Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Nov. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Surety Bonds As part of our normal operations, our insurers issue surety bonds for us that are required by various states where we operate. We are obligated to reimburse our insurers for any surety bonds that are paid. As of November 30, 2013, the face amount of these surety bonds was $41.6 million. Letters of Credit As of November 30, 2013, we had approximately $21 million of outstanding letters of credit that are required as part of our normal operations. Litigation and Other Matters We are subject to various claims and contingencies that arise from time to time 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. 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 (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. On July 20, 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. If the plaintiffs are successful in their appeal, we anticipate they will seek substantial damages. 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. 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, 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. If the plaintiffs are successful in their appeal, we anticipate they will seek substantial damages. 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 recorded a loss 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, which was denied by the Court on July 6, 2012. On August 1, 2012, we filed a motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal, which was denied by the Court on March 7, 2013. Discovery in this matter has commenced, and trial is scheduled for January 2015. 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, 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 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 summary judgment 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 was remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for further proceedings. In July 2013, we filed another motion for summary judgment based on non-infringement, and on October 4, 2013, the Court granted our motion and dismissed each of plaintiff’s remaining claims with prejudice. On November 1, 2013, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the District Court’s order. The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement for an immaterial amount pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to dismiss its appeal. Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on November 21, 2013, which resolved the litigation. Himmel Derivative Action On November 12, 2010, we received a shareholder demand 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 March 24, 2011, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona, Maricopa County by Daniel Himmel, the foregoing shareholder 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 Securities Class Action (Apollo Institutional Investors Group) matter. 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, 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 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. 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. Attorney General Investigations 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 the University. 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 the University’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. In May 2011 and January 2013, University of Phoenix received Civil Investigative Demands from the State of Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General. The Demands relate 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 Demands seek documents, information and testimony regarding a broad spectrum of the University’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. UNIACC Investigations UNIACC was advised by the National Accreditation Commission of Chile in November 2011 that its institutional accreditation would not be renewed and therefore had lapsed. Subsequently, in June 2012, a prosecutor’s office in Santiago, Chile requested that UNIACC provide documents relating to UNIACC’s relationship with a former employee and consultant who served as a member of the National Accreditation Commission until March 2012, and we have since received requests for additional information in connection with this investigation. Furthermore, in August 2012, the prosecutor’s office began requesting that UNIACC provide information about UNIACC’s business structure and operations and its relationship with other Apollo entities, in connection with an additional investigation regarding UNIACC’s compliance with applicable laws concerning the generation of profit by universities such as UNIACC. The prosecutor’s office is also requesting additional information from UNIACC regarding certain government funding received by the institution. UNIACC is cooperating with these investigations. At this time, we cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of these investigations. In November 2012, UNIACC learned that the Ministry of Education was commencing a formal investigation into profit related issues and concerning the official recognition of UNIACC as a university under Chilean law. On November 18, 2013, we were notified by the Ministry of Education that it declined to pursue any charges against UNIACC and closed its investigation without imposing any sanction on UNIACC. In closing its investigation, the Ministry forwarded certain of its files for review by the Chilean tax authorities and the criminal prosecutor conducting the profit investigation referenced above. Refer to Note 9, Income Taxes, for discussion of Internal Revenue Service audits.

Commitments and Contingencies

Surety Bonds

As part of our normal operations, our insurers issue surety bonds for us that are required by various states where we operate. We are obligated to reimburse our insurers for any surety bonds that are paid. As of November 30, 2013, the face amount of these surety bonds was $41.6 million.

Letters of Credit

As of November 30, 2013, we had approximately $21 million of outstanding letters of credit that are required as part of our normal operations.

Litigation and Other Matters

We are subject to various claims and contingencies that arise from time to time 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.

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 (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. On July 20, 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. If the plaintiffs are successful in their appeal, we anticipate they will seek substantial damages.

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.

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, 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. If the plaintiffs are successful in their appeal, we anticipate they will seek substantial damages.

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, which was denied by the Court on July 6, 2012. On August 1, 2012, we filed a motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal, which was denied by the Court on March 7, 2013. Discovery in this matter has commenced, and trial is scheduled for January 2015.

Patent Infringement Litigation

On March 3, 2008, Digital-Vending Services International Inc. filed a complaint against University of Phoenix and Apollo, 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 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 summary judgment 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 was remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for further proceedings. In July 2013, we filed another motion for summary judgment based on non-infringement, and on October 4, 2013, the Court granted our motion and dismissed each of plaintiff’s remaining claims with prejudice. On November 1, 2013, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the District Court’s order. The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement for an immaterial amount pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to dismiss its appeal. Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on November 21, 2013, which resolved the litigation.

Himmel Derivative Action

On November 12, 2010, we received a shareholder demand 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 March 24, 2011, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona, Maricopa County by Daniel Himmel, the foregoing shareholder 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 Securities Class Action (Apollo Institutional Investors Group) matter.

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, 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 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. 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.

Attorney General Investigations

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 the University. 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 the University’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.

In May 2011 and January 2013, University of Phoenix received Civil Investigative Demands from the State of Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General. The Demands relate 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 Demands seek documents, information and testimony regarding a broad spectrum of the University’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.

UNIACC Investigations

UNIACC was advised by the National Accreditation Commission of Chile in November 2011 that its institutional accreditation would not be renewed and therefore had lapsed. Subsequently, in June 2012, a prosecutor’s office in Santiago, Chile requested that UNIACC provide documents relating to UNIACC’s relationship with a former employee and consultant who served as a member of the National Accreditation Commission until March 2012, and we have since received requests for additional information in connection with this investigation. Furthermore, in August 2012, the prosecutor’s office began requesting that UNIACC provide information about UNIACC’s business structure and operations and its relationship with other Apollo entities, in connection with an additional investigation regarding UNIACC’s compliance with applicable laws concerning the generation of profit by universities such as UNIACC. The prosecutor’s office is also requesting additional information from UNIACC regarding certain government funding received by the institution. UNIACC is cooperating with these investigations. At this time, we cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of these investigations.

In November 2012, UNIACC learned that the Ministry of Education was commencing a formal investigation into profit related issues and concerning the official recognition of UNIACC as a university under Chilean law. On November 18, 2013, we were notified by the Ministry of Education that it declined to pursue any charges against UNIACC and closed its investigation without imposing any sanction on UNIACC. In closing its investigation, the Ministry forwarded certain of its files for review by the Chilean tax authorities and the criminal prosecutor conducting the profit investigation referenced above.

Refer to Note 9, Income Taxes, for discussion of Internal Revenue Service audits.