15.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Securities Class Action

On August 11, 2010, a securities class action complaint captioned Gaer v. Education Management Corp., et. al was filed against the Company, certain of its executive officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 due to allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with the Company's initial public offering and the Company's subsequent press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On November 10, 2010, the Court granted the Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System's motion to serve as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On January 10, 2011, the lead plaintiff and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority filed an Amended Class Action Complaint with the Court alleging similar violations of Section 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and adding one additional individual defendant and other underwriters from the Company's initial public offering. The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.

Incentive Compensation Matters

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 under the federal False Claims Act. Four of the states listed on the case caption have joined the case based on qui tam actions filed under their respective state False Claims Acts. The State of Kentucky, which does not have a False Claims Act, has also filed a motion to intervene in the case under its consumer protection laws. The case, which is pending in the Western District of Pennsylvania, relates to whether the defendants' 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. 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 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 Company believes the claims to be 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 Company intends to cooperate with the subpoena and investigation. 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 Ms. 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, 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 remaining lawsuits in the case were 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 February 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 previous lawsuits. 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. The court signed the order of non-suit in August 2010, and the case was closed. 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 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 has announced an investigation of the business practices of for-profit post-secondary schools and that subpoenas had been 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.

In addition to the matters described above, the Company is a defendant in certain 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 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 $182.4 million, $167.1 million and $148.3 million for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Rent expense also includes short-term commitments for student housing of $50.7 million, $49.8 million and $50.3 million during the fiscal years ended June 30, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Certain of the Company's operating leases contain provisions for escalating payments and options for renewal.

As of June 30, 2011, the annual minimum future commitments under non-cancelable, long-term operating leases were as follows for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2012 to 2016 and thereafter (in thousands):


2012	$	160,997
2013		156,620
2014		145,529
2015		126,349
2016		110,273
Thereafter		400,460

At June 30, 2011, the Company has provided $15.9 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.