NOTE 12: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

DeVry is subject to lawsuits, administrative proceedings, regulatory reviews and investigations associated with financial assistance programs and other matters arising in the normal conduct of its business. The following is a description of pending litigation that may be considered other than ordinary and routine litigation that is incidental to the business.

The Boca Raton Firefighters’ and Police Pension Fund filed an initial complaint (the “Shareholder Case”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on November 1, 2010 (Case No. 1:10-cv-07031). The initial complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased DeVry common stock between October 25, 2007, and August 13, 2010. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (the “First Amended Complaint”) on March 7, 2011 alleging the same categories of claims in the initial complaint. The plaintiff claimed in the First Amended Complaint that DeVry, Daniel Hamburger and Richard M. Gunst violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by failing to disclose abusive and fraudulent recruiting and financial aid lending practices, thereby increasing DeVry’s student enrollment and revenues and artificially inflating DeVry’s stock price during the class period. On March 27, 2012, Judge John F. Grady dismissed the First Amended Complaint without prejudice, granting plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint by May 4, 2012.

On May 4, 2012, the plaintiff again amended its allegations in the Shareholder Case (the “Second Amended Complaint”). The Second Amended Complaint alleged a longer putative class period of October 27, 2007 to August 11, 2011, but narrowed the scope of the alleged fraud significantly as compared to the previous two complaints. Plaintiff focused exclusively on DeVry’s practices for compensating student Admissions Advisors, alleging DeVry misled the market by failing to disclose that its compensation practices violated federal law and by making affirmative misrepresentations that DeVry complied with compensation regulations. The Second Amended Complaint was subsequently corrected to add an additional plaintiff, West Palm Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund, in response to DeVry’s challenge of plaintiff’s standing to complain about statements DeVry made after plaintiff had purchased its stock.

On July 10, 2012, DeVry filed a Motion to Dismiss the corrected Second Amended Complaint. On March 27, 2013, Judge Grady granted DeVry’s Motion to Dismiss and entered judgment in favor of DeVry and against plaintiffs. Judge Grady thereby dismissed the case with prejudice; however, he reserved jurisdiction to examine the question of whether sanctions should be imposed against plaintiffs and/or their counsel. On April 26, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of Judge Grady’s order of dismissal; however, the appeal has been stayed pending Judge Grady’s resolution of the sanctions issue. The issue of sanctions was fully briefed by the parties as of May 17, 2013, and remains under consideration by Judge Grady.

DeVry was served on October 11, 2013, with a complaint in a qui tam action filed under the federal False Claims Act and the Minnesota False Claims Act by two former employees of a customer of DeVry’s subsidiary, Advanced Academics, Inc. (“AAI”). The lawsuit, United States and the State of Minnesota ex rel. Jill Bachmann and Shelley Madore v. Minnesota Transitions Charter Schools, Advanced Academics, Inc., DeVry Inc., and MN Virtual High School, CA No. 12-cv-01359-DWF-JSM, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint was filed on June 6, 2012 but kept under seal in order for the federal and Minnesota state governments to investigate the allegations and determine if they wished to intervene in the action and pursue the alleged claims. Both the federal and Minnesota state governments declined to intervene, thereby giving the plaintiffs the choice to pursue the alleged claims on behalf of the state and federal governments. The complaint was unsealed and made public on June 6, 2013. The complaint relates to certain federal and state funding received by Minnesota Transitions Charter Schools and MN Virtual High School. The complaint alleges that Minnesota Transitions Charter Schools and MN Virtual High School received certain state and federal funding, which depended on the accurate reporting of student enrollment data. The complaint alleges that Minnesota Transitions Charter Schools and MN Virtual High School received more funding from the federal and state governments for special education and other services than they should have received in 2008, 2009 and 2010 as a result of allegedly non-compliant practices arising from the reporting of student enrollment data. The complaint further alleges that all schools of defendant Minnesota Transitions Charter Schools received over $75 million in total state and federal funding during fiscal years 2008 to 2010, a portion of which related to the school for which AAI provided services; plaintiff does not quantify what portion of the $75 million was obtained as a result of the allegedly fraudulent practices. The complaint alleges that AAI provided certain curriculum and other services to MN Virtual High School and operated the school. The only reference to DeVry in the complaint pertains to its status as the parent corporation to AAI.

Although DeVry believes that each of the appeal of the dismissed Shareholder Case and the allegations of the above-described qui tam case is without merit, the ultimate outcome of pending litigation is difficult to predict. DeVry will vigorously defend any appellate proceedings which may proceed in the Shareholder Case as well as the allegations in the qui tam case. At this time, DeVry does not expect that the outcome of either of these two matters or any other pending lawsuits will have a material effect on its cash flows, results of operations or financial position.

In April 2013, DeVry received a subpoena from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Illinois and a Civil Investigative Demand issued by the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Illinois subpoena concerns potential state law implications in the event violations of federal law took place. It was issued pursuant to the Illinois False Claims Act in connection with an investigation concerning whether the compensation practices of DeVry and certain of its affiliates are in compliance with the Incentive Compensation Ban of the Higher Education Act and requires DeVry to provide documents relating to these matters for periods on or after January 1, 2002. The Massachusetts demand was issued in connection with an investigation into whether DeVry caused false claims and/or false statements to be submitted to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts relating to student loans, guarantees, and grants provided to DeVry’s Massachusetts students and requires DeVry to answer interrogatories and to provide documents relating to periods on or after January 1, 2007. The timing or outcome of the investigations, or their possible impact on DeVry’s business, financial condition or results of operations, cannot be predicted at this time.