Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	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 the Company's compensation plans for admission representatives violated the Higher Education Act of 1965, 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 common law claims and the allegations that the plan as implemented violated the rule to continue to discovery. The Company believes the case to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. From time to time, the Company engages in settlement discussions with respect to this case. There can be no assurance that these conversations will lead to a settlement acceptable to all parties and approved by all parties. There can also be no assurance that any settlement will be within amounts currently accrued or be covered by insurance or not be material to the Company. 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 federal district court 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. In August 2013, the parties to the action, along with the U.S. Department of Justice, participated in a private mediation in which the relator and defendants reached an agreement in principle regarding the financial terms of a potential settlement. The agreement between the parties remains subject to approval by the U.S. Department of Justice. Significant terms remain to be negotiated, and there is no certainty that a final agreement will be reached. The settlement amount agreed to by the parties under the terms of the agreement in principle would be paid by the Company's insurer and the Company would pay an immaterial amount of attorneys' fees incurred by the relator. The ultimate dismissal of the action, should a final settlement be reached, is subject to the Court's approval. In the course of settlement discussions regarding the Sobek matter, the U.S. Department of Justice informed the Company that it is the subject of an investigation related to a claim under the federal false claims act by the U. S. Attorney’s Office in the Middle District of Tennessee. The Company plans on cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice with regard to this matter. However, the Company cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time. 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, improper classification 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 and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice on August 13, 2012. In response, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making substantially the same allegations as the initial complaint on September 27, 2012. The Company and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 17, 2012. On July 16, 2013, the Court dismissed the claims that the Company engaged in improper recruiting tactics and mismanaged the Company's financial well-being with prejudice and found that the Special Litigation Committee could conduct a supplemental investigation of the plaintiff's claims related to incentive compensation paid to admissions representatives and graduate placement statistics. The Special Litigation Committee filed supplemental reports on October 15, 2013 and January 9, 2014, finding no support for the incentive compensation and graduate placement statistic claims. The Court held a hearing on the defendants' supplemental motion to dismiss the case on January 29, 2014. 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. The Company and the named director defendants filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the resolution of the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System shareholder derivative case or, alternatively, dismiss the case on October 19, 2012. On August 5, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay the case in light of the ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System case. OIG Subpoena On May 24, 2013, the Company received a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education requesting policies and procedures related to Argosy University's attendance, withdrawal and return to Title IV policies during the period of July 1, 2010 through December 31, 2011 and detailed information on a number of students who enrolled in Argosy University's Bachelor's of Psychology degree program. The Company plans to cooperate with the Office of Inspector General in connection with its investigation. However, the Company cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time. State Attorney General Investigations In January 2014, the Company received inquiries from 13 states regarding the Company’s business practices. The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania informed the Company that it will serve as the point of contact for the inquiries related to the Company. The inquiries 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. Several other companies in the proprietary education industry have disclosed that they received similar inquiries. The Company intends to cooperate with the states involved and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time. In January 2013, The New England Institute of Art received a civil investigative demand from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Attorney General requesting information for the period from January 1, 2010 to the present pursuant to an investigation of practices by the school in connection with marketing and advertising job placement and student outcomes, the recruitment of students and the financing of education. The Company previously responded to a similar request that The New England Institute of Art received in June 2007 and intends to cooperate with the Attorney General in connection with its investigation. However, the Company cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time. As previously disclosed, on December 5, 2013, the Company entered into a Final Consent Judgment (the “Consent Judgment”) with the Colorado Attorney General’s Office for the purpose of resolving disputed claims, avoiding the expense of further litigation, and permitting the Company to focus on its education mission with regard to its students. Under the Consent Judgment, without admitting liability, the Company has agreed to pay the aggregate amount of approximately $3.4 million, consisting of $2.9 million to be distributed as restitution to eligible students and $0.5 million to the Colorado Department of Law to be used by the State of Colorado for consumer restitution and as reimbursement to the state for reasonable costs and attorney’s fees and for future consumer education, consumer fraud and antitrust enforcement efforts. The Company further agreed to a suspended civil penalty of $1.0 million, which becomes due and payable if the Company commits a knowing and willful material violation of the Consent Judgment within three years of the date of the Consent Judgment. The Company accrued a liability for the $3.4 million settlement within general and administrative expense in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations in the three months ended December 31, 2013. 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. 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 has engaged in settlement discussions with the City Attorney's office in order to explore a potential resolution of the investigation and recorded a liability at December 31, 2013 based on these discussions which the Company believes is immaterial to the financial statements. Settlement discussions continue with the City Attorney's office and the Company cannot predict at this time the eventual scope or timing of any settlement agreement or if such an agreement will be reached with the City Attorney or if any resolution of the matter will have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements or results of operations. Securities and Exchange Commission Subpoenas On March 20, 2013, the Company received a subpoena from the Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission requesting documents and information relating to the Company's valuation of goodwill and its bad debt allowance for student receivables. The Company received a second subpoena from the Division of Enforcement on May 13, 2013 which requests documents and information related to the letters of credit posted with the U.S. Department of Education. The Company intends to cooperate with the SEC in its investigation. The Company cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time. Argosy University, Seattle APA Program Accreditation Lawsuits In August 2013, a petition was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington (King County) in the case of Winters, et al. v. Argosy Education Group, et al. by 20 former students in the Clinical Psychology program offered by the Seattle campus of Argosy University. In December 2013, a similar petition was filed in the same court in the case of McMath, et al. v. Argosy Education Group, et al. by nine former students in the Clinical Psychology program offered by the Seattle campus of Argosy University. Both cases allege negligent misrepresentation due to the failure of the Clinical Psychology program to obtain accreditation from the American Psychology Association ("APA"), breach of contract, violation of the Washington State Consumer Protection Act, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence and lack of institutional control, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent failure to disclose and fraud. The Seattle campus of Argosy University announced that it was teaching-out (i.e., not accepting new students into the program) the Clinical Psychology program in November 2011 due to the inability to obtain APA accreditation. The Company believes the claims in the lawsuits to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. Other Matters The Company is a defendant in certain other legal proceedings arising out of the conduct of its business. Additionally, the Company is subject to compliance reviews by various state and federal agencies which provide student financial aid programs, of which noncompliance may result in liability for educational benefits paid as well as fines and other corrective action. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is currently conducting a compliance review of one of the Company's schools and has advised the Company that it intends to conduct reviews of four additional schools during fiscal 2014. As disclosed in 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K, with regard to the review that has begun, the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs has not yet issued a report of its findings, but has informed the Company that it has identified instances in which the school failed to notify the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs of circumstances where students receiving educational benefits failed to pursue a course, which the Company has been informed may in turn give rise to a refund obligation by students. The Company may be required, or may elect, to reimburse the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs for adjustments to the amount of educational benefits paid by the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs to the affected students. In the opinion of management, based upon an investigation of these matters and discussion with legal counsel, the ultimate outcome of such other legal proceedings and compliance reviews, individually and in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity.

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 the Company's compensation plans for admission representatives violated the Higher Education Act of 1965, 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 common law claims and the allegations that the plan as implemented violated the rule to continue to discovery. The Company believes the case to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. From time to time, the Company engages in settlement discussions with respect to this case. There can be no assurance that these conversations will lead to a settlement acceptable to all parties and approved by all parties. There can also be no assurance that any settlement will be within amounts currently accrued or be covered by insurance or not be material to the Company.

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 federal district court 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.

In August 2013, the parties to the action, along with the U.S. Department of Justice, participated in a private mediation in which the relator and defendants reached an agreement in principle regarding the financial terms of a potential settlement. The agreement between the parties remains subject to approval by the U.S. Department of Justice. Significant terms remain to be negotiated, and there is no certainty that a final agreement will be reached. The settlement amount agreed to by the parties under the terms of the agreement in principle would be paid by the Company's insurer and the Company would pay an immaterial amount of attorneys' fees incurred by the relator. The ultimate dismissal of the action, should a final settlement be reached, is subject to the Court's approval.

In the course of settlement discussions regarding the Sobek matter, the U.S. Department of Justice informed the Company that it is the subject of an investigation related to a claim under the federal false claims act by the U. S. Attorney’s Office in the Middle District of Tennessee. The Company plans on cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice with regard to this matter. However, the Company cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.

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, improper classification 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 and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice on August 13, 2012. In response, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making substantially the same allegations as the initial complaint on September 27, 2012. The Company and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on October 17, 2012. On July 16, 2013, the Court dismissed the claims that the Company engaged in improper recruiting tactics and mismanaged the Company's financial well-being with prejudice and found that the Special Litigation Committee could conduct a supplemental investigation of the plaintiff's claims related to incentive compensation paid to admissions representatives and graduate placement statistics. The Special Litigation Committee filed supplemental reports on October 15, 2013 and January 9, 2014, finding no support for the incentive compensation and graduate placement statistic claims. The Court held a hearing on the defendants' supplemental motion to dismiss the case on January 29, 2014.

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. The Company and the named director defendants filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the resolution of the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System shareholder derivative case or, alternatively, dismiss the case on October 19, 2012. On August 5, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay the case in light of the ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System case.

OIG Subpoena

On May 24, 2013, the Company received a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education requesting policies and procedures related to Argosy University's attendance, withdrawal and return to Title IV policies during the period of July 1, 2010 through December 31, 2011 and detailed information on a number of students who enrolled in Argosy University's Bachelor's of Psychology degree program. The Company plans to cooperate with the Office of Inspector General in connection with its investigation. However, the Company cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.

State Attorney General Investigations

In January 2014, the Company received inquiries from 13 states regarding the Company’s business practices. The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania informed the Company that it will serve as the point of contact for the inquiries related to the Company. The inquiries 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. Several other companies in the proprietary education industry have disclosed that they received similar inquiries. The Company intends to cooperate with the states involved and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.

In January 2013, The New England Institute of Art received a civil investigative demand from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Attorney General requesting information for the period from January 1, 2010 to the present pursuant to an investigation of practices by the school in connection with marketing and advertising job placement and student outcomes, the recruitment of students and the financing of education. The Company previously responded to a similar request that The New England Institute of Art received in June 2007 and intends to cooperate with the Attorney General in connection with its investigation. However, the Company cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.

As previously disclosed, on December 5, 2013, the Company entered into a Final Consent Judgment (the “Consent Judgment”) with the Colorado Attorney General’s Office for the purpose of resolving disputed claims, avoiding the expense of further litigation, and permitting the Company to focus on its education mission with regard to its students. Under the Consent Judgment, without admitting liability, the Company has agreed to pay the aggregate amount of approximately $3.4 million, consisting of $2.9 million to be distributed as restitution to eligible students and $0.5 million to the Colorado Department of Law to be used by the State of Colorado for consumer restitution and as reimbursement to the state for reasonable costs and attorney’s fees and for future consumer education, consumer fraud and antitrust enforcement efforts. The Company further agreed to a suspended civil penalty of $1.0 million, which becomes due and payable if the Company commits a knowing and willful material violation of the Consent Judgment within three years of the date of the Consent Judgment. The Company accrued a liability for the $3.4 million settlement within general and administrative expense in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations in the three months ended December 31, 2013.

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.

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 has engaged in settlement discussions with the City Attorney's office in order to explore a potential resolution of the investigation and recorded a liability at December 31, 2013 based on these discussions which the Company believes is immaterial to the financial statements. Settlement discussions continue with the City Attorney's office and the Company cannot predict at this time the eventual scope or timing of any settlement agreement or if such an agreement will be reached with the City Attorney or if any resolution of the matter will have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements or results of operations.

Securities and Exchange Commission Subpoenas

On March 20, 2013, the Company received a subpoena from the Division of Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission requesting documents and information relating to the Company's valuation of goodwill and its bad debt allowance for student receivables. The Company received a second subpoena from the Division of Enforcement on May 13, 2013 which requests documents and information related to the letters of credit posted with the U.S. Department of Education. The Company intends to cooperate with the SEC in its investigation. The Company cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.

Argosy University, Seattle APA Program Accreditation Lawsuits

In August 2013, a petition was filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington (King County) in the case of Winters, et al. v. Argosy Education Group, et al. by 20 former students in the Clinical Psychology program offered by the Seattle campus of Argosy University. In December 2013, a similar petition was filed in the same court in the case of McMath, et al. v. Argosy Education Group, et al. by nine former students in the Clinical Psychology program offered by the Seattle campus of Argosy University. Both cases allege negligent misrepresentation due to the failure of the Clinical Psychology program to obtain accreditation from the American Psychology Association ("APA"), breach of contract, violation of the Washington State Consumer Protection Act, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence and lack of institutional control, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent failure to disclose and fraud. The Seattle campus of Argosy University announced that it was teaching-out (i.e., not accepting new students into the program) the Clinical Psychology program in November 2011 due to the inability to obtain APA accreditation. The Company believes the claims in the lawsuits to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

Other Matters

The Company is a defendant in certain other legal proceedings arising out of the conduct of its business. Additionally, the Company is subject to compliance reviews by various state and federal agencies which provide student financial aid programs, of which noncompliance may result in liability for educational benefits paid as well as fines and other corrective action. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is currently conducting a compliance review of one of the Company's schools and has advised the Company that it intends to conduct reviews of four additional schools during fiscal 2014. As disclosed in 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K, with regard to the review that has begun, the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs has not yet issued a report of its findings, but has informed the Company that it has identified instances in which the school failed to notify the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs of circumstances where students receiving educational benefits failed to pursue a course, which the Company has been informed may in turn give rise to a refund obligation by students. The Company may be required, or may elect, to reimburse the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs for adjustments to the amount of educational benefits paid by the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs to the affected students. In the opinion of management, based upon an investigation of these matters and discussion with legal counsel, the ultimate outcome of such other legal proceedings and compliance reviews, individually and in the aggregate, is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or liquidity.