Commitments and Contingencies

Contingencies Related to Litigation and Other Proceedings

The following is a description of pending litigation, settlements, and other proceedings that fall outside the scope of ordinary and routine litigation incidental to our business.

Securities Class Action (Policeman’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago)

In January 2008, a jury returned an adverse verdict against us and two remaining individual co-defendants in a securities class action lawsuit entitled, In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, relating to alleged false and misleading statements in connection with our failure to publicly disclose the contents of a preliminary U.S. Department of Education program review report. After various post-trial challenges, the case was returned to the trial court in March 2011 to administer the shareholder claims process. In September 2011, we entered into an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the litigation for $145.0 million, which was preliminarily approved by the Court on November 28, 2011. On April 20, 2012, the Court approved the settlement agreement and entered an order of final judgment and dismissal. In connection with approval of the settlement agreement and the dismissal of the lawsuit, the Court also vacated the related judgment against us and the individual defendants.

Under the settlement agreement and during the third quarter of fiscal year 2012, the $145.0 million we had previously deposited into a common fund account in December 2011 was paid to the plaintiffs. As of February 29, 2012, the settlement amount was included in accrued and other current liabilities and the corresponding deposit was presented as restricted funds held for legal matter on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

As of May 31, 2012, we have accrued an estimate of a portion of the $23.2 million of defense costs that were advanced to us and other defendants in this shareholder litigation, and estimated future legal costs that may be incurred in resolving the dispute with our insurers regarding whether we are required to reimburse these funds. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of the dispute with our insurance carriers is uncertain at this point. However, we do not believe the potential exposure in excess of our accrual is material.

Securities Class Action (Apollo Institutional Investors Group)

On August 13, 2010, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Douglas N. Gaer naming us, John G. Sperling, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles B. Edelstein, Joseph L. D’Amico, Brian L. Swartz and Gregory J. Iverson as defendants for allegedly making false and misleading statements regarding our business practices and prospects for growth. That complaint asserted a putative class period stemming from December 7, 2009 to August 3, 2010. A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same Court by John T. Fitch on September 23, 2010 making similar allegations against the same defendants for the same purported class period. Finally, on October 4, 2010, another purported securities class action complaint was filed in the same Court by Robert Roth against the same defendants as well as Brian Mueller, Terri C. Bishop and Peter V. Sperling based upon the same general set of allegations, but with a defined class period of February 12, 2007 to August 3, 2010. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On October 15, 2010, three additional parties filed motions to consolidate the related actions and be appointed the lead plaintiff.

On November 23, 2010, the Fitch and Roth actions were consolidated with Gaer and the Court appointed the “Apollo Institutional Investors Group” consisting of the Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund, the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme, and Amalgamated Bank as lead plaintiffs. The case is now entitled, In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case Number CV-10-1735-PHX-JAT. On February 18, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint naming Apollo, John G. Sperling, Peter V. Sperling, Joseph L. D’Amico, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles B. Edelstein, Brian L. Swartz, Brian E. Mueller, Gregory J. Iverson, and William J. Pepicello as defendants. The consolidated complaint asserts a putative class period of May 21, 2007 to October 13, 2010. On April 19, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss and oral argument on the motion was held before the Court on October 17, 2011. On October 27, 2011, the Court granted our motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. On December 6, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which alleges similar claims against the same defendants. On January 9, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On June 22, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss and entered a judgment in our favor.

We cannot at this time predict whether or not the plaintiffs will appeal this dismissal. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss, if any, for this action and, accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated with this action.

Securities Class Action (Teamsters Local 617 Pensions and Welfare Funds)

On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds filed a class action complaint purporting to represent a class of shareholders who purchased our stock between November 28, 2001 and October 18, 2006. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is entitled Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB, and alleges that we and certain of our current and former directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by purportedly making misrepresentations concerning our stock option granting policies and practices and related accounting. The defendants are Apollo Group, Inc., J. Jorge Klor de Alva, Daniel E. Bachus, John M. Blair, Dino J. DeConcini, Kenda B. Gonzales, Hedy F. Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Todd S. Nelson, Laura Palmer Noone, John R. Norton III, John G. Sperling and Peter V. Sperling. On September 11, 2007, the Court appointed The Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 23, 2007, asserting the same legal claims as the original complaint and adding claims for violations of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and allegations of breach of fiduciary duties and civil conspiracy. On April 30, 2009, plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint, which alleges similar claims for alleged securities fraud against the same defendants.

On March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the case with prejudice and entered judgment in our favor. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this ruling, and the Court denied this motion on April 2, 2012. On April 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and their appeal remains pending before that Court. Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated with this action.

Incentive Compensation False Claims Act Lawsuit

On May 25, 2011, we were notified that a qui tam complaint had been filed against us in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, by private relators under the Federal False Claims Act and California False Claims Act, entitled USA and State of California ex rel. Hoggett and Good v. University of Phoenix, et al, Case Number 2:10-CV-02478-MCE-KJN. When the federal government declines to intervene in a qui tam action, as it has done in this case, the relators may elect to pursue the litigation on behalf of the federal government and, if successful, they are entitled to receive a portion of the federal government’s recovery.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that University of Phoenix has violated the Federal False Claims Act since December 12, 2009 and the California False Claims Act for the preceding ten years by falsely certifying to the U.S. Department of Education and the State of California that University of Phoenix was in compliance with various regulations that require compliance with federal rules regarding the payment of incentive compensation to admissions personnel, in connection with University of Phoenix’s participation in student financial aid programs. In addition to injunctive relief and fines, the relators seek significant damages on behalf of the Department of Education and the State of California, including all student financial aid disbursed by the Department to our students since December 2009 and by the State of California to our students during the preceding ten years. On July 12, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss and on August 30, 2011, relators filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which the Court granted. On November 2, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss relators’ Second Amended Complaint, and that motion is currently pending before the Court.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on the information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated with this action.

Patent Infringement Litigation

On March 3, 2008, Digital-Vending Services International Inc. filed a complaint against University of Phoenix and Apollo Group Inc., as well as Capella Education Company, Laureate Education Inc., and Walden University Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, since transferred on plaintiff’s motion to the Eastern District of Virginia. The case is entitled, Digital Vending Services International, LLC vs. The University of Phoenix, et al, Case Number 2:09cv555 (JBF-TEM). The complaint alleges that we and the other defendants have infringed and are infringing various patents relating to managing courseware in a shared use operating environment and seeks injunctive relief and substantial damages, including royalties as a percentage of our net revenue over a multi-year period. We filed an answer to the complaint on May 27, 2008, in which we denied that Digital-Vending Services International’s patents were duly and lawfully issued, and asserted defenses of non-infringement and patent invalidity, among others. We also asserted a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the patents are invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed by us.

On March 18, 2010, we filed our opening claim construction brief and on June 10, 2010, the Court issued its claim construction ruling. Discovery is now concluded and we filed a motion for summary judgment on August 13, 2010. A hearing on our motion for summary judgment was held on November 12, 2010, and on January 7, 2011, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice, citing plaintiff’s failure to point to admissible evidence that could support a finding of infringement.

Plaintiff appealed the order granting our summary judgment motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which held oral argument on December 5, 2011. On March 7, 2012, a divided three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the order granting summary judgment, and it remanded a portion of the plaintiff’s claims to the district court for further proceedings. We filed a Petition for Rehearing with the Federal Circuit regarding the portion of the decision reversing the grant of summary judgment, which the Federal Circuit denied on May 25, 2012. Accordingly, the case has been remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for further proceedings, the outcome of which remains uncertain at this point.

As of May 31, 2012, we have accrued an immaterial amount principally reflecting a rejected settlement offer we made during the third quarter of fiscal year 2012, as well as additional legal costs that we may incur in this matter.

Adoma Wage and Hour Class Action

On January 8, 2010, Diane Adoma filed an action in United States District Court, Eastern District of California alleging wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law for failure to pay overtime and other violations, entitled Adoma et al. v. University of Phoenix, et al, Case Number 2:10-cv-04134-JCJ. On March 5, 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay or transfer, the case based on the previously filed Sabol and Juric actions. On May 3, 2010, the Court denied the motion to dismiss and/or transfer. On April 12, 2010, plaintiff filed her motion for conditional collective action certification. The Court denied class certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act and transferred these claims to the District Court in Pennsylvania. On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court in California granted plaintiff’s motion for class action certification of the California claims. On September 14, 2010, we filed a petition for permission to appeal the class certification order with the Ninth Circuit, which was denied on November 3, 2010. There are approximately 1,500 current and former employees in the class.

In August 2011, the parties agreed to settle the case for an immaterial amount, which was accrued in our financial statements during fiscal year 2011. The agreement, in which we do not admit any liability, is subject to final approval by the Court. On June 18, 2012, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and granted the parties’ motion to certify the class of plaintiffs for settlement purposes. We expect a final approval hearing for the settlement will be held later this year.

Shareholder Derivative Actions and Demand Letters

On November 12, 2010 and December 8, 2010, we received separate demands on behalf of two different shareholders to investigate, address and commence proceedings against each of our directors and certain of our officers for violation of any applicable laws, including in connection with the subject matter of the report of the Government Accountability Office prepared for the U.S. Senate in August 2010, our withdrawal of the outlook we previously provided for our fiscal year 2011, the investigation into possible unfair and deceptive trade practices associated with certain alleged practices of University of Phoenix by the State of Florida Office of the Attorney General in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the participation by the State of Oregon Office of the Attorney General in the Securities Class Action (Apollo Institutional Investors Group), and the informal inquiry by the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission commenced in October 2009. On September 8, 2011, we received an additional shareholder demand letter from Darlene Smith, who is already pursuing one of the two previously filed shareholder derivative actions against Apollo management. In this letter, Ms. Smith requests that the Company pursue a contribution action against Todd Nelson and Kenda Gonzales based on the jury verdict in the Policeman’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago Securities Class Action described above. The demands are a condition precedent under applicable Arizona law to the filing of a derivative lawsuit on behalf of Apollo Group seeking damages from directors and officers for breach of fiduciary duty. The following two lawsuits have commenced to date in connection with these demands:

•

Himmel Derivative Action. On March 24, 2011, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona, Maricopa County by Daniel Himmel, one of the foregoing shareholders who previously made a demand for investigation. In the complaint, the plaintiff asserts a derivative claim on our behalf against certain of our current and former officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants made improper statements and engaged in improper business practices that caused our stock price to drop, led to securities class actions against us, and enhanced regulation and scrutiny by various government entities and regulators. The case is entitled, Himmel v. Bishop, et al, Case Number CV2011-005604. Pursuant to a stipulation between all parties, on August 31, 2011, the Court ordered this action stayed during the pendency of the underlying Apollo Group Institutional Investors Securities Class Action.

•

Smith Derivative Action. On April 12, 2011, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Darlene Smith, one of the foregoing shareholders who previously made a demand for investigation. In the complaint, the plaintiff asserts a derivative claim on our behalf against certain of our current and former officers and directors for violations of federal securities laws, state law claims for breaches of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, unjust enrichment, corporate waste, and insider trading. The case is entitled, Smith v. Sperling, et al, Case Number CV-11-0722-PHX-PGR. On February 3, 2012, the Company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the case, which are currently pending with the Court. Oral argument on the defendants’ motion to dismiss is scheduled for July 9, 2012.

K.K. Modi Investment and Financial Services Pvt. Ltd.

On November 8, 2010, a suit was filed by K.K. Modi Investment and Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. (“Modi”) in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi against defendants Apollo Group, Inc., Western International University, Inc., University of Phoenix, Inc., Apollo Global, Inc., Modi Apollo International Group Pvt. Ltd., Apollo International, Inc., John G. Sperling, Peter V. Sperling and Jorge Klor De Alva, seeking to permanently enjoin the defendants from making investments in the education industry in the Indian market in breach of an exclusivity and noncompete provision which plaintiff alleges is applicable to Apollo Group and its subsidiaries. The case is entitled, K.K. Modi Investment and Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Apollo International, et. al. We believe that the relevant exclusivity and noncompete provision is inapplicable to us and our affiliates, we have sought to dismiss this action on those grounds, and our application for such relief remains pending before the Court. On December 14, 2010, the Court declined to enter an injunction, but the matter is set for a further hearing on September 17, 2012. If plaintiff ultimately obtains the requested injunctive relief, our ability to conduct business in India, including through our joint venture with HT Media Limited, may be adversely affected. It is also possible that in the future K.K. Modi may seek to expand existing litigation in India or commence litigation in the U.S. in which it may assert a significant damage claim against us.

Other

We are subject to various claims and contingencies in the ordinary course of business, including those related to regulation, litigation, business transactions, employee-related matters and taxes, among others. We do not believe any of these are material for separate disclosure.

Other Matters

Attorney General Investigations

During fiscal year 2011, we received notices from the Attorney General Offices in three states that they were investigating business practices at the University of Phoenix, as described below. We believe there may be an informal coalition of states considering investigatory or other inquiries into recruiting practices and the financing of education at proprietary educational institutions, which may or may not include these three states.

•

State of Florida. On October 22, 2010, University of Phoenix received notice that the State of Florida Office of the Attorney General in Fort Lauderdale, Florida had commenced an investigation into possible unfair and deceptive trade practices associated with certain alleged practices of University of Phoenix. The notice included a subpoena to produce documents and detailed information for the time period of January 1, 2006 to the present about a broad spectrum of University of Phoenix’s business. We are cooperating with the investigation, but also filed a suit to quash or limit the subpoena and to protect information sought that constitutes propriety or trade secret information. We cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.

•

State of Massachusetts. On May 13, 2011, University of Phoenix received a Civil Investigative Demand from the State of Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General. The Demand relates to an investigation of possible unfair or deceptive methods, acts, or practices by for-profit educational institutions in connection with the recruitment of students and the financing of education. The Demand requires us to produce documents and detailed information and to give testimony regarding a broad spectrum of University of Phoenix’s business for the time period of January 1, 2002 to the present. We are cooperating with the investigation. We cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.

•

State of Delaware. On August 3, 2011, University of Phoenix received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of Delaware to produce detailed information regarding University of Phoenix students residing in Delaware. The time period covered by the subpoena is January 1, 2006 to the present. We are cooperating with the investigation. We cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.

Securities and Exchange Commission

During October 2009, we received notification from the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission indicating that they had commenced an informal inquiry into our revenue recognition practices. The Securities and Exchange Commission has requested various information and documents from us and/or our auditors, including information regarding our revenue recognition practices, our policies and practices relating to student refunds, the return of Title IV funds to lenders and bad debt reserves, our insider trading policies and procedures, a chronology of the internal processing and availability of information about the U.S. Department of Education program review of University of Phoenix commenced in early 2009, certain information relating to non-Title IV revenue sources and other matters. On March 21, 2012, the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission notified us that the informal inquiry had been completed and that the staff did not intend to recommend any enforcement action by the Commission.

During April 2012, we received notification from the Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission requesting documents and information relating to certain stock sales by company insiders and our February 28, 2012 announcement filed with the Commission on Form 8-K regarding revised enrollment forecasts. We are cooperating fully with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with this investigation. We cannot predict the eventual scope or outcome of this investigation.