COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Qui Tam Matters

Washington v. Education Management Corporation. On May 3, 2011, a qui tam action captioned United States of America, and the States of California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Tennessee, and the District of Columbia, each ex rel. Lynntoya Washington and Michael T. Mahoney v. Education Management Corporation, et al. (“Washington”) filed under the federal False Claims Act in April 2007 was unsealed due to the U.S. Department of Justice's decision to intervene in the case. Five of the states listed on the case caption joined the case based on qui tam actions filed under their respective False Claims Acts. The Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the District of Columbia from the case and denied the Commonwealth of Kentucky's motion to intervene in the case under its consumer protection laws.

The case, which is pending in federal district court in the Western District of Pennsylvania, relates to whether our compensation plans for admission representatives violated the Higher Education Act, as amended (“HEA”), and U.S. Department of Education regulations prohibiting an institution participating in Title IV programs from providing any commission, bonus or other incentive payment based directly or indirectly on success in securing enrollments to any person or entity engaged in any student recruitment or admissions activity during the period of July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2011. The complaint was initially filed by a former admissions representative at The Art Institute of Pittsburgh Online Division and a former director of training at EDMC Online Higher Education and asserts the relators are entitled to recover treble the amount of actual damages allegedly sustained by the federal government as a result of the alleged activity, plus civil monetary penalties. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought but claims that the Company and/or students attending the Company's schools received over $11 billion in funds from participation in Title IV programs and state financial aid programs during the period of alleged wrongdoing.

On May 11, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss case for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, dismissing the claims that the design of the Company's compensation plan for admissions representatives violated the incentive compensation rule and allowing the allegations that the plan as implemented violated the rule and common law claims to continue to discovery. The Company believes the case to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

Sobek v. Education Management Corporation. On March 13, 2012, a qui tam action captioned United States of America, ex rel. Jason Sobek v. Education Management Corporation, et al. filed under the federal False Claims Act on January 28, 2010 was unsealed after the U.S. Department of Justice declined to intervene in the case. The case, which is pending in the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleges that the defendants violated the U.S. Department of Education's regulation prohibiting institutions from making substantial misrepresentations to prospective students, did not adequately track student academic progress and violated the U.S. Department of Education's prohibition on the payment of incentive compensation to admissions representatives. The complaint was filed by a former project associate director of admissions at EDMC Online Higher Education who worked for South University and asserts the relator is entitled to recover treble the amount of actual damages allegedly sustained by the federal government as a result of the alleged activity, plus civil monetary penalties. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought but claims that the Company's institutions were ineligible to participate in Title IV programs during the period of alleged wrongdoing.

On May 29, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In response, the relators withdrew the allegations in the complaint related to violations of the incentive compensation rule. The Company believes the remaining claims in the case to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits

On May 21, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action captioned Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v. Todd S. Nelson, et al. was filed against the directors of the Company in state court located in Pittsburgh, PA. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in the case. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's shareholders due to the Company's violation of the U.S. Department of Education's prohibition on paying incentive compensation to admissions representatives, engaging in improper recruiting tactics in violation of Title IV of the HEA and accrediting agency standards, falsification of job placement data for graduates of its schools and failure to satisfy the U.S. Department of Education's financial responsibility standards. The Company previously received two demand letters from the plaintiff which were investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors and found to be without merit. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice on August 13, 2012. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

On August 3, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action captioned Stephen Bushansky v. Todd S. Nelson, et al. was filed against certain of the directors of the Company in federal district court in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in the case. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's shareholders due to the Company's use of improper recruiting, enrollment admission and financial aid practices and violation of the U.S. Department of Education's prohibition on the payment of incentive compensation to admissions representatives. The Company previously received a demand letter from the plaintiff which was investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors and found to be without merit. The Company believes that the claims set forth in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

OIG Subpoena

On March 22, 2011, the Company received a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education requesting documents related to satisfactory academic progress standards and state licensing of online programs offered by South University and The Art Institute of Pittsburgh for the time period beginning January 1, 2006 through the date of the subpoena. The OIG has not contacted us since our last production of materials in response to the subpoena in October 2-11, and we believe that we have fully responded to their document requests. However, the Company cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.

Buirkle APA Program Accreditation Lawsuit

In August 2009, a petition was filed in the District Court for Dallas County, Texas in the case of Capalbo et al. v. Argosy Education Group, Inc. University, Education Management LLC, Education Management Corporation and Marilyn Powell-Kissinger by 15 former students in the Clinical Psychology program offered by the Dallas campus of Argosy University. In September 2009, the defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas division. The case was remanded back to state court in November 2009 by agreement after the plaintiffs amended their pleadings to specify their allegations and agreed to dismiss Dr. Powell-Kissinger as a defendant. The plaintiffs filed an amended petition in state court in January 2010 under the name of Buirkle et al. v. Argosy Education Group, Inc., Education Management LLC and Education Management Corporation and included three new plaintiffs. The petition alleges that, prior to the plaintiffs' enrollment and/or while the plaintiffs were enrolled in the program, the defendants violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act and made material misrepresentations regarding the importance of accreditation of the program by the Commission on Accreditation of the American Psychological Association, the status of the application of the Dallas campus for such accreditation, the availability of loan repayment options for the plaintiffs, and the quantity and quality of the plaintiffs' career options. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary compensatory and punitive damages. In March 2010, claims filed by three of the plaintiffs who signed arbitration agreements with Argosy University were compelled to binding arbitration. The remainder of the state court action was stayed pending the resolution of the three arbitrations.

In May 2010, those three plaintiffs and a fourth former student in the Clinical Psychology program offered by the Dallas campus of Argosy University filed a demand for arbitration. The first of four separate arbitrations is currently scheduled to be heard in December 2012. Also in May 2010, three additional former students in the Clinical Psychology program offered by the Dallas campus of Argosy University filed a new action in the District Court for Dallas County, Texas in the case of Adibian et al. v. Argosy Education Group, Inc., Education Management LLC, and Education Management Corporation alleging the same claims made in the Buirkle lawsuit. The defendants filed a motion to stay the new action pending the resolution of the arbitration proceedings. Prior to the hearing on the motion, plaintiffs filed a notice of non-suit without prejudice. On August 9, 2012, the Court entered joint notice of nonsuit dismissing the plaintiffs' claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act with prejudice.

The Company believes the claims in the lawsuits and the arbitrations to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

State Attorney General Investigations

In August 2011, the Company received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of New York requesting documents and detailed information for the time period of January 1, 2000 through the present. The Art Institute of New York City is the Company's only school located in New York though the subpoena also addresses fully online students who reside in the State. The subpoena is primarily related to the Company's compensation of admissions representatives and recruiting activities. The relators in the Washington qui tam case filed the complaint under the State of New York's False Claims Act though the state has not announced an intention to intervene in the matter. The Company intends to cooperate with the investigation. However, the Company cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.

In December 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the Office of Consumer Protection of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky requesting documents and detailed information for the time period of January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010. The Company has three Brown Mackie College locations in Kentucky. The Kentucky Attorney General announced an investigation of the business practices of proprietary post-secondary schools and that subpoenas were issued to six proprietary colleges that do business in Kentucky in connection with the investigation. The Company intends to continue to cooperate with the investigation. However, the Company cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.

In October 2010, Argosy University received a subpoena from the Florida Attorney General's office seeking a wide range of documents related to the Company's institutions, including the nine institutions located in Florida, from January 2, 2006 to the present. The Florida Attorney General has announced that it is investigating potential misrepresentations in recruitment, financial aid and other areas. The Company is cooperating with the investigation, but has also filed a suit to quash or limit the subpoena and to protect information sought that constitutes proprietary or trade secret information. The Company cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.

In June 2007, The New England Institute of Art (“NEIA”) received a civil investigative demand letter from the Massachusetts State Attorney General requesting information in connection with the Attorney General's review of alleged submissions of false claims by NEIA to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and alleged unfair and deceptive student lending and marketing practices engaged in by the school. In February 2008, the Attorney General informed NEIA that it does not plan to further pursue its investigation of deceptive marketing practices. In June and August of 2011, the Company provided the Attorney General with additional information related to the false claims investigation. NEIA intends to fully cooperate with the Attorney General in connection with its continuing investigation.

City of San Francisco

In December 2011, the Company received a letter from the City Attorney of the City of San Francisco, California requesting information related to student recruitment and indebtedness, including recruiting practices and job placement reporting, among other issues, by The Art Institute of San Francisco and the seven other Art Institutes located in California. The Company intends to cooperate with the investigation. However, the Company cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.

Other Matters

The Company is a defendant in certain other legal proceedings arising out of the conduct of its business. In the opinion of management, based upon an investigation of these claims and discussion with legal counsel, the ultimate outcome of such other legal proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

Lease Commitments

The Company leases certain classroom, dormitory and office space as well as equipment and automobiles under operating leases that expire on various future dates. Rent expense under these leases was $191.8 million, $192.2 million and $174.8 million for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Rent expense also includes short-term commitments for student housing of $51.4 million, $50.7 million and $49.6 million during the fiscal years ended June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Certain of the Company’s operating leases contain provisions for escalating payments and options for renewal.

As of June 30, 2012, the annual minimum future commitments under non-cancelable, long-term operating leases were as follows for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2013 to 2017 and thereafter (in thousands):



2013	$	175,959
2014	160,666
2015	137,779
2016	117,408
2017	113,189
Thereafter	339,436

Other Commitments

At June 30, 2012, the Company has provided $23.2 million of surety bonds primarily to state regulatory agencies through four different surety providers. The Company believes that these surety bonds will expire without being funded; therefore, the commitments are not expected to materially affect the Company’s financial condition or cash flows.