Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	7. CONTINGENCIES An accrual for estimated legal fees and settlements of $3.1 million and $34.5 million at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, is presented within other current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheets. We record a liability when we believe that it is both probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. We evaluate, at least quarterly, developments in our legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that was previously accrued, and make adjustments as appropriate. Significant judgment is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount. We may be unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss due to various reasons, including, among others: (1) if the damages sought are indeterminate; (2) if the proceedings are in early stages; (3) if there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals, motions, or settlements; (4) if there are significant factual issues to be determined or resolved; and (5) if there are novel or unsettled legal theories presented. In such instances, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss, if any. Litigation We are, or were, a party to the following legal proceedings that we consider to be outside the scope of ordinary routine litigation incidental to our business. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these matters. An unfavorable outcome of any one or more of these matters could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial position. Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation. On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. (“WCI”) and the Company as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (“UTPA”) and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs alleged WCI made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI’s placement statistics, students’ employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries they could expect to earn after graduation. On January 21, 2016, the Oregon appellate court reversed an earlier circuit court denying a motion to compel arbitration and held that the claims by the 1,062 individual class members should be compelled to arbitration. We are waiting for the circuit court to enter an order compelling these claims to arbitration. On January 31, 2017, the circuit court ruled on various pending motions which resulted in the decertification of a class of individuals that had previously been certified in 2010 and granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended putative class complaint which, among other allegations, adds misrepresentation claims based on diminished value. The circuit court also granted plaintiff’s motion to add a claim for punitive damages. If class certification is granted, the size of the class would depend on the scope certified by the court but could consist of up to 1,275 members. 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. United States of America, ex rel. Ann Marie Rega v. Career Education Corporation, et al. On May 16, 2014, relator Ann Marie Rega, a former employee of Sanford-Brown Iselin, filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and almost all of the Company’s individual schools on behalf of herself and the federal government. She alleges claims under the False Claims Act, including that the defendants allegedly provided false certifications to the federal government regarding compliance with certain provisions of the Higher Education Act and accreditation standards. The plaintiff (or “relator”) claims that defendants’ conduct caused the government to pay federal funds to defendants, and to make payments to third-party lenders, which the government would not have made if not for defendants’ alleged violation of the law. Relator seeks treble damages plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. Relator failed to comply with the statutory requirement that all False Claims Act cases be filed under seal. On June 16, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice as to relator for failure to file her complaint under seal in accordance with the requirements of the False Claims Act. The Company was contacted by the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) with a request for certain documents and information relating to relator’s claims. The Company is cooperating with the DOJ and provided the requested information in September 2016. We have received no further inquiries from the DOJ since then. Because it is in the early stages and because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because the complaint does not seek a specified amount of damages and it is unclear how damages would be calculated, if we were to be found liable. Moreover, the case presents novel legal issues. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action. United States of America, ex rel. Melissa Simms Powell, et al. v. American InterContinental University, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Career Education Corp., a Delaware Corporation and John Doe Nos. 1-100. On July 28, 2009, we were served with a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. This action by four relators alleged violations of the False Claims Act. The United States had declined to intervene in the lawsuit, which was pursued by relators as a qui tam action on behalf of the government. On February 15, 2017, we entered into a settlement agreement with relators pursuant to which the Company paid $10 million to the United States. The agreement expressly recognizes that, by entering into the agreement, the Company is not admitting to any violations of law or liability with respect to the action and that the Company maintains it acted at all times in compliance with laws and regulations. On February 16, 2017, the United States filed its consent to dismissal of the action with prejudice for the period from December 2007 through May 2009. On February 16, 2017 the case was dismissed with prejudice as to the United States as described and with prejudice as the relators in its entirety. As a result of the settlement, the action has been fully resolved. The settlement enabled the Company to resolve disputed claims without the costs, disruption, uncertainty and expense of further litigation. Further, by eliminating the distraction caused by this lawsuit, the Company’s management can provide more attention to the Company’s core operations and its goal of enhancing retention and outcomes for our students. On February 15, 2017, in addition to the settlement described above, the Company entered into a separate settlement agreement with relators for relators’ claims for attorneys’ fees and costs under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(2). Under the terms of this agreement the Company paid $22 million to the attorneys representing relators. This settlement agreement resolved all claims by relators for their attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with the action. The Company had reserved $32.0 million for these settlements as of December 31, 2016. These amounts were subsequently paid during the first quarter of 2017. Other Litigation. In addition to the legal proceedings and other matters described above, we are also subject to a variety of other claims, lawsuits, arbitrations and investigations that arise from time to time out of the conduct of our business, including, but not limited to, matters involving prospective students, students or graduates, alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, both individually and on behalf of a putative class, and routine employment matters. While we currently believe that such claims, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial position, cash flows or results of operations, these other matters are subject to inherent uncertainties, and management’s view of these matters may change in the future. Were an unfavorable final outcome to occur in any one or more of these matters, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, reputation, financial position, cash flows and the results of operations for the period in which the effect becomes probable and reasonably estimable. State Investigations The Attorney General of Connecticut is serving as the point of contact for inquiries received from the attorneys general of the following: Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington (January 24, 2014); Illinois (December 9, 2011); Tennessee (February 7, 2014); Hawaii (May 28, 2014 ); New Mexico (May 2014); Maryland (March 16, 2015); and the District of Columbia (June 3, 2015) (these 18 attorneys general are collectively referred to as the “Multi-State AGs”). In addition, the Company has received inquiries from the attorneys general of Florida (November 5, 2010), Massachusetts (September 27, 2012), Colorado (August 27, 2013) and Minnesota (September 18, 2014, October 25, 2016). The inquiries are civil investigative demands or subpoenas which relate to the investigation by the attorneys general of whether the Company and its schools have complied with certain state consumer protection laws, and generally focus on the Company's practices relating to the recruitment of students, graduate placement statistics, graduate certification and licensing results and student lending activities, among other matters. Depending on the state, the documents and information sought by the attorneys general in connection with their investigations cover time periods as early as 2006 to the present. The Company continues to cooperate with the states involved with a view towards resolving these inquiries as promptly as possible. In this regard, the Company has participated in several meetings with representatives of the Multi-State AGs about the Company’s business and to engage in a dialogue towards a resolution of these inquiries. We cannot predict the scope, duration or outcome of these attorneys general investigations. At the conclusion of any of these matters, the Company or certain of its schools may be subject to claims of failure to comply with state laws or regulations and may be required to pay significant financial penalties and/or curtail or modify their operations. Other state attorneys general may also initiate inquiries into the Company or its schools. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential monetary or non-monetary impact these investigations might have on the Company because it is uncertain what remedies, if any, these regulators might ultimately seek in connection with these investigations. In addition to the aforementioned inquiries, from time to time, we receive informal requests from state attorneys general and other government agencies relating to specific complaints they have received from students or former students which seek information about the student, our programs, and other matters relating to our activities in the relevant state. These requests can be broad and time consuming to respond to, and there is a risk that they could expand and/or lead to a formal inquiry or investigation into our practices in a particular state. Federal Trade Commission Inquiry On August 20, 2015, the Company received a request for information pursuant to a Civil Investigative Demand from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). The request was made pursuant to a November 2013 resolution by the FTC directing an investigation to determine whether unnamed persons, partnerships, corporations, or others have engaged or are engaging in deceptive or unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in the advertising, marketing or sale of secondary or postsecondary educational products or services, or educational accreditation products or services. The information request requires the Company to provide documents and information regarding a broad spectrum of the business and practices of its subsidiaries and institutions for the time period of January 1, 2010 to the present. The Company is cooperating with the FTC with a view towards resolving these inquiries as promptly as possible. Because the FTC inquiry is in the early stages and because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, we cannot predict the outcome of the inquiry. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential monetary or non-monetary impact this inquiry might have on the Company because it is uncertain what remedies, if any, the FTC might ultimately seek in connection with this inquiry. SEC Inquiry On June 21, 2016, the Company received a request for documents and information from the Denver Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) regarding the Company’s fourth quarter 2014 classification of the Company’s Le Cordon Bleu Culinary Arts campuses as held for sale within discontinued operations, subsequent sales process and CEC’s related public disclosures. The Company responded to the SEC’s request on July 6, 2016 and has had no further communication with the SEC on this matter. Given the passage of time, it is not clear what additional requests or action, if any, may be undertaken by the SEC. Should the SEC have further inquiries in this regard, we cannot predict the outcome or estimate the nature or amount of possible remedies, if any, that the SEC might ultimately seek in connection with this matter. Regulatory Matters ED Inquiry and HCM1 Status In December 2011, the U.S. Department of Education (“ED”) advised the Company that it is conducting an inquiry concerning possible violations of ED misrepresentation regulations related to placement rates reported by certain of the Company’s institutions to accrediting bodies, students and potential students. This inquiry stems from the Company’s self-reporting to ED of its internal investigation into student placement determination practices at the Company’s previous Health Education segment campuses and review of placement determination practices at all of the Company’s other domestic campuses in 2011. The Company has been cooperating with ED in connection with this inquiry. If ED determines that the Company or any of its institutions violated ED misrepresentation regulations with regard to the publication or reporting of placement rates or other disclosures to students or prospective students or finds any other basis in the materials we are providing, ED may revoke, limit, suspend, delay or deny the institution’s or all of the Company’s institutions’ Title IV eligibility, or impose fines. In addition, all of the Company’s institutions were issued provisional program participation agreements in May 2016 and this inquiry as well as other matters were cited as bases for that decision. Our ACICS-accredited institutions all have provisional program participation agreements that extend through the duration of their respective closure dates. Each of our remaining institutions applied for recertification by September 30, 2016 in order to continue eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs on a month-to-month basis while ED processes their applications. We cannot predict whether, or to what extent, ED’s inquiry might impact the recertification process for the institutions operating with a month-to-month approval. In December 2011, ED also moved all of the Company’s institutions from the “advance” method of payment of Title IV Program funds to cash monitoring status (referred to as Heightened Cash Monitoring 1, or HCM1, status). If ED finds violations of the Higher Education Act or related regulations, ED may impose monetary or program level sanctions, impose some period of delay in the Company’s receipt of Title IV funds or transfer the Company’s schools to the “reimbursement” or Heightened Cash Monitoring 2 (“HCM2”) methods of payment of Title IV Program funds. While on HCM2 status, an institution must disburse its own funds to students, document the students’ eligibility for Title IV Program funds and comply with certain waiting period requirements before receiving such funds from ED, which may result in a delay in receiving those funds. The process of re-establishing a regular schedule of cash receipts for the Title IV Program funds if ED places our schools on “reimbursement” or HCM2 payment status could take several months, and would require us to fund ongoing operations substantially out of existing cash balances. If our existing cash balances are insufficient to sustain us through this transition period, we would need to pursue other sources of liquidity, which may not be available or may be costly. OIG Audit Our schools and universities are subject to periodic audits by various regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Inspector General ("OIG"). The OIG audit services division commenced a compliance audit of CTU in June 2010, covering the period July 5, 2009 to May 16, 2010 (the “Audit Period”), to determine whether CTU had policies and procedures to ensure that CTU administered Title IV Program and other federal program funds in accordance with applicable federal law and regulation. On January 13, 2012, the OIG issued a draft report identifying three findings, including one regarding the documentation of attendance of students enrolled in online programs and one regarding the calculation of returns of Title IV Program funds arising from student withdrawals without official notice to the institution. CTU submitted a written response to the OIG, contesting these findings, on March 2, 2012. CTU disagreed with the OIG's proposed determination of what constitutes appropriate documentation or verification of online academic activity during the time period covered by the audit. CTU's response asserted that this finding was based on the retroactive application of standards adopted as part of the program integrity regulations that first went into effect on July 1, 2011. The OIG final report, along with CTU's response to the draft report, was forwarded to ED's Office of Federal Student Aid on September 21, 2012. On October 24, 2012, CTU provided a further response challenging the findings of the report directly to ED's Office of Federal Student Aid. As a result of ED’s review of these materials, on January 31, 2013, CTU received a request from ED that it perform two file reviews covering the Audit Period to determine potential liability on two discrete issues associated with one of the above findings. The first file review relates to any potential aid awarded to students who engaged in virtual classroom attendance activities prior to the official start date of a course and for which no further attendance was registered during the official class term. The second file review relates to students that were awarded and paid Pell funds for enrollment in two concurrent courses, while only registering attendance in one of the two courses. The Company completed these file reviews and provided supporting documentation to ED on April 10, 2013. On April 29, 2016, ED directed CTU to perform these same two file reviews for an additional time period that extended from the end of the Audit Period through June 30, 2011, which CTU has completed and submitted to ED. On April 29, 2016, ED also requested an additional file review related to whether CTU appropriately performed calculations regarding any required return of Title IV Program funds for students that failed to earn passing grades within a term. This additional file review covers the period from July 5, 2009 to June 30, 2011 and is a review of whether students should be deemed to have unofficially withdrawn from the institution based on each student’s last known academically-related activity. CTU is seeking reconsideration of the request for this additional file review. In a May 2016 semi-annual OIG update to Congress, the OIG noted that it and ED’s Office of Federal Student Aid have been unable to agree on the appropriate resolution of this audit and ED had planned to refer the matter to the Department’s Audit Follow-up Official for dispute resolution. As of March 31, 2017, the Company has a $1.0 million reserve recorded related to this matter. This reserve does not include any amount relating to the additional file review requested by ED on April 29, 2016 because it is uncertain.

7. CONTINGENCIES

An accrual for estimated legal fees and settlements of $3.1 million and $34.5 million at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, is presented within other current liabilities on our condensed consolidated balance sheets.

We record a liability when we believe that it is both probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. We evaluate, at least quarterly, developments in our legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that was previously accrued, and make adjustments as appropriate. Significant judgment is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount. We may be unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss due to various reasons, including, among others: (1) if the damages sought are indeterminate; (2) if the proceedings are in early stages; (3) if there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals, motions, or settlements; (4) if there are significant factual issues to be determined or resolved; and (5) if there are novel or unsettled legal theories presented. In such instances, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss, if any.

Litigation

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

Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation. On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. (“WCI”) and the Company as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (“UTPA”) and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs alleged WCI made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI’s placement statistics, students’ employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries they could expect to earn after graduation. On January 21, 2016, the Oregon appellate court reversed an earlier circuit court denying a motion to compel arbitration and held that the claims by the 1,062 individual class members should be compelled to arbitration. We are waiting for the circuit court to enter an order compelling these claims to arbitration. On January 31, 2017, the circuit court ruled on various pending motions which resulted in the decertification of a class of individuals that had previously been certified in 2010 and granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended putative class complaint which, among other allegations, adds misrepresentation claims based on diminished value. The circuit court also granted plaintiff’s motion to add a claim for punitive damages. If class certification is granted, the size of the class would depend on the scope certified by the court but could consist of up to 1,275 members.

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.

United States of America, ex rel. Ann Marie Rega v. Career Education Corporation, et al. On May 16, 2014, relator Ann Marie Rega, a former employee of Sanford-Brown Iselin, filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and almost all of the Company’s individual schools on behalf of herself and the federal government. She alleges claims under the False Claims Act, including that the defendants allegedly provided false certifications to the federal government regarding compliance with certain provisions of the Higher Education Act and accreditation standards. The plaintiff (or “relator”) claims that defendants’ conduct caused the government to pay federal funds to defendants, and to make payments to third-party lenders, which the government would not have made if not for defendants’ alleged violation of the law. Relator seeks treble damages plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. Relator failed to comply with the statutory requirement that all False Claims Act cases be filed under seal. On June 16, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice as to relator for failure to file her complaint under seal in accordance with the requirements of the False Claims Act.

The Company was contacted by the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) with a request for certain documents and information relating to relator’s claims. The Company is cooperating with the DOJ and provided the requested information in September 2016. We have received no further inquiries from the DOJ since then.

Because it is in the early stages and because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because the complaint does not seek a specified amount of damages and it is unclear how damages would be calculated, if we were to be found liable. Moreover, the case presents novel legal issues. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action.

United States of America, ex rel. Melissa Simms Powell, et al. v. American InterContinental University, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Career Education Corp., a Delaware Corporation and John Doe Nos. 1-100. On July 28, 2009, we were served with a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. This action by four relators alleged violations of the False Claims Act. The United States had declined to intervene in the lawsuit, which was pursued by relators as a qui tam action on behalf of the government.

On February 15, 2017, we entered into a settlement agreement with relators pursuant to which the Company paid $10 million to the United States. The agreement expressly recognizes that, by entering into the agreement, the Company is not admitting to any violations of law or liability with respect to the action and that the Company maintains it acted at all times in compliance with laws and regulations. On February 16, 2017, the United States filed its consent to dismissal of the action with prejudice for the period from December 2007 through May 2009. On February 16, 2017 the case was dismissed with prejudice as to the United States as described and with prejudice as the relators in its entirety. As a result of the settlement, the action has been fully resolved. The settlement enabled the Company to resolve disputed claims without the costs, disruption, uncertainty and expense of further litigation. Further, by eliminating the distraction caused by this lawsuit, the Company’s management can provide more attention to the Company’s core operations and its goal of enhancing retention and outcomes for our students.

On February 15, 2017, in addition to the settlement described above, the Company entered into a separate settlement agreement with relators for relators’ claims for attorneys’ fees and costs under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(2). Under the terms of this agreement the Company paid $22 million to the attorneys representing relators. This settlement agreement resolved all claims by relators for their attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with the action.

The Company had reserved $32.0 million for these settlements as of December 31, 2016. These amounts were subsequently paid during the first quarter of 2017.

Other Litigation. In addition to the legal proceedings and other matters described above, we are also subject to a variety of other claims, lawsuits, arbitrations and investigations that arise from time to time out of the conduct of our business, including, but not limited to, matters involving prospective students, students or graduates, alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, both individually and on behalf of a putative class, and routine employment matters. While we currently believe that such claims, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial position, cash flows or results of operations, these other matters are subject to inherent uncertainties, and management’s view of these matters may change in the future. Were an unfavorable final outcome to occur in any one or more of these matters, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, reputation, financial position, cash flows and the results of operations for the period in which the effect becomes probable and reasonably estimable.

State Investigations

The Attorney General of Connecticut is serving as the point of contact for inquiries received from the attorneys general of the following: Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington (January 24, 2014); Illinois (December 9, 2011); Tennessee (February 7, 2014); Hawaii (May 28, 2014 ); New Mexico (May 2014); Maryland (March 16, 2015); and the District of Columbia (June 3, 2015) (these 18 attorneys general are collectively referred to as the “Multi-State AGs”). In addition, the Company has received inquiries from the attorneys general of Florida (November 5, 2010), Massachusetts (September 27, 2012), Colorado (August 27, 2013) and Minnesota (September 18, 2014, October 25, 2016). The inquiries are civil investigative demands or subpoenas which relate to the investigation by the attorneys general of whether the Company and its schools have complied with certain state consumer protection laws, and generally focus on the Company's practices relating to the recruitment of students, graduate placement statistics, graduate certification and licensing results and student lending activities, among other matters. Depending on the state, the documents and information sought by the attorneys general in connection with their investigations cover time periods as early as 2006 to the present. The Company continues to cooperate with the states involved with a view towards resolving these inquiries as promptly as possible. In this regard, the Company has participated in several meetings with representatives of the Multi-State AGs about the Company’s business and to engage in a dialogue towards a resolution of these inquiries.

We cannot predict the scope, duration or outcome of these attorneys general investigations. At the conclusion of any of these matters, the Company or certain of its schools may be subject to claims of failure to comply with state laws or regulations and may be required to pay significant financial penalties and/or curtail or modify their operations. Other state attorneys general may also initiate inquiries into the Company or its schools. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential monetary or non-monetary impact these investigations might have on the Company because it is uncertain what remedies, if any, these regulators might ultimately seek in connection with these investigations.

In addition to the aforementioned inquiries, from time to time, we receive informal requests from state attorneys general and other government agencies relating to specific complaints they have received from students or former students which seek information about the student, our programs, and other matters relating to our activities in the relevant state. These requests can be broad and time consuming to respond to, and there is a risk that they could expand and/or lead to a formal inquiry or investigation into our practices in a particular state.

Federal Trade Commission Inquiry

On August 20, 2015, the Company received a request for information pursuant to a Civil Investigative Demand from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). The request was made pursuant to a November 2013 resolution by the FTC directing an investigation to determine whether unnamed persons, partnerships, corporations, or others have engaged or are engaging in deceptive or unfair acts or practices in or affecting commerce in the advertising, marketing or sale of secondary or postsecondary educational products or services, or educational accreditation products or services. The information request requires the Company to provide documents and information regarding a broad spectrum of the business and practices of its subsidiaries and institutions for the time period of January 1, 2010 to the present. The Company is cooperating with the FTC with a view towards resolving these inquiries as promptly as possible.

Because the FTC inquiry is in the early stages and because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, we cannot predict the outcome of the inquiry. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential monetary or non-monetary impact this inquiry might have on the Company because it is uncertain what remedies, if any, the FTC might ultimately seek in connection with this inquiry.

SEC Inquiry

On June 21, 2016, the Company received a request for documents and information from the Denver Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) regarding the Company’s fourth quarter 2014 classification of the Company’s Le Cordon Bleu Culinary Arts campuses as held for sale within discontinued operations, subsequent sales process and CEC’s related public disclosures. The Company responded to the SEC’s request on July 6, 2016 and has had no further communication with the SEC on this matter. Given the passage of time, it is not clear what additional requests or action, if any, may be undertaken by the SEC. Should the SEC have further inquiries in this regard, we cannot predict the outcome or estimate the nature or amount of possible remedies, if any, that the SEC might ultimately seek in connection with this matter.

Regulatory Matters

ED Inquiry and HCM1 Status

In December 2011, the U.S. Department of Education (“ED”) advised the Company that it is conducting an inquiry concerning possible violations of ED misrepresentation regulations related to placement rates reported by certain of the Company’s institutions to accrediting bodies, students and potential students. This inquiry stems from the Company’s self-reporting to ED of its internal investigation into student placement determination practices at the Company’s previous Health Education segment campuses and review of placement determination practices at all of the Company’s other domestic campuses in 2011. The Company has been cooperating with ED in connection with this inquiry. If ED determines that the Company or any of its institutions violated ED misrepresentation regulations with regard to the publication or reporting of placement rates or other disclosures to students or prospective students or finds any other basis in the materials we are providing, ED may revoke, limit, suspend, delay or deny the institution’s or all of the Company’s institutions’ Title IV eligibility, or impose fines. In addition, all of the Company’s institutions were issued provisional program participation agreements in May 2016 and this inquiry as well as other matters were cited as bases for that decision. Our ACICS-accredited institutions all have provisional program participation agreements that extend through the duration of their respective closure dates. Each of our remaining institutions applied for recertification by September 30, 2016 in order to continue eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs on a month-to-month basis while ED processes their applications. We cannot predict whether, or to what extent, ED’s inquiry might impact the recertification process for the institutions operating with a month-to-month approval.

In December 2011, ED also moved all of the Company’s institutions from the “advance” method of payment of Title IV Program funds to cash monitoring status (referred to as Heightened Cash Monitoring 1, or HCM1, status). If ED finds violations of the Higher Education Act or related regulations, ED may impose monetary or program level sanctions, impose some period of delay in the Company’s receipt of Title IV funds or transfer the Company’s schools to the “reimbursement” or Heightened Cash Monitoring 2 (“HCM2”) methods of payment of Title IV Program funds. While on HCM2 status, an institution must disburse its own funds to students, document the students’ eligibility for Title IV Program funds and comply with certain waiting period requirements before receiving such funds from ED, which may result in a delay in receiving those funds. The process of re-establishing a regular schedule of cash receipts for the Title IV Program funds if ED places our schools on “reimbursement” or HCM2 payment status could take several months, and would require us to fund ongoing operations substantially out of existing cash balances. If our existing cash balances are insufficient to sustain us through this transition period, we would need to pursue other sources of liquidity, which may not be available or may be costly.

OIG Audit

Our schools and universities are subject to periodic audits by various regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Inspector General ("OIG"). The OIG audit services division commenced a compliance audit of CTU in June 2010, covering the period July 5, 2009 to May 16, 2010 (the “Audit Period”), to determine whether CTU had policies and procedures to ensure that CTU administered Title IV Program and other federal program funds in accordance with applicable federal law and regulation. On January 13, 2012, the OIG issued a draft report identifying three findings, including one regarding the documentation of attendance of students enrolled in online programs and one regarding the calculation of returns of Title IV Program funds arising from student withdrawals without official notice to the institution. CTU submitted a written response to the OIG, contesting these findings, on March 2, 2012. CTU disagreed with the OIG's proposed determination of what constitutes appropriate documentation or verification of online academic activity during the time period covered by the audit. CTU's response asserted that this finding was based on the retroactive application of standards adopted as part of the program integrity regulations that first went into effect on July 1, 2011. The OIG final report, along with CTU's response to the draft report, was forwarded to ED's Office of Federal Student Aid on September 21, 2012. On October 24, 2012, CTU provided a further response challenging the findings of the report directly to ED's Office of Federal Student Aid. As a result of ED’s review of these materials, on January 31, 2013, CTU received a request from ED that it perform two file reviews covering the Audit Period to determine potential liability on two discrete issues associated with one of the above findings. The first file review relates to any potential aid awarded to students who engaged in virtual classroom attendance activities prior to the official start date of a course and for which no further attendance was registered during the official class term. The second file review relates to students that were awarded and paid Pell funds for enrollment in two concurrent courses, while only registering attendance in one of the two courses. The Company completed these file reviews and provided supporting documentation to ED on April 10, 2013. On April 29, 2016, ED directed CTU to perform these same two file reviews for an additional time period that extended from the end of the Audit Period through June 30, 2011, which CTU has completed and submitted to ED. On April 29, 2016, ED also requested an additional file review related to whether CTU appropriately performed calculations regarding any required return of Title IV Program funds for students that failed to earn passing grades within a term. This additional file review covers the period from July 5, 2009 to June 30, 2011 and is a review of whether students should be deemed to have unofficially withdrawn from the institution based on each student’s last known academically-related activity. CTU is seeking reconsideration of the request for this additional file review. In a May 2016 semi-annual OIG update to Congress, the OIG noted that it and ED’s Office of Federal Student Aid have been unable to agree on the appropriate resolution of this audit and ED had planned to refer the matter to the Department’s Audit Follow-up Official for dispute resolution. As of March 31, 2017, the Company has a $1.0 million reserve recorded related to this matter. This reserve does not include any amount relating to the additional file review requested by ED on April 29, 2016 because it is uncertain.