the Amador putative class. The Adams action also is styled as a class action and is based on the same allegations underlying the Amador action and attempts to plead the same four causes of action pled in the Amador action. The Adams action has been deemed related to the Amador action and is being handled by the same judge. The Adams action has been stayed. In October 2010, the parties reached agreement on all the material terms of a settlement and executed a formal settlement agreement as of November 1, 2010. The settlement is subject to court approval. The monetary component of the settlement involves payment by us of approximately $40.8 million to pay claims by all students who enrolled in CCA and/or graduated from CCA from September 28, 2003 through October 8, 2008. The payment includes plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and certain expenses to be incurred in connection with the implementation of the settlement. During 2010, we recorded a charge of $40.8 million which represents our best estimate of the loss related to this matter. We disbursed $40.0 million during the first quarter of 2011, as required by the terms of the agreement. The original deadline for filing claims and/or opting out of the settlement was June 6, 2011. Pursuant to a subsequent order, the Court required plaintiffs' counsel to provide a supplemental notice to those who had opted out by June 6, 2011. Following the supplemental notice, a total of 112 students opted out of the settlement. On April 18, 2012, the Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement and on April 19, 2012, the court entered a final judgment on the settlement. On June 3, 2011, the same attorneys representing the class in the Amador action filed a separate complaint in the San Francisco County Superior Court entitled Abarca v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al, on behalf of 115 individuals who are opt outs in the Amador action and/or non-class members, and therefore not subject to the Amador settlement. On June 15, 2011, the same attorneys filed another action in the San Francisco County Superior Court entitled Andrade, et al. v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al., on behalf of another 31 individuals who are opt outs in the Amador action and/or non-class members, and therefore not subject to the Amador settlement. On August 12, 2011, plaintiffs' counsel filed a third action on behalf of five individuals who opted out of or were not parties to the Amador settlement entitled Aprieto, et al. v. California Culinary Academy. None of these three suits are being prosecuted as a class action. They each allege the same claims as were previously alleged in the Amador action, plus claims for breach of contract and violations of the repealed California Education Code. The plaintiffs in these cases seek damages, including consequential damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. We have not responded to these three complaints, which have been related and transferred to the same judge who is handling the Amador case, because they have been stayed pending a ruling on the class settlement in the Amador action. Certain of the plaintiffs in these cases filed claims or received notice of the settlement and did not file claims, and therefore their individual claims will be barred. The Court held a status conference on these cases on May 3, 2012 and ordered that the cases continue to be stayed until a further status conference scheduled for July 17, 2012. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise as discovery and pre-trial proceedings progress, the outcome of the Abarca, Andrade and Aprieto legal proceedings is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a potential range of loss for these actions because these matters are in their early stages, and involve many unresolved issues of fact and law. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with these actions. Lilley, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al. On February 11, 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, naming as defendants Career Education Corporation and Sanford-Brown College, Inc. Plaintiffs filed amended complaints on September 5, 2008 and September 24, 2010. The five plaintiffs named in the amended complaint are former students who attended a medical assistant program at Sanford-Brown College located in Collinsville, Illinois. The class is alleged to be all persons who enrolled in that program since July 1, 2003. The amended class action complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, for alleged unfair conduct and deceptive conduct under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as well as common law claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent omission. In the amended complaint filed on September 24, 2010, the plaintiffs allege that the school's enrollment agreements contained false and misleading information regarding placement statistics, job opportunities and salaries and that Admissions, Financial Aid and Career Services personnel used standardized materials that allegedly contained false and/or deceptive information. Plaintiffs also allege that the school misused a standardized admissions test to determine program placement when the test was not intended for that purpose; failed to provide allegedly statutorily required loan repayment information; and misrepresented the transferability of credits. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, treble and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of all tuition monies received from medical assistant students, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 20, 2010. On October 27, 2010 the Court granted defendants' motion with respect to plaintiffs' fraudulent omission claims. The Court denied the motion with respect to the statutory claims under the Private Schools Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the common law fraudulent misrepresentation claim. By Order dated December 3, 2010, the Court certified a class consisting of all persons who attended SBC in Collinsville, Illinois and enrolled in the Medical Assisting Program during the period from July 1, 2003 through November 29, 2010. This class consists of approximately 2,300 members. Defendants filed a petition for leave to appeal the trial court's class certification order to the Fifth District Court of Appeals. On February 10, 2011, the Fifth District Court of Appeals granted defendants' petition for leave to appeal. Oral argument was heard on the appeal on October 4, 2011. While that appeal is pending, all proceedings in the Circuit Court are stayed. 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 potential 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. Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation. On March 5, 2008, original named plaintiffs Shannon Gozzi and Megan Koehnen filed a complaint in Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege that Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries they may earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12, 2008. Shannon Gozzi subsequently withdrew as a named plaintiff and former named plaintiff Meghan Koehnen's claims have been dismissed. Jennifer Schuster became a plaintiff, and when Ms. Koehnen's claims were dismissed, she became the sole named plaintiff. The parties completed written discovery on class issues. 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. Because Ms. Schuster was not a member of the certified class (she enrolled before March 5, 2006), plaintiff's counsel substituted in a new class representative for her in 2010 named Nathan Surrett pursuant to a stipulation among the parties which provided, among other things, that WCI retains the right to challenge whether the new class representative is adequate (with plaintiff retaining the burden of proof on that issue). Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on December 7, 2010, which included individual and class allegations by Mr. Surrett. Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period expired on June 20, 2011. The class consists of approximately 2,330 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI. The parties are currently engaged in merits discovery. WCI's motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' claims, for summary judgment and to decertify the class were denied by the Court. No trial date has been set. Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already arisen, and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of damages and the number of class members who might be entitled to recover damages, if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action. Vasquez, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation. On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in connection with the admissions process during the alleged class period. The alleged class is defined as including "all persons who purchased educational services from California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. ("CSCA"), or graduated from CSCA, within the limitations periods applicable to the herein alleged causes of action (including, without limitation, the period following the filing of the action)." Defendants successfully demurred to the constructive fraud claim and the Court has dismissed it. Defendants also successfully demurred to plaintiffs' claims based on alleged violations of California's former Educational Reform Act. The plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint, in which they assert the same claims against us, but added claims against approximately 15 student lenders. The plaintiffs subsequently dismissed all of the student lenders. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and defendants filed an opposition on September 16, 2011. On March 6, 2012, the Court issued its order denying class certification. Plaintiffs' counsel have filed eight separate but related "mass actions" entitled Banks, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court (by 316 individuals); Abrica v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court (by 373 individuals), Aguilar, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court (by 88 individuals), Alday v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles Superior Court (by 73 individuals), Ackerman, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court (by 27 individuals), Arechiga, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court (by 60 individuals), Anderson, et al., v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court (by 58 individuals) and Allen v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles Superior Court (by 12 individuals). All eight cases are being prosecuted on behalf of hundreds of individual former students. The allegations are the same as those asserted in the Vasquez class action case. The individual plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of tuition monies received, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. All of these cases have been deemed related to the Vasquez class action and therefore are pending before the same judge who is presiding over the Vasquez case. All of the individual cases (other than the recently filed Allen case) were stayed pending the ruling on class certification in the Vasquez class action. On April 13, 2012, the Court conducted a status conference regarding further proceedings in the individual cases. The Court has ordered the parties to participate in limited discovery and meet and confer regarding motions to compel arbitration in the individual actions. Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of these legal proceedings is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for these actions because our possible liability depends on an assessment of the appropriate measure of damages, if we were to be found liable and whether, in the case of the Vasquez action, a class is certified and, if so, the size of any such class. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with these actions. *False Claims Act* False Claims Act Lawsuit. 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. The case is captioned 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 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 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, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) and (2), 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. The discovery phase of the lawsuit is presently underway. On November 4, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss for a lack of jurisdiction, the claims related to incentive compensation and proof of graduation. Our motion to dismiss is pending. 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 loss for this action because the complaint does not seek a specified amount of damages and it is unclear how damages would be calculated. Moreover, the case presents novel legal issues and discovery is in its early stages. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action. *Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation* Fahey, et al. v. Career Education Corporation; Rojas, et al. v. Career Education Corporation. On August 4, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, by Sheila Fahey alleging that she had received an unauthorized text message advertisement in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"). On September 3, 2010, we removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On November 22, 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss the Fahey case. That motion is still pending. The Court has stayed any further activity on the Fahey case until resolution of an appeal in the Seventh Circuit of a case involving issues similar to those raised in our motion to dismiss. The appeal has been resolved and we anticipate that the Court will lift the stay of proceedings in Fahey shortly and consolidate this case with the Rojas matter. On August 18, 2010, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in the Fahey action filed a similar lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of Sergio Rojas alleging similar violations of the TCPA based on the same text messages. Rojas, like Fahey, sought class certification of his claims. The alleged classes are defined to include all persons who received unauthorized text message advertisements from the Company as part of the IADT test marketing campaign. Rojas and Fahey each seek an award trebling the statutory damages to the class members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. On March 14, 2012, we entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs' counsel resolving the claims asserted in both cases. Plaintiffs' counsel has until May 9, 2012 to submit its motion for preliminary approval of that settlement. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, we have agreed to pay $200 to each person who received the subject text message who can be identified and returns a valid claim form. The parties did not reach an agreement regarding the appropriate amount of legal fees to be paid to class counsel. As a result, the parties have agreed that this issue will be presented separately to the Court for hearing and resolution. Based upon the information available to us, we recorded a charge of $6.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 which represents our best estimate of the loss related to these matters. *Employment Litigation* Gonzalez, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al. On or about September 16, 2011, Karla Gonzalez and 19 other current and former employees of Southern California School of Culinary Arts, Ltd. ("SCSCA") who worked primarily as Admissions Representatives filed a complaint in California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, Northeast District (the "Gonzalez lawsuit"). The complaint names us, SCSCA, Le Cordon Bleu, Inc., Robert Woy, and Marie Guerrero as defendants. Mr. Woy is the former Vice President of Admissions at SCSCA, and Ms. Guerrero is the former Senior Director of Admissions at SCSCA. In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants (i) failed to pay them overtime and rest break compensation in violation of the California Labor Code; (ii) owe statutory penalties under the California Labor Code for unpaid wages; (iii) engaged in unfair competition and unfair business practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code relating to false time records and failure to pay wages owed; (iv) breached contracts by failing to pay bonuses for enrolling students; (v) engaged in unfair competition and unfair business practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code by failing to report and intending to evade taxes; (vi) are responsible for statutory penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") for violations of various sections of the California Code; and (vii) committed fraud by failing to pay allegedly promised bonuses and by altering time records. In their PAGA claim, plaintiffs seek recovery of penalties for violations of various wage and hour provisions of the California Code on behalf of themselves and all other similar current and former employees in California. In a first amended complaint filed on or about December 15, 2011, plaintiffs dropped Mr. Woy and Ms. Guerrero as defendants without prejudice. The remaining defendants responded to the first amended complaint on or about January 18, 2012, denying all material allegations. Following the answer to the first amended complaint, the parties had been engaged in discovery until the issue of possible additional amended claims arose in mid-February 2012. A second amended complaint was deemed to be filed on April 18, 2012. The second amended complaint adds the following additional claims on behalf of all plaintiffs: (viii) retaliation for complaining about alleged violations of wage and hour laws; (ix) failure to prevent retaliation; (x) violation of public policy relating to retaliation; (xi) harassment/hostile work environment allegedly created in response to complaints about violations of wage and hour laws and refusal to violate such laws; (xii) failure to prevent harassment/hostile work environment; (xiii) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (xiv) negligent infliction of emotional distress. These new claims are alleged against each of the corporate defendants against whom counts (i) – (vii) are pending, and also against Mr. Woy. At a status conference on April 18, 2012, defendants stated their intention to file a demurrer to the second amended complaint. The Court set a hearing for May 24, 2012 on the anticipated demurrer. 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 potential range of loss for this action because these matters are in their early stages, and involve many unresolved issues of fact and law. Accordingly, we have not yet recognized any liability associated with this action. Wilson, et al. v. Career Education Corporation. On or about August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former Admissions Representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the United States 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 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 November 25, 2011, Wilson moved for class certification and appointment of class counsel, but briefing on that issue and all discovery were stayed pending a decision on the motion to dismiss. 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. Plaintiff has until May 10, 2012 to move for leave to file an amended complaint. Because plaintiff is permitted to move for leave to file an amended complaint, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a potential range of loss 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, suits and investigations that arise from time to time in the ordinary conduct of our business, including, but not limited to, claims involving students or graduates and routine employment matters. While we currently believe that such claims, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial position, cash flows or results of operations, the litigation and other claims noted above 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 Company received from the Attorney General of the State of New York ("NYAG") a Subpoena Duces Tecum dated May 17, 2011 (the "Subpoena"), relating to the NYAG's investigation of whether the Company and certain of its schools have complied with certain New York state consumer protection, securities, finance and other laws. Pursuant to the Subpoena, the NYAG has requested from the Company and certain of its schools documents and detailed information on a broad spectrum of business practices, including such areas as marketing and advertising, student recruitment and admissions, education financing, training and compensation of admissions and financial aid personnel, programmatic accreditation, student employment outcomes, placement rates of graduates and other disclosures made to students. The documents and information sought by the NYAG in connection with its investigation cover the time period from May 17, 2005 to the present. As previously disclosed, at the direction of the Company's Board of Directors, an independent internal investigation was conducted into the determination of placement rates at the Company's Health Education segment schools as well as a review of such practices at all of its other domestic schools. The Company has reported the results of this investigation to the NYAG as they relate to the Company's New York-based ground schools. The Company continues to cooperate with the NYAG with a view towards resolving this inquiry as promptly as possible. The Florida campuses of Sanford-Brown Institute received a notice on November 5, 2010 from the State of Florida Office of the Attorney General that it has commenced an investigation into possible unfair and deceptive trade practices at these schools. The notice includes a subpoena to produce documents and detailed information for the time period from January 1, 2007 to the present about a broad spectrum of business practices at such schools. The Florida Attorney General's website indicates that the Attorney General is conducting similar investigations of several other postsecondary education companies operating schools located in Florida. The Florida campuses of Sanford-Brown Institute have responded to the subpoena and continue to cooperate with the Florida Attorney General with a view towards resolving this inquiry as promptly as possible. The Company received from the Attorney General of the State of Illinois ("IL AG") a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") dated December 9, 2011. The CID relates to the IL AG's investigation of whether the Company and its schools operating in Illinois have complied with certain Illinois state consumer protection laws. Pursuant to the CID, the IL AG has requested from the Company and its schools documents and detailed information on a broad spectrum of business practices, including such areas as marketing and advertising, student recruitment and admissions, education financing, training and compensation of admissions and financial aid personnel, programmatic accreditation, student employment outcomes, placement rates of graduates and other financial and organizational information. The documents and information sought by the IL AG in connection with its investigation cover the time period from January 1, 2006 to the present. The Company is cooperating with the IL AG's office with a view towards resolving this inquiry as promptly as possible. The Company received from the Department of Justice of the State of Oregon ("OR DOJ") an Investigative Demand ("ID") dated January 3, 2012. The ID relates to the OR DOJ's investigation of whether the Company and AIU operating in Oregon have complied with certain Oregon state consumer protection laws. Pursuant to the ID, the OR DOJ has requested from the Company and AIU documents and detailed information on a broad spectrum of business practices, including such areas as consumer practices, accreditation, advertisements, recruitment, enrollment and admission of students, financial aid, records of discrimination complaints, academic performance, certain degree programs, and student disclosures. The documents and information sought by the OR DOJ in connection with its investigation cover the time period from January 1, 2004 to the present. The Company is cooperating with the OR DOJ's office with a view towards resolving this inquiry as promptly as possible. The Company cannot predict the scope, duration or outcome of these investigations. At the conclusion 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 or curtail or modify their operations. Other state attorneys general may also initiate inquiries into the Company or its schools. If any of the foregoing occurs, the Company's 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. *Accrediting Body and State and Federal Regulatory Matters* Placement Determination Practices Related Inquiries On November 14, 2011, the Company received a letter from the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools ("ACICS") directing the Company, on behalf of certain of its ACICS-accredited institutions in the Health Education and Art & Design segments, to show-cause at ACICS' December 2011 meeting. The show-cause directive related to the adequacy of the administrative practices and controls relative to the Company's determination of job placement rates prior to reporting of those rates to ACICS. CEC representatives appeared before ACICS on December 7, 2011 and reviewed, among other things, the procedures the Company implemented to ensure the accurate determination and reporting of placement rates. On December 13, 2011, ACICS advised the Company that it decided to defer further action on its show-cause directive until its next regularly scheduled meeting in April 2012. The directive applied to all 71 CEC campuses accredited by ACICS. ACICS acknowledged the efforts CEC had implemented to address concerns related to the verification of placement data, but sought confirmation that the efforts would be continued for a sustained period of time and would be implemented at all campuses accredited by the agency. ACICS requested that the company provide certain additional information to ACICS in advance of the April 2012 meeting, which the Company provided, and CEC representatives appeared before ACICS on April 19, 2012 to discuss the information. On May 3, 2012, the Company received notification from ACICS that ACICS acted at its April 20, 2012 meeting to immediately vacate the show-cause directive applicable to all 71 CEC campuses accredited by ACICS. At the meeting ACICS reviewed information it had requested of the Company regarding the annual placement rates for the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, which included the results of placement re-verifications by an independent third party. Based on ACICS' interpretation of this information, 24 additional ACICS accredited campuses fell below ACICS's 65% placement rate standard and are subject to increased levels of accreditation oversight, joining the 36 campuses already subject to this additional oversight. This oversight includes, depending on the degree such campuses fell below the 65% placement rate standard, more detailed or frequent reporting requirements, a placement improvement plan, attendance by campus career service personnel at periodic workshops, additional requirements for new program and location approvals or on-site evaluations. Four of these campuses, Sanford-Brown College – Indianapolis, Sanford-Brown College – Milwaukee, Sanford-Brown Institute – Landover and the online campus of IADT, were placed on probation status due to placement rates at or below 40% for the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. These four campuses in the aggregate contributed approximately 3.6% of the Company's 2011 consolidated revenue. Campuses on probation remain accredited. An institution is obligated to demonstrate to ACICS that the conditions or circumstances which led to the imposition of probation have been corrected before probation will be lifted, in this case meaning an increase in placement rates to a level acceptable to ACICS. The Company is taking steps to improve placement rates at all of its campuses and will continue to review, on a program-by-program basis, placement activities at all of its campuses. As previously disclosed, the Company is also capping new enrollments into certain programs and will teach out programs where appropriate. The Company has responded to requests for additional information and updates pertaining to this matter that it has received from the Department of Education ("ED"), state regulators and other programmatic and institutional accreditors. We cannot predict the outcome of these requests, and any unfavorable outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial position. Other Matters On November 28, 2011, Brown College – Mendota Heights received a show-cause directive from its primary institutional accreditor, Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges ("ACCSC"), related to student achievement. Brown College submitted its response to the show-cause directive on February 6, 2012 that will be considered at the ACCSC commission meeting in May 2012. In June 2011, Briarcliffe College's accrediting agency, Middle States Commission on Higher Education ("Middle States"), took action to continue the school's accreditation for a period not to exceed one year. Briarcliffe has advised Middle States of the NYAG investigation and our investigation into our determination of reported student placement rates. As directed, Briarcliffe submitted a Monitoring Report to Middle States on March 1, 2012 to provide a status update on the NYAG investigation and also hosted a Middle States visit on April 13, 2012 focused on areas raised in the NYAG subpoena. The visiting team affirmed that Briarcliffe continued to meet the requirements of affiliation and standards of accreditation that were under review. The recommendations and findings of the visiting team are not binding on Middle States and it is expected to reach a decision on Briarcliffe's re-accreditation at its next scheduled meeting in June 2012. Due to their participation in Title IV Programs, our schools and universities are subject to periodic program reviews by ED for the purpose of evaluating an institution's compliance with Title IV Program requirements, identifying any liabilities to ED caused by errors in compliance, and improving future institutional capabilities. ED conducted a program review of AIU in November 2009. On July 14, 2010, AIU received a copy of ED's program review report, which is a preliminary report of ED's findings from its program review. The Program Review Report identified six findings, two of which were deemed to be systemic findings by ED's program review team. These two findings relate to AIU's policy for determining student attendance in online courses for purposes of determining such students' enrollment status, withdrawal dates and associated timing respecting the return of unearned Title IV Program funds. AIU disagrees with these two findings and is contesting the program review team's proposed determination of what constitutes appropriate documentation or verification of online academic activity. The remaining four findings were isolated and generally relate to processing errors. We believe the amounts involved in these four findings are immaterial. AIU submitted its response to ED's program review report on November 29, 2010 and is awaiting ED's issuance of a Final Program Review Determination letter that will specify any required corrective action and amounts owed to ED, if any. An ED program review report for Gibbs College—Livingston, NJ (school closed) and a final determination letter for Katharine Gibbs School—New York, NY (school closed) are currently pending. The program review report and/or final determination letter will, generally, cover a school's main campus and any branch campuses. We are committed to resolving all issues identified in connection with these program reviews to ED's satisfaction and ensuring that our schools operate in compliance with all ED regulations. Our schools and universities are also subject to periodic audits by various regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Inspector General ("OIG"). The OIG audit services division commenced a compliance audit of CTU in June 2010, covering the period July 5, 2009 to May 16, 2010, to determine whether CTU had policies and procedures to ensure that CTU administered Title IV Program and other federal program funds in accordance with applicable federal law and regulation. On January 13, 2012, the OIG issued a draft report identifying three findings, including one regarding the documentation of attendance of students enrolled in online programs and one regarding the calculation of returns of Title IV Program funds arising from student withdrawals without official notice to the institution. CTU submitted a written response to the OIG, contesting these findings, on March 2, 2012. The OIG report, along with CTU's response, will be forwarded to ED's Office of Federal Student Aid which will make an independent assessment of what further action, if any, is warranted. In August 2011, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"), through its Denver Regional Office ("VA Regional Office"), conducted a compliance survey at the Colorado Springs campus of CTU. While the VA Regional Office has not yet issued a report respecting its findings, at an exit conference held on August 9, 2011, the VA Regional Office informed CTU that it had identified certain students for whom it believed CTU had incorrectly certified the monthly housing allowance ("MHA") provided pursuant to the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act ("Post-9/11 GI Bill"). While CTU believes the position of the VA Regional Office is based on a difference in interpretation of applicable provisions of law, CTU is working with the VA to ensure that students entitled to benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill will not be adversely impacted or held responsible for any adjustments that are made respecting the MHA. Based on information currently available to us, we estimate potential reimbursements by CTU of approximately $5.0 million. Accordingly, we accrued $5.0 million in 2011 as an estimate for the reasonably possible settlement of this matter. At this time, the review of the Colorado Springs campus is still underway. The VA has also initiated compliance survey reviews at other CTU ground campuses, including Denver, Kansas City and Sioux Falls, as well as CTU Online. The VA has not conducted exit conferences or issued reports on these additional compliance surveys. We cannot predict the outcome of these matters, and any unfavorable outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

8. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

An accrual for estimated legal fees and settlements of $16.6 million and $15.4 million at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, is presented within other current liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets.

Litigation

We are, or were, a party to the following legal proceedings that are outside the scope of ordinary routine litigation incidental to our business. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these matters. An unfavorable outcome of any one or more of these matters could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

Securities Litigation

Ross, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al. On January 13, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, naming the Company and various individuals as defendants and claiming that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by making material misstatements in and omitting material information from the Company's public disclosures concerning its schools' job placement rates and its compliance with accreditation policies. The complaint further claimed that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their positions as control persons of the Company. Plaintiff asks for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On March 23, 2012, the Court appointed KBC Asset Management NV, the Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement Systems, and the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, as lead plaintiffs in the action. On May 3, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, asserting the same claims alleged in the initial complaint, and naming the Company and various individuals as defendants. Lead plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between February 19, 2009 and November 21, 2011. Defendants' motion to dismiss is currently due June 3, 2012.

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 potential 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.

Shareholder Derivative Actions and Demands

Bangari v. Lesnik, et al. On December 7, 2011, a derivative action was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division on behalf of the Company naming the Company's current Board of Directors as individual defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty and abuse of control by the individual defendants. Plaintiff asks for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On February 10, 2012, the defendants filed motions to dismiss or stay the complaint. A hearing on defendants' motions is scheduled for August 21, 2012.

Cook v. McCullough, et al. On December 22, 2011, a derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of the Company naming the Company's current Board of Directors as well as various current and former employees as individual defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control and gross mismanagement by all of the individual defendants and unjust enrichment by certain individual defendants. Plaintiff asks for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. On March 16, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss or stay the complaint. The Court granted the motions to stay pending resolution of the motions to dismiss. Plaintiff's opposition to the motions is currently due May 4, 2012, and defendants' reply briefs are due on June 8, 2012.

The Company has received demands from purported shareholders requesting that the Board investigate, institute litigation, and take other actions with regard to the Company's student placement and retention rates and that the Company provide books and records regarding the same. The Company has responded to such requests indicating that they are either premature or inappropriate.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of these demands is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for these actions because the complaints do not seek a specified amount of damages and because these matters are in their early stages. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with these actions.

Student Litigation

Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation; Adams, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation. On September 27, 2007, Allison Amador and 36 other current and former students of the California Culinary Academy ("CCA") filed a complaint in the California Superior Court in San Francisco. Plaintiffs plead their original complaint as a putative class action and allege four causes of action: fraud; constructive fraud; violation of the California Unfair Competition Law; and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs contend that CCA made a variety of misrepresentations to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process. The alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school's reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of the admissions process, and the students' employment prospects upon graduation, including the accuracy of statistics published by CCA.

On April 3, 2008, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in the Amador action filed the Adams action on behalf of Jennifer Adams and several other unnamed members of the Amador putative class. The Adams action also is styled as a class action and is based on the same allegations underlying the Amador action and attempts to plead the same four causes of action pled in the Amador action. The Adams action has been deemed related to the Amador action and is being handled by the same judge. The Adams action has been stayed.

In October 2010, the parties reached agreement on all the material terms of a settlement and executed a formal settlement agreement as of November 1, 2010. The settlement is subject to court approval. The monetary component of the settlement involves payment by us of approximately $40.8 million to pay claims by all students who enrolled in CCA and/or graduated from CCA from September 28, 2003 through October 8, 2008. The payment includes plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and certain expenses to be incurred in connection with the implementation of the settlement. During 2010, we recorded a charge of $40.8 million which represents our best estimate of the loss related to this matter. We disbursed $40.0 million during the first quarter of 2011, as required by the terms of the agreement.

The original deadline for filing claims and/or opting out of the settlement was June 6, 2011. Pursuant to a subsequent order, the Court required plaintiffs' counsel to provide a supplemental notice to those who had opted out by June 6, 2011. Following the supplemental notice, a total of 112 students opted out of the settlement. On April 18, 2012, the Court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement and on April 19, 2012, the court entered a final judgment on the settlement.

On June 3, 2011, the same attorneys representing the class in the Amador action filed a separate complaint in the San Francisco County Superior Court entitled Abarca v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al, on behalf of 115 individuals who are opt outs in the Amador action and/or non-class members, and therefore not subject to the Amador settlement. On June 15, 2011, the same attorneys filed another action in the San Francisco County Superior Court entitled Andrade, et al. v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al., on behalf of another 31 individuals who are opt outs in the Amador action and/or non-class members, and therefore not subject to the Amador settlement. On August 12, 2011, plaintiffs' counsel filed a third action on behalf of five individuals who opted out of or were not parties to the Amador settlement entitled Aprieto, et al. v. California Culinary Academy. None of these three suits are being prosecuted as a class action. They each allege the same claims as were previously alleged in the Amador action, plus claims for breach of contract and violations of the repealed California Education Code. The plaintiffs in these cases seek damages, including consequential damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. We have not responded to these three complaints, which have been related and transferred to the same judge who is handling the Amador case, because they have been stayed pending a ruling on the class settlement in the Amador action. Certain of the plaintiffs in these cases filed claims or received notice of the settlement and did not file claims, and therefore their individual claims will be barred. The Court held a status conference on these cases on May 3, 2012 and ordered that the cases continue to be stayed until a further status conference scheduled for July 17, 2012.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise as discovery and pre-trial proceedings progress, the outcome of the Abarca, Andrade and Aprieto legal proceedings is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a potential range of loss for these actions because these matters are in their early stages, and involve many unresolved issues of fact and law. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with these actions.

Lilley, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al. On February 11, 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, naming as defendants Career Education Corporation and Sanford-Brown College, Inc. Plaintiffs filed amended complaints on September 5, 2008 and September 24, 2010. The five plaintiffs named in the amended complaint are former students who attended a medical assistant program at Sanford-Brown College located in Collinsville, Illinois. The class is alleged to be all persons who enrolled in that program since July 1, 2003. The amended class action complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, for alleged unfair conduct and deceptive conduct under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, as well as common law claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent omission.

In the amended complaint filed on September 24, 2010, the plaintiffs allege that the school's enrollment agreements contained false and misleading information regarding placement statistics, job opportunities and salaries and that Admissions, Financial Aid and Career Services personnel used standardized materials that allegedly contained false and/or deceptive information. Plaintiffs also allege that the school misused a standardized admissions test to determine program placement when the test was not intended for that purpose; failed to provide allegedly statutorily required loan repayment information; and misrepresented the transferability of credits. Plaintiffs seek compensatory, treble and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of all tuition monies received from medical assistant students, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 20, 2010. On October 27, 2010 the Court granted defendants' motion with respect to plaintiffs' fraudulent omission claims. The Court denied the motion with respect to the statutory claims under the Private Schools Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the common law fraudulent misrepresentation claim.

By Order dated December 3, 2010, the Court certified a class consisting of all persons who attended SBC in Collinsville, Illinois and enrolled in the Medical Assisting Program during the period from July 1, 2003 through November 29, 2010. This class consists of approximately 2,300 members. Defendants filed a petition for leave to appeal the trial court's class certification order to the Fifth District Court of Appeals. On February 10, 2011, the Fifth District Court of Appeals granted defendants' petition for leave to appeal. Oral argument was heard on the appeal on October 4, 2011. While that appeal is pending, all proceedings in the Circuit Court are stayed.

Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation. On March 5, 2008, original named plaintiffs Shannon Gozzi and Megan Koehnen filed a complaint in Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege that Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries they may earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12, 2008. Shannon Gozzi subsequently withdrew as a named plaintiff and former named plaintiff Meghan Koehnen's claims have been dismissed. Jennifer Schuster became a plaintiff, and when Ms. Koehnen's claims were dismissed, she became the sole named plaintiff. The parties completed written discovery on class issues. 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.

Because Ms. Schuster was not a member of the certified class (she enrolled before March 5, 2006), plaintiff's counsel substituted in a new class representative for her in 2010 named Nathan Surrett pursuant to a stipulation among the parties which provided, among other things, that WCI retains the right to challenge whether the new class representative is adequate (with plaintiff retaining the burden of proof on that issue). Plaintiffs filed a Fifth Amended Complaint on December 7, 2010, which included individual and class allegations by Mr. Surrett. Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period expired on June 20, 2011. The class consists of approximately 2,330 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI.

The parties are currently engaged in merits discovery. WCI's motion to compel arbitration of plaintiffs' claims, for summary judgment and to decertify the class were denied by the Court. No trial date has been set.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already arisen, and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of damages and the number of class members who might be entitled to recover damages, if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action.

Vasquez, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation. On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in connection with the admissions process during the alleged class period. The alleged class is defined as including "all persons who purchased educational services from California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. ("CSCA"), or graduated from CSCA, within the limitations periods applicable to the herein alleged causes of action (including, without limitation, the period following the filing of the action)." Defendants successfully demurred to the constructive fraud claim and the Court has dismissed it. Defendants also successfully demurred to plaintiffs' claims based on alleged violations of California's former Educational Reform Act.

The plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint, in which they assert the same claims against us, but added claims against approximately 15 student lenders. The plaintiffs subsequently dismissed all of the student lenders.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and defendants filed an opposition on September 16, 2011. On March 6, 2012, the Court issued its order denying class certification.

Plaintiffs' counsel have filed eight separate but related "mass actions" entitled Banks, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court (by 316 individuals); Abrica v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court (by 373 individuals), Aguilar, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court (by 88 individuals), Alday v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles Superior Court (by 73 individuals), Ackerman, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court (by 27 individuals), Arechiga, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court (by 60 individuals), Anderson, et al., v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles County Superior Court (by 58 individuals) and Allen v. California School of Culinary Arts, Los Angeles Superior Court (by 12 individuals). All eight cases are being prosecuted on behalf of hundreds of individual former students. The allegations are the same as those asserted in the Vasquez class action case. The individual plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of tuition monies received, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. All of these cases have been deemed related to the Vasquez class action and therefore are pending before the same judge who is presiding over the Vasquez case.

All of the individual cases (other than the recently filed Allen case) were stayed pending the ruling on class certification in the Vasquez class action. On April 13, 2012, the Court conducted a status conference regarding further proceedings in the individual cases. The Court has ordered the parties to participate in limited discovery and meet and confer regarding motions to compel arbitration in the individual actions.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of these legal proceedings is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for these actions because our possible liability depends on an assessment of the appropriate measure of damages, if we were to be found liable and whether, in the case of the Vasquez action, a class is certified and, if so, the size of any such class. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with these actions.

False Claims Act

False Claims Act Lawsuit. 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. The case is captioned 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 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 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, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) and (2), 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. The discovery phase of the lawsuit is presently underway. On November 4, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss for a lack of jurisdiction, the claims related to incentive compensation and proof of graduation. Our motion to dismiss is pending.

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 loss for this action because the complaint does not seek a specified amount of damages and it is unclear how damages would be calculated. Moreover, the case presents novel legal issues and discovery is in its early stages. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation

Fahey, et al. v. Career Education Corporation; Rojas, et al. v. Career Education Corporation. On August 4, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, by Sheila Fahey alleging that she had received an unauthorized text message advertisement in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"). On September 3, 2010, we removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On November 22, 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss the Fahey case. That motion is still pending. The Court has stayed any further activity on the Fahey case until resolution of an appeal in the Seventh Circuit of a case involving issues similar to those raised in our motion to dismiss. The appeal has been resolved and we anticipate that the Court will lift the stay of proceedings in Fahey shortly and consolidate this case with the Rojas matter.

On August 18, 2010, the same counsel representing plaintiffs in the Fahey action filed a similar lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of Sergio Rojas alleging similar violations of the TCPA based on the same text messages. Rojas, like Fahey, sought class certification of his claims. The alleged classes are defined to include all persons who received unauthorized text message advertisements from the Company as part of the IADT test marketing campaign. Rojas and Fahey each seek an award trebling the statutory damages to the class members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

On March 14, 2012, we entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs' counsel resolving the claims asserted in both cases. Plaintiffs' counsel has until May 9, 2012 to submit its motion for preliminary approval of that settlement. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, we have agreed to pay $200 to each person who received the subject text message who can be identified and returns a valid claim form. The parties did not reach an agreement regarding the appropriate amount of legal fees to be paid to class counsel. As a result, the parties have agreed that this issue will be presented separately to the Court for hearing and resolution. Based upon the information available to us, we recorded a charge of $6.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 which represents our best estimate of the loss related to these matters.

Employment Litigation

Gonzalez, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al. On or about September 16, 2011, Karla Gonzalez and 19 other current and former employees of Southern California School of Culinary Arts, Ltd. ("SCSCA") who worked primarily as Admissions Representatives filed a complaint in California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, Northeast District (the "Gonzalez lawsuit"). The complaint names us, SCSCA, Le Cordon Bleu, Inc., Robert Woy, and Marie Guerrero as defendants. Mr. Woy is the former Vice President of Admissions at SCSCA, and Ms. Guerrero is the former Senior Director of Admissions at SCSCA. In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants (i) failed to pay them overtime and rest break compensation in violation of the California Labor Code; (ii) owe statutory penalties under the California Labor Code for unpaid wages; (iii) engaged in unfair competition and unfair business practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code relating to false time records and failure to pay wages owed; (iv) breached contracts by failing to pay bonuses for enrolling students; (v) engaged in unfair competition and unfair business practices in violation of the California Business and Professions Code by failing to report and intending to evade taxes; (vi) are responsible for statutory penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") for violations of various sections of the California Code; and (vii) committed fraud by failing to pay allegedly promised bonuses and by altering time records. In their PAGA claim, plaintiffs seek recovery of penalties for violations of various wage and hour provisions of the California Code on behalf of themselves and all other similar current and former employees in California. In a first amended complaint filed on or about December 15, 2011, plaintiffs dropped Mr. Woy and Ms. Guerrero as defendants without prejudice. The remaining defendants responded to the first amended complaint on or about January 18, 2012, denying all material allegations.

Following the answer to the first amended complaint, the parties had been engaged in discovery until the issue of possible additional amended claims arose in mid-February 2012. A second amended complaint was deemed to be filed on April 18, 2012. The second amended complaint adds the following additional claims on behalf of all plaintiffs: (viii) retaliation for complaining about alleged violations of wage and hour laws; (ix) failure to prevent retaliation; (x) violation of public policy relating to retaliation; (xi) harassment/hostile work environment allegedly created in response to complaints about violations of wage and hour laws and refusal to violate such laws; (xii) failure to prevent harassment/hostile work environment; (xiii) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (xiv) negligent infliction of emotional distress. These new claims are alleged against each of the corporate defendants against whom counts (i) – (vii) are pending, and also against Mr. Woy. At a status conference on April 18, 2012, defendants stated their intention to file a demurrer to the second amended complaint. The Court set a hearing for May 24, 2012 on the anticipated demurrer.

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 potential range of loss for this action because these matters are in their early stages, and involve many unresolved issues of fact and law. Accordingly, we have not yet recognized any liability associated with this action.

Wilson, et al. v. Career Education Corporation. On or about August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former Admissions Representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the United States 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 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 November 25, 2011, Wilson moved for class certification and appointment of class counsel, but briefing on that issue and all discovery were stayed pending a decision on the motion to dismiss. 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. Plaintiff has until May 10, 2012 to move for leave to file an amended complaint.

Because plaintiff is permitted to move for leave to file an amended complaint, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a potential range of loss 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, suits and investigations that arise from time to time in the ordinary conduct of our business, including, but not limited to, claims involving students or graduates and routine employment matters. While we currently believe that such claims, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial position, cash flows or results of operations, the litigation and other claims noted above 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 Company received from the Attorney General of the State of New York ("NYAG") a Subpoena Duces Tecum dated May 17, 2011 (the "Subpoena"), relating to the NYAG's investigation of whether the Company and certain of its schools have complied with certain New York state consumer protection, securities, finance and other laws. Pursuant to the Subpoena, the NYAG has requested from the Company and certain of its schools documents and detailed information on a broad spectrum of business practices, including such areas as marketing and advertising, student recruitment and admissions, education financing, training and compensation of admissions and financial aid personnel, programmatic accreditation, student employment outcomes, placement rates of graduates and other disclosures made to students. The documents and information sought by the NYAG in connection with its investigation cover the time period from May 17, 2005 to the present. As previously disclosed, at the direction of the Company's Board of Directors, an independent internal investigation was conducted into the determination of placement rates at the Company's Health Education segment schools as well as a review of such practices at all of its other domestic schools. The Company has reported the results of this investigation to the NYAG as they relate to the Company's New York-based ground schools. The Company continues to cooperate with the NYAG with a view towards resolving this inquiry as promptly as possible.

The Florida campuses of Sanford-Brown Institute received a notice on November 5, 2010 from the State of Florida Office of the Attorney General that it has commenced an investigation into possible unfair and deceptive trade practices at these schools. The notice includes a subpoena to produce documents and detailed information for the time period from January 1, 2007 to the present about a broad spectrum of business practices at such schools. The Florida Attorney General's website indicates that the Attorney General is conducting similar investigations of several other postsecondary education companies operating schools located in Florida. The Florida campuses of Sanford-Brown Institute have responded to the subpoena and continue to cooperate with the Florida Attorney General with a view towards resolving this inquiry as promptly as possible.

The Company received from the Attorney General of the State of Illinois ("IL AG") a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") dated December 9, 2011. The CID relates to the IL AG's investigation of whether the Company and its schools operating in Illinois have complied with certain Illinois state consumer protection laws. Pursuant to the CID, the IL AG has requested from the Company and its schools documents and detailed information on a broad spectrum of business practices, including such areas as marketing and advertising, student recruitment and admissions, education financing, training and compensation of admissions and financial aid personnel, programmatic accreditation, student employment outcomes, placement rates of graduates and other financial and organizational information. The documents and information sought by the IL AG in connection with its investigation cover the time period from January 1, 2006 to the present. The Company is cooperating with the IL AG's office with a view towards resolving this inquiry as promptly as possible.

The Company received from the Department of Justice of the State of Oregon ("OR DOJ") an Investigative Demand ("ID") dated January 3, 2012. The ID relates to the OR DOJ's investigation of whether the Company and AIU operating in Oregon have complied with certain Oregon state consumer protection laws. Pursuant to the ID, the OR DOJ has requested from the Company and AIU documents and detailed information on a broad spectrum of business practices, including such areas as consumer practices, accreditation, advertisements, recruitment, enrollment and admission of students, financial aid, records of discrimination complaints, academic performance, certain degree programs, and student disclosures. The documents and information sought by the OR DOJ in connection with its investigation cover the time period from January 1, 2004 to the present. The Company is cooperating with the OR DOJ's office with a view towards resolving this inquiry as promptly as possible.

The Company cannot predict the scope, duration or outcome of these investigations. At the conclusion 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 or curtail or modify their operations. Other state attorneys general may also initiate inquiries into the Company or its schools. If any of the foregoing occurs, the Company's 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.

Accrediting Body and State and Federal Regulatory Matters

Placement Determination Practices Related Inquiries

On November 14, 2011, the Company received a letter from the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools ("ACICS") directing the Company, on behalf of certain of its ACICS-accredited institutions in the Health Education and Art & Design segments, to show-cause at ACICS' December 2011 meeting. The show-cause directive related to the adequacy of the administrative practices and controls relative to the Company's determination of job placement rates prior to reporting of those rates to ACICS. CEC representatives appeared before ACICS on December 7, 2011 and reviewed, among other things, the procedures the Company implemented to ensure the accurate determination and reporting of placement rates.

On December 13, 2011, ACICS advised the Company that it decided to defer further action on its show-cause directive until its next regularly scheduled meeting in April 2012. The directive applied to all 71 CEC campuses accredited by ACICS. ACICS acknowledged the efforts CEC had implemented to address concerns related to the verification of placement data, but sought confirmation that the efforts would be continued for a sustained period of time and would be implemented at all campuses accredited by the agency. ACICS requested that the company provide certain additional information to ACICS in advance of the April 2012 meeting, which the Company provided, and CEC representatives appeared before ACICS on April 19, 2012 to discuss the information. On May 3, 2012, the Company received notification from ACICS that ACICS acted at its April 20, 2012 meeting to immediately vacate the show-cause directive applicable to all 71 CEC campuses accredited by ACICS.

At the meeting ACICS reviewed information it had requested of the Company regarding the annual placement rates for the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, which included the results of placement re-verifications by an independent third party. Based on ACICS' interpretation of this information, 24 additional ACICS accredited campuses fell below ACICS's 65% placement rate standard and are subject to increased levels of accreditation oversight, joining the 36 campuses already subject to this additional oversight. This oversight includes, depending on the degree such campuses fell below the 65% placement rate standard, more detailed or frequent reporting requirements, a placement improvement plan, attendance by campus career service personnel at periodic workshops, additional requirements for new program and location approvals or on-site evaluations.

Four of these campuses, Sanford-Brown College – Indianapolis, Sanford-Brown College – Milwaukee, Sanford-Brown Institute – Landover and the online campus of IADT, were placed on probation status due to placement rates at or below 40% for the period from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. These four campuses in the aggregate contributed approximately 3.6% of the Company's 2011 consolidated revenue. Campuses on probation remain accredited. An institution is obligated to demonstrate to ACICS that the conditions or circumstances which led to the imposition of probation have been corrected before probation will be lifted, in this case meaning an increase in placement rates to a level acceptable to ACICS.

The Company is taking steps to improve placement rates at all of its campuses and will continue to review, on a program-by-program basis, placement activities at all of its campuses. As previously disclosed, the Company is also capping new enrollments into certain programs and will teach out programs where appropriate.

The Company has responded to requests for additional information and updates pertaining to this matter that it has received from the Department of Education ("ED"), state regulators and other programmatic and institutional accreditors. We cannot predict the outcome of these requests, and any unfavorable outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

Other Matters

On November 28, 2011, Brown College – Mendota Heights received a show-cause directive from its primary institutional accreditor, Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges ("ACCSC"), related to student achievement. Brown College submitted its response to the show-cause directive on February 6, 2012 that will be considered at the ACCSC commission meeting in May 2012.

In June 2011, Briarcliffe College's accrediting agency, Middle States Commission on Higher Education ("Middle States"), took action to continue the school's accreditation for a period not to exceed one year. Briarcliffe has advised Middle States of the NYAG investigation and our investigation into our determination of reported student placement rates. As directed, Briarcliffe submitted a Monitoring Report to Middle States on March 1, 2012 to provide a status update on the NYAG investigation and also hosted a Middle States visit on April 13, 2012 focused on areas raised in the NYAG subpoena. The visiting team affirmed that Briarcliffe continued to meet the requirements of affiliation and standards of accreditation that were under review. The recommendations and findings of the visiting team are not binding on Middle States and it is expected to reach a decision on Briarcliffe's re-accreditation at its next scheduled meeting in June 2012.

Due to their participation in Title IV Programs, our schools and universities are subject to periodic program reviews by ED for the purpose of evaluating an institution's compliance with Title IV Program requirements, identifying any liabilities to ED caused by errors in compliance, and improving future institutional capabilities.

ED conducted a program review of AIU in November 2009. On July 14, 2010, AIU received a copy of ED's program review report, which is a preliminary report of ED's findings from its program review. The Program Review Report identified six findings, two of which were deemed to be systemic findings by ED's program review team. These two findings relate to AIU's policy for determining student attendance in online courses for purposes of determining such students' enrollment status, withdrawal dates and associated timing respecting the return of unearned Title IV Program funds. AIU disagrees with these two findings and is contesting the program review team's proposed determination of what constitutes appropriate documentation or verification of online academic activity. The remaining four findings were isolated and generally relate to processing errors. We believe the amounts involved in these four findings are immaterial. AIU submitted its response to ED's program review report on November 29, 2010 and is awaiting ED's issuance of a Final Program Review Determination letter that will specify any required corrective action and amounts owed to ED, if any.

An ED program review report for Gibbs College—Livingston, NJ (school closed) and a final determination letter for Katharine Gibbs School—New York, NY (school closed) are currently pending. The program review report and/or final determination letter will, generally, cover a school's main campus and any branch campuses. We are committed to resolving all issues identified in connection with these program reviews to ED's satisfaction and ensuring that our schools operate in compliance with all ED regulations.

Our schools and universities are also subject to periodic audits by various regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Inspector General ("OIG"). The OIG audit services division commenced a compliance audit of CTU in June 2010, covering the period July 5, 2009 to May 16, 2010, to determine whether CTU had policies and procedures to ensure that CTU administered Title IV Program and other federal program funds in accordance with applicable federal law and regulation. On January 13, 2012, the OIG issued a draft report identifying three findings, including one regarding the documentation of attendance of students enrolled in online programs and one regarding the calculation of returns of Title IV Program funds arising from student withdrawals without official notice to the institution. CTU submitted a written response to the OIG, contesting these findings, on March 2, 2012. The OIG report, along with CTU's response, will be forwarded to ED's Office of Federal Student Aid which will make an independent assessment of what further action, if any, is warranted.

In August 2011, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA"), through its Denver Regional Office ("VA Regional Office"), conducted a compliance survey at the Colorado Springs campus of CTU. While the VA Regional Office has not yet issued a report respecting its findings, at an exit conference held on August 9, 2011, the VA Regional Office informed CTU that it had identified certain students for whom it believed CTU had incorrectly certified the monthly housing allowance ("MHA") provided pursuant to the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act ("Post-9/11 GI Bill"). While CTU believes the position of the VA Regional Office is based on a difference in interpretation of applicable provisions of law, CTU is working with the VA to ensure that students entitled to benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill will not be adversely impacted or held responsible for any adjustments that are made respecting the MHA. Based on information currently available to us, we estimate potential reimbursements by CTU of approximately $5.0 million. Accordingly, we accrued $5.0 million in 2011 as an estimate for the reasonably possible settlement of this matter. At this time, the review of the Colorado Springs campus is still underway. The VA has also initiated compliance survey reviews at other CTU ground campuses, including Denver, Kansas City and Sioux Falls, as well as CTU Online. The VA has not conducted exit conferences or issued reports on these additional compliance surveys.

We cannot predict the outcome of these matters, and any unfavorable outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial position.