Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure
Commitments and Contingencies	19. Commitments and Contingencies Adtalem 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. As of December 31, 2019, Adtalem believes it has adequately reserved for potential losses. The following is a description of pending legal and regulatory matters that may be considered other than ordinary, routine, and incidental to the business. Descriptions of certain matters from prior SEC filings may not be carried forward in this report to the extent we believe such matters no longer are required to be disclosed or there has not been, to our knowledge, significant activity relating to them. The timing or outcome of the following matters, or their possible impact on Adtalem’s business, financial condition, or results of operations, cannot be predicted at this time. The continued defense, resolution, or settlement of any of the following matters could require us to expend significant resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows, and result in the imposition of significant restrictions on us and our ability to operate. On May 13, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against Adtalem, Daniel Hamburger, Richard M. Gunst, and Timothy J. Wiggins in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased Adtalem common stock between February 4, 2011 and January 27, 2016. The complaint cites the January 27, 2016 Notice of Intent to Limit (the “January 2016 Notice”) and a civil complaint (the “FTC lawsuit”) filed by the FTC on January 27, 2016 against Adtalem, DeVry University, Inc., and DeVry/New York Inc. (collectively, the “Adtalem Parties”), which was resolved with the FTC in 2017, that alleged that certain of DeVry University’s advertising claims were false or misleading or unsubstantiated at the time they were made in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, as the basis for claims that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and the earnings of DeVry University graduates relative to the graduates of other universities and colleges. As a result of these alleged false or misleading statements, the plaintiff alleged that defendants overstated Adtalem’s growth, revenue and earnings potential and made false or misleading statements about Adtalem’s business, operations and prospects. The plaintiff alleged direct liability against all defendants for violations of §10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and asserted liability against the individual defendants pursuant to § 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff sought monetary damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other unspecified relief. On July 13, 2016, the Utah Retirement System (“URS”) moved for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of counsel, which was not opposed by the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers. URS was appointed as lead plaintiff on August 24, 2016. URS filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) on December 23, 2016. The SAC sought to represent a putative class of persons who purchased Adtalem common stock between August 26, 2011 and January 27, 2016 and named an additional individual defendant, Patrick J. Unzicker, Adtalem’s former Chief Financial Officer. Like the original complaint, the SAC asserted claims against all defendants for alleged violations of §10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and asserted liability against the individual defendants pursuant to §20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged material misstatements or omissions regarding DeVry University graduate outcomes. On January 27, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the SAC, which motion was granted on December 6, 2017, without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint (“TAC”) on January 29, 2018. The defendants moved to dismiss the TAC on March 30, 2018. The court denied the motion to dismiss the TAC on December 20, 2018. On February 8, 2019, defendants filed their answer to the TAC wherein defendants denied all material allegations in the TAC. The parties engaged in mediation and reached a tentative resolution. On September 5, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The court granted final approval of the class action settlement on December 6, 2019. The full amount of this settlement was covered by insurance and therefore had no impact on Adtalem's financial position, cash flows, or results of operations. On October 14, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Debbie Petrizzo and five other former DeVry University students, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Petrizzo Case”). The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of those who enrolled in and/or attended classes at DeVry University during and after 2002 and who were unable to find employment within their chosen field of study within six months of graduation. Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of six different states’ consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs seek monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief. On October 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Jairo Jara and eleven others, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Jara Case”). The individual plaintiffs claimed to have graduated from DeVry University in 2001 or later and sought to proceed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of those who obtained a degree from DeVry University and who were unable to find employment within their chosen field of study within six months of graduation. Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of ten different states’ consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief. By order dated November 28, 2016, the district court ordered the Petrizzo Case and the Jara Case be consolidated under the Petrizzo caption for all further purposes. On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on behalf of 38 individual plaintiffs and others similarly situated. The amended consolidated complaint sought to bring claims on behalf of the named individuals and a putative nationwide class of individuals for unjust enrichment and alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and the Illinois Private Businesses and Vocational Schools Act of 2012. In addition, it purported to assert causes of action on behalf of certain of the named individuals and 15 individual state-specific putative classes for alleged violations of 15 different states’ consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. Finally, it sought to bring individual claims under Georgia state law on behalf of certain named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed by the Adtalem Parties and granted by the court, without prejudice, on February 12, 2018. On April 12, 2018, the Petrizzo plaintiffs refiled their complaint with a new lead plaintiff, Renee Heather Polly. The plaintiffs’ refiled complaint is nearly identical to the complaint previously dismissed by the court on February 12, 2018. The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this refiled complaint on May 14, 2018. The court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice on February 13, 2019. On March 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and this matter is currently pending on appeal before the Seventh Circuit. On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Illinois and who purchased or paid for a DeVry University program between January 1, 2008 and April 8, 2016. The plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to violations of state law. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20, 2018. On March 11, 2019, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead plaintiff, Dave McCormick. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint on April 15, 2019 and the court granted Defendants’ motion on July 29, 2019, with leave to amend. The plaintiff has filed an amended complaint on August 26, 2019. On October 18, 2019, defendants’ moved to dismiss this complaint as it is substantially similar to the one the court previously dismissed. No hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled. On May 8, 2018, the Carlson Law Firm (“Carlson”) filed a lawsuit against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., on behalf of 71 individual former DeVry University students in Rangel v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. Carlson filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Plaintiffs contend that DeVry University “made deceptive representations about the benefits of obtaining a degree from DeVry University” in violation of Texas state laws and seek full restitution of all monies paid to DeVry University and any student loan lenders, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint on June 5, 2018. On June 27, 2018, Carlson filed a second lawsuit on behalf of 32 former DeVry University students against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. in Lindberg v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. Carlson filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The allegations are identical to the allegations in the lawsuit Carlson filed on May 8, 2018. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that DeVry University “made deceptive representations about the benefits of obtaining a degree from DeVry University” in violation of Texas state laws and seek full restitution of all monies paid to DeVry University and any student loan lenders, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint on August 28, 2018. The court consolidated these two lawsuits on December 10, 2018. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action on December 18, 2018. On January 2, 2019, Carlson filed a motion to intervene on behalf of 13 additional former DeVry University students seeking to join the consolidated lawsuit. The parties re-filed their briefing on the motions to dismiss so that the motion would apply to all three groups of plaintiffs. On April 24, 2019, the Court granted Adtalem’s and DeVry University’s motions to dismiss, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 7, 2019. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on July 5, 2019. The motion to dismiss was referred to a magistrate judge. On December 13, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation denying defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 3, 2020, defendants filed their objections to the report and recommendation on the motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs filed a response to the objections on January 8, 2020. The parties await the districts court’s decision on the motion to dismiss. On April 4, 2019, the Carlson Law Firm sent notice pursuant to California Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1750, of 105 individuals who purportedly have claims against DeVry University and Adtalem based on allegedly deceptive comments made about the benefits of obtaining a DeVry University degree; specifically, that 90% of graduates obtained a job in their chosen field of study within six months of graduation, and that graduates were paid more than graduates of other universities. On July 16, 2019, the Carlson Law Firm filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California – San Jose Division against Adtalem and DeVry University on behalf of 102 individual former DeVry University students in Alvarez v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. The plaintiffs contend that defendants misrepresented the benefits of graduating from DeVry University and falsely and misleadingly advertised the employment rate and income rate of their graduates to induce potential students to purchase educational products and services, and to remain students through graduation. The lawsuit seeks exemplary damages, restitution, economic damages, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and the cost of suit. The plaintiffs brought claims for fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, negligent misrepresentation, civil theft, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and violation of California’s False Advertising Law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 1, 2019. On December 16, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on January 13, 2020. On August 13, 2019, a plaintiff, Magana, filed a putative class action lawsuit against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging damages based on allegedly deceptive statements made about the benefits of obtaining a DeVry University degree. Plaintiffs assert claims under the California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, and claims of fraud/material misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment/intentional omission of material facts, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. On October 21, 2019, the parties agreed to extend the deadlines to respond to the complaint. On October 22, 2019, the court granted the extension to respond to the complaint. On June 21, 2018, Stoltmann Law Offices filed a lawsuit against Adtalem in Cook County Circuit Court, alleging that Adtalem breached a contract with Stoltmann Law Offices to pay filing fees associated with arbitration claims Stoltmann Law Offices has filed with the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (“JAMS”). Stoltmann Law Offices is seeking specific performance from the court. Adtalem moved to dismiss this complaint on August 3, 2018. Prior to the court ruling on Adtalem’s motion to dismiss, Stoltmann Law Offices and 399 individuals filed an amended complaint on August 9, 2018, asserting claims for specific performance, declaratory judgment and a petition to compel arbitration. Adtalem moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 31, 2018. The court granted Adtalem’s motion to dismiss on November 30, 2018, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. A single individual plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 3, 2019. Adtalem moved to dismiss the complaint on May 23, 2019. On January 9, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the petition to compel arbitration, and allowed the claim for declaratory judgment to proceed. The court has not yet set a date to answer the complaint. On June 7, 2019, Stoltmann Law Offices filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of Michael Forsythe seeking to compel arbitration of his consumer claims before JAMS. Adtalem moved to dismiss the complaint on July 1, 2019. The motion to dismiss is fully briefed and the court held a hearing on October 29, 2019. The parties are awaiting a decision by the court. Stoltmann Law Offices is representing hundreds of individuals who have filed claims with JAMS alleging fraud-based claims based on DeVry University’s graduate employment statistics. Stoltmann Law Offices has paid the filing fees for seventeen of these arbitrations to move forward. On June 14, 2019, JAMS sent commencement letters initiating the arbitration process for the claims of James Archibald and Gilbert Caro. Respondents filed their answers to these two claims on June 28, 2019. An amended demand for James Archibald was entered on November 19, 2019, and respondents filed their amended answer on December 13, 2019. An arbitration hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 9-12, 2020, to adjudicate the claims of James Archibald, and February 3-6, 2020, to adjudicate the claims of Gilbert Caro. On August 2, 2019, JAMS sent commencement letters initiating the arbitration process for the claims of Sterling Bridges, David Cobb, and Lecresha Houser. Respondents filed their answers to these claims on August 16, 2019. Amended demands for Sterling Bridges and Lecresha Houser were entered on November 19, 2019, and respondents filed their amended answers to these claims on December 3, 2019. An amended demand for David Cobb was entered on December 11, 2019, and respondents filed their amended answer on December 26, 2019. An amended demand for Rickya Tillery was entered on November 20, 2019, and respondents filed their amended answer on December 4, 2019. An arbitration hearing is tentatively scheduled to begin on August 10, 2020 to adjudicate the claims of Sterling Bridges. An arbitration hearing is not yet scheduled to adjudicate the claims of David Cobb. An arbitration hearing is tentatively scheduled to begin on May 11, 2020, to adjudicate the claims of Lecresha Houser. On August 5, 2019, JAMS sent commencement letters initiating the arbitration process for the claims of Micael Pizzo, Damion Tilghman, and Rickya Tillery. Defendants filed their answers on August 19, 2019. An arbitration hearing is tentatively scheduled to begin on July 13, 2020, to adjudicate the claims of Rickya Tillery. An arbitration hearing is tentatively set for September 14, 2020, to adjudicate the claims of Damion Tilghman. On November 6, 2019, JAMS sent commencement letters initiating the arbitration process for the claims of Mandy Cornell, Christopher De Simone, Omotola Owoeye, and Christopher Quesenberry. On November 20, 2019, respondents filed their answers to these claims. On November 15, 2019, JAMS sent commencement letters initiating the arbitration process for the claims of Charles Herald, Gwendolyn Haynes, and Alex Osborne. On November 29, 2019, respondents filed their answers to the claims of Charles Herald and Alex Osborne, and their answer to the amended demand of Gwendolyn Haynes. On November 25, 2019, JAMS sent commencement letters initiating the arbitration process for the claims of Sarah Benjamin and Jesse Jacobs. On December 9, 2019, respondents filed their answers to these claims. Hearings have not yet been scheduled for these claimants. On March 29, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Robby Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the Western District of Missouri. The complaint was filed on behalf of himself and two separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Missouri and who purchased or paid for and received any part of a DeVry University program. The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019. On October 9, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment and conversion, allowing the remaining claims to proceed. On October 29, 2019, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint. The parties are in the initial stages of discovery. On or about April 1, 2019, Adtalem, Chamberlain and DeVry University received similar Civil Investigative Demands (“CID”) from the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”). The CIDs were issued pursuant to a False Claims Act inquiry concerning allegations that Adtalem, in particular Chamberlain and Adtalem’s former subsidiary DeVry University, submitted or caused the submission of false claims to the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs for federal funds under the GI Bill Programs and Tuition Assistance Program from 2011 to the date of the CIDs. It is specifically alleged that Chamberlain and DeVry University engaged in unlawful recruitment tactics, and provided incentive payments based directly or indirectly on securing federal financial aid. At this time, we cannot predict the duration or outcome of this investigation, but Adtalem is cooperating fully with this DOJ inquiry and is providing documents and other information requested by the DOJ. On April 3, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by T’Lani Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Georgia who purchased or paid for and received any part of a DeVry University program. The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019. On November, 25, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion with prejudice. The court dismissed the claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment without prejudice, ordering plaintiffs’ to file an amended class-action complaint within fourteen days of the order. The court allowed the claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief to proceed. On December 9, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended class-action complaint. On December 23, 2019, defendants filed their answer to the amended class action complaint.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure

19. Commitments and Contingencies

Adtalem 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. As of December 31, 2019, Adtalem believes it has adequately reserved for potential losses. The following is a description of pending legal and regulatory matters that may be considered other than ordinary, routine, and incidental to the business. Descriptions of

certain matters from prior SEC filings may not be carried forward in this report to the extent we believe such matters no longer are required to be disclosed or there has not been, to our knowledge, significant activity relating to them. The timing or outcome of the following matters, or their possible impact on Adtalem’s business, financial condition, or results of operations, cannot be predicted at this time. The continued defense, resolution, or settlement of any of the following matters could require us to expend significant resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows, and result in the imposition of significant restrictions on us and our ability to operate.

On May 13, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against Adtalem, Daniel Hamburger, Richard M. Gunst, and Timothy J. Wiggins in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased Adtalem common stock between February 4, 2011 and January 27, 2016. The complaint cites the January 27, 2016 Notice of Intent to Limit (the “January 2016 Notice”) and a civil complaint (the “FTC lawsuit”) filed by the FTC on January 27, 2016 against Adtalem, DeVry University, Inc., and DeVry/New York Inc. (collectively, the “Adtalem Parties”), which was resolved with the FTC in 2017, that alleged that certain of DeVry University’s advertising claims were false or misleading or unsubstantiated at the time they were made in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, as the basis for claims that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and the earnings of DeVry University graduates relative to the graduates of other universities and colleges. As a result of these alleged false or misleading statements, the plaintiff alleged that defendants overstated Adtalem’s growth, revenue and earnings potential and made false or misleading statements about Adtalem’s business, operations and prospects. The plaintiff alleged direct liability against all defendants for violations of §10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and asserted liability against the individual defendants pursuant to § 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff sought monetary damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other unspecified relief. On July 13, 2016, the Utah Retirement System (“URS”) moved for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of counsel, which was not opposed by the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers. URS was appointed as lead plaintiff on August 24, 2016. URS filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) on December 23, 2016. The SAC sought to represent a putative class of persons who purchased Adtalem common stock between August 26, 2011 and January 27, 2016 and named an additional individual defendant, Patrick J. Unzicker, Adtalem’s former Chief Financial Officer. Like the original complaint, the SAC asserted claims against all defendants for alleged violations of §10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and asserted liability against the individual defendants pursuant to §20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged material misstatements or omissions regarding DeVry University graduate outcomes. On January 27, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the SAC, which motion was granted on December 6, 2017, without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint (“TAC”) on January 29, 2018. The defendants moved to dismiss the TAC on March 30, 2018. The court denied the motion to dismiss the TAC on December 20, 2018. On February 8, 2019, defendants filed their answer to the TAC wherein defendants denied all material allegations in the TAC. The parties engaged in mediation and reached a tentative resolution. On September 5, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement. The court granted final approval of the class action settlement on December 6, 2019. The full amount of this settlement was covered by insurance and therefore had no impact on Adtalem's financial position, cash flows, or results of operations.

On October 14, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Debbie Petrizzo and five other former DeVry University students, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Petrizzo Case”). The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of those who enrolled in and/or attended classes at DeVry University during and after 2002 and who were unable to find employment within their chosen field of study within six months of graduation. Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of six different states’ consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs seek monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief.

On October 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Jairo Jara and eleven others, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Jara Case”). The individual plaintiffs claimed to have graduated from DeVry University in 2001 or later and sought to proceed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of those who obtained a degree from DeVry University and who were unable to find employment within their chosen field of study within six months of graduation. Citing the

FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of ten different states’ consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief.

By order dated November 28, 2016, the district court ordered the Petrizzo Case and the Jara Case be consolidated under the Petrizzo caption for all further purposes. On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on behalf of 38 individual plaintiffs and others similarly situated. The amended consolidated complaint sought to bring claims on behalf of the named individuals and a putative nationwide class of individuals for unjust enrichment and alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and the Illinois Private Businesses and Vocational Schools Act of 2012. In addition, it purported to assert causes of action on behalf of certain of the named individuals and 15 individual state-specific putative classes for alleged violations of 15 different states’ consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. Finally, it sought to bring individual claims under Georgia state law on behalf of certain named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed by the Adtalem Parties and granted by the court, without prejudice, on February 12, 2018.

On April 12, 2018, the Petrizzo plaintiffs refiled their complaint with a new lead plaintiff, Renee Heather Polly. The plaintiffs’ refiled complaint is nearly identical to the complaint previously dismissed by the court on February 12, 2018. The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this refiled complaint on May 14, 2018. The court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice on February 13, 2019. On March 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and this matter is currently pending on appeal before the Seventh Circuit.

On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Illinois and who purchased or paid for a DeVry University program between January 1, 2008 and April 8, 2016. The plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to violations of state law. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20, 2018. On March 11, 2019, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead plaintiff, Dave McCormick. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint on April 15, 2019 and the court granted Defendants’ motion on July 29, 2019, with leave to amend. The plaintiff has filed an amended complaint on August 26, 2019. On October 18, 2019, defendants’ moved to dismiss this complaint as it is substantially similar to the one the court previously dismissed. No hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled.

On May 8, 2018, the Carlson Law Firm (“Carlson”) filed a lawsuit against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., on behalf of 71 individual former DeVry University students in Rangel v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. Carlson filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Plaintiffs contend that DeVry University “made deceptive representations about the benefits of obtaining a degree from DeVry University” in violation of Texas state laws and seek full restitution of all monies paid to DeVry University and any student loan lenders, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint on June 5, 2018. On June 27, 2018, Carlson filed a second lawsuit on behalf of 32 former DeVry University students against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. in Lindberg v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. Carlson filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The allegations are identical to the allegations in the lawsuit Carlson filed on May 8, 2018. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that DeVry University “made deceptive representations about the benefits of obtaining a degree from DeVry University” in violation of Texas state laws and seek full restitution of all monies paid to DeVry University and any student loan lenders, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint on August 28, 2018. The court consolidated these two lawsuits on December 10, 2018. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action on December 18, 2018. On January 2, 2019, Carlson filed a motion to intervene on behalf of 13 additional former

DeVry University students seeking to join the consolidated lawsuit. The parties re-filed their briefing on the motions to dismiss so that the motion would apply to all three groups of plaintiffs. On April 24, 2019, the Court granted Adtalem’s and DeVry University’s motions to dismiss, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 7, 2019. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on July 5, 2019. The motion to dismiss was referred to a magistrate judge. On December 13, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation denying defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 3, 2020, defendants filed their objections to the report and recommendation on the motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs filed a response to the objections on January 8, 2020. The parties await the districts court’s decision on the motion to dismiss.

On April 4, 2019, the Carlson Law Firm sent notice pursuant to California Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1750, of 105 individuals who purportedly have claims against DeVry University and Adtalem based on allegedly deceptive comments made about the benefits of obtaining a DeVry University degree; specifically, that 90% of graduates obtained a job in their chosen field of study within six months of graduation, and that graduates were paid more than graduates of other universities. On July 16, 2019, the Carlson Law Firm filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California – San Jose Division against Adtalem and DeVry University on behalf of 102 individual former DeVry University students in Alvarez v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. The plaintiffs contend that defendants misrepresented the benefits of graduating from DeVry University and falsely and misleadingly advertised the employment rate and income rate of their graduates to induce potential students to purchase educational products and services, and to remain students through graduation. The lawsuit seeks exemplary damages, restitution, economic damages, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and the cost of suit. The plaintiffs brought claims for fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, negligent misrepresentation, civil theft, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and violation of California’s False Advertising Law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 1, 2019. On December 16, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on January 13, 2020.

On August 13, 2019, a plaintiff, Magana, filed a putative class action lawsuit against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging damages based on allegedly deceptive statements made about the benefits of obtaining a DeVry University degree. Plaintiffs assert claims under the California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, and claims of fraud/material misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment/intentional omission of material facts, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. On October 21, 2019, the parties agreed to extend the deadlines to respond to the complaint. On October 22, 2019, the court granted the extension to respond to the complaint.

On June 21, 2018, Stoltmann Law Offices filed a lawsuit against Adtalem in Cook County Circuit Court, alleging that Adtalem breached a contract with Stoltmann Law Offices to pay filing fees associated with arbitration claims Stoltmann Law Offices has filed with the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (“JAMS”). Stoltmann Law Offices is seeking specific performance from the court. Adtalem moved to dismiss this complaint on August 3, 2018. Prior to the court ruling on Adtalem’s motion to dismiss, Stoltmann Law Offices and 399 individuals filed an amended complaint on August 9, 2018, asserting claims for specific performance, declaratory judgment and a petition to compel arbitration. Adtalem moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 31, 2018. The court granted Adtalem’s motion to dismiss on November 30, 2018, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. A single individual plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 3, 2019. Adtalem moved to dismiss the complaint on May 23, 2019. On January 9, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the petition to compel arbitration, and allowed the claim for declaratory judgment to proceed. The court has not yet set a date to answer the complaint.

On June 7, 2019, Stoltmann Law Offices filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of Michael Forsythe seeking to compel arbitration of his consumer claims before JAMS. Adtalem moved to dismiss the complaint on July 1, 2019. The motion to dismiss is fully briefed and the court held a hearing on October 29, 2019. The parties are awaiting a decision by the court.

Stoltmann Law Offices is representing hundreds of individuals who have filed claims with JAMS alleging fraud-based claims based on DeVry University’s graduate employment statistics. Stoltmann Law Offices has paid the filing fees for seventeen of these arbitrations to move forward. On June 14, 2019, JAMS sent commencement letters initiating the arbitration process for the claims of James Archibald and Gilbert Caro. Respondents filed their answers to these two claims

on June 28, 2019. An amended demand for James Archibald was entered on November 19, 2019, and respondents filed their amended answer on December 13, 2019. An arbitration hearing is tentatively scheduled for March 9-12, 2020, to adjudicate the claims of James Archibald, and February 3-6, 2020, to adjudicate the claims of Gilbert Caro. On August 2, 2019, JAMS sent commencement letters initiating the arbitration process for the claims of Sterling Bridges, David Cobb, and Lecresha Houser. Respondents filed their answers to these claims on August 16, 2019. Amended demands for Sterling Bridges and Lecresha Houser were entered on November 19, 2019, and respondents filed their amended answers to these claims on December 3, 2019. An amended demand for David Cobb was entered on December 11, 2019, and respondents filed their amended answer on December 26, 2019. An amended demand for Rickya Tillery was entered on November 20, 2019, and respondents filed their amended answer on December 4, 2019. An arbitration hearing is tentatively scheduled to begin on August 10, 2020 to adjudicate the claims of Sterling Bridges. An arbitration hearing is not yet scheduled to adjudicate the claims of David Cobb. An arbitration hearing is tentatively scheduled to begin on May 11, 2020, to adjudicate the claims of Lecresha Houser. On August 5, 2019, JAMS sent commencement letters initiating the arbitration process for the claims of Micael Pizzo, Damion Tilghman, and Rickya Tillery. Defendants filed their answers on August 19, 2019. An arbitration hearing is tentatively scheduled to begin on July 13, 2020, to adjudicate the claims of Rickya Tillery. An arbitration hearing is tentatively set for September 14, 2020, to adjudicate the claims of Damion Tilghman.

On November 6, 2019, JAMS sent commencement letters initiating the arbitration process for the claims of Mandy Cornell, Christopher De Simone, Omotola Owoeye, and Christopher Quesenberry. On November 20, 2019, respondents filed their answers to these claims. On November 15, 2019, JAMS sent commencement letters initiating the arbitration process for the claims of Charles Herald, Gwendolyn Haynes, and Alex Osborne. On November 29, 2019, respondents filed their answers to the claims of Charles Herald and Alex Osborne, and their answer to the amended demand of Gwendolyn Haynes. On November 25, 2019, JAMS sent commencement letters initiating the arbitration process for the claims of Sarah Benjamin and Jesse Jacobs. On December 9, 2019, respondents filed their answers to these claims. Hearings have not yet been scheduled for these claimants.

On March 29, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Robby Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the Western District of Missouri. The complaint was filed on behalf of himself and two separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Missouri and who purchased or paid for and received any part of a DeVry University program. The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019. On October 9, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment and conversion, allowing the remaining claims to proceed. On October 29, 2019, Defendants filed an answer to the complaint. The parties are in the initial stages of discovery.

On or about April 1, 2019, Adtalem, Chamberlain and DeVry University received similar Civil Investigative Demands (“CID”) from the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”). The CIDs were issued pursuant to a False Claims Act inquiry concerning allegations that Adtalem, in particular Chamberlain and Adtalem’s former subsidiary DeVry University, submitted or caused the submission of false claims to the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs for federal funds under the GI Bill Programs and Tuition Assistance Program from 2011 to the date of the CIDs. It is specifically alleged that Chamberlain and DeVry University engaged in unlawful recruitment tactics, and provided incentive payments based directly or indirectly on securing federal financial aid. At this time, we cannot predict the duration or outcome of this investigation, but Adtalem is cooperating fully with this DOJ inquiry and is providing documents and other information requested by the DOJ.

On April 3, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by T’Lani Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Georgia who purchased or paid for and received any part of a DeVry University program. The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary,

punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019. On November, 25, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion with prejudice. The court dismissed the claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment without prejudice, ordering plaintiffs’ to file an amended class-action complaint within fourteen days of the order. The court allowed the claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief to proceed. On December 9, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended class-action complaint. On December 23, 2019, defendants filed their answer to the amended class action complaint.