Commitments and Contingencies | 19. Commitments and Contingencies Adtalem is subject to lawsuits, administrative proceedings, regulatory reviews, and investigations associated with financial assistance programs and other matters arising in the normal conduct of its business. As of March 31, 2020, Adtalem believes it has adequately reserved for potential losses. The following is a description of pending legal and regulatory matters that may be considered other than ordinary, routine, and incidental to the business. Descriptions of certain matters from prior SEC filings may not be carried forward in this report to the extent we believe such matters no longer are required to be disclosed or there has not been, to our knowledge, significant activity relating to them. The timing or outcome of the following matters, or their possible impact on Adtalem’s business, financial condition, or results of operations, cannot be predicted at this time. The continued defense, resolution, or settlement of any of the following matters could require us to expend significant resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows, and result in the imposition of significant restrictions on us and our ability to operate. On October 14, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Debbie Petrizzo and five other former DeVry University students, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against Adtalem, DeVry University, Inc., and DeVry/New York Inc. (collectively the “Adtalem Parties”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Petrizzo Case”). The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of those who enrolled in and/or attended classes at DeVry University during and after 2002 and who were unable to find employment within their chosen field of study within six months of graduation. Citing the civil complaint filed by the FTC on January 26, 2016 against the Adtalem Parties (the “FTC lawsuit”), the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of six different states’ consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs seek monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief. On October 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Jairo Jara and eleven others, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Jara Case”). The individual plaintiffs claimed to have graduated from DeVry University in 2001 or later and sought to proceed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of those who obtained a degree from DeVry University and who were unable to find employment within their chosen field of study within six months of graduation. Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of ten different states’ consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief. By order dated November 28, 2016, the district court ordered the Petrizzo Case and the Jara Case be consolidated under the Petrizzo caption for all further purposes. On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on behalf of 38 individual plaintiffs and others similarly situated. The amended consolidated complaint sought to bring claims on behalf of the named individuals and a putative nationwide class of individuals for unjust enrichment and alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and the Illinois Private Businesses and Vocational Schools Act of 2012. In addition, it purported to assert causes of action on behalf of certain of the named individuals and 15 individual state-specific putative classes for alleged violations of 15 different states’ consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. Finally, it sought to bring individual claims under Georgia state law on behalf of certain named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief. A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed by the Adtalem Parties and granted by the court, without prejudice, on February 12, 2018. On April 12, 2018, the Petrizzo plaintiffs refiled their complaint with a new lead plaintiff, Renee Heather Polly. The plaintiffs’ refiled complaint is nearly identical to the complaint previously dismissed by the court on February 12, 2018. The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this refiled complaint on May 14, 2018. The court granted defendants’ motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice on February 13, 2019. On March 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and this matter is currently pending on appeal before the Seventh Circuit. On April 13, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Nicole Versetto, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the Adtalem Parties in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Illinois and who purchased or paid for a DeVry University program between January 1, 2008 and April 8, 2016. The plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserts causes of action under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, and claims of breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief as to violations of state law. The plaintiff seeks compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, in addition to restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. The Adtalem Parties moved to dismiss this complaint on June 20, 2018. On March 11, 2019, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that same day, asserting similar claims, with new lead plaintiff, Dave McCormick. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint on April 15, 2019 and the court granted Defendants’ motion on July 29, 2019, with leave to amend. The plaintiff has filed an amended complaint on August 26, 2019. On October 18, 2019, defendants’ moved to dismiss this complaint as it is substantially similar to the one the court previously dismissed. No hearing on the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled. A status hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2020. This matter is currently stayed. On May 8, 2018, the Carlson Law Firm (“Carlson”) filed a lawsuit against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., on behalf of 71 individual former DeVry University students in Rangel v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. Carlson filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Plaintiffs contend that DeVry University “made deceptive representations about the benefits of obtaining a degree from DeVry University” in violation of Texas state laws and seek full restitution of all monies paid to DeVry University and any student loan lenders, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint on June 5, 2018. On June 27, 2018, Carlson filed a second lawsuit on behalf of 32 former DeVry University students against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. in Lindberg v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. Carlson filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The allegations are identical to the allegations in the lawsuit Carlson filed on May 8, 2018. Specifically, plaintiffs contend that DeVry University “made deceptive representations about the benefits of obtaining a degree from DeVry University” in violation of Texas state laws and seek full restitution of all monies paid to DeVry University and any student loan lenders, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint on August 28, 2018. The court consolidated these two lawsuits on December 10, 2018. The defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated action on December 18, 2018. On January 2, 2019, Carlson filed a motion to intervene on behalf of 13 additional former DeVry University students seeking to join the consolidated lawsuit. The parties re-filed their briefing on the motions to dismiss so that the motion would apply to all three groups of plaintiffs. On April 24, 2019, the Court granted Adtalem’s and DeVry University’s motions to dismiss, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 7, 2019. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on July 5, 2019. The motion to dismiss was referred to a magistrate judge. On December 13, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation denying defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 3, 2020, defendants filed their objections to the report and recommendation on the motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs filed a response to the objections on January 8, 2020. The District Court judge adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendations on March 12, 2020, and the defendants filed an answer to the complaint on April 10, 2020. Discovery is ongoing. On April 4, 2019, the Carlson Law Firm sent notice pursuant to California Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1750, of 105 individuals who purportedly have claims against DeVry University and Adtalem based on allegedly deceptive comments made about the benefits of obtaining a DeVry University degree; specifically, that 90% of graduates obtained a job in their chosen field of study within six months of graduation, and that graduates were paid more than graduates of other universities. On July 16, 2019, the Carlson Law Firm filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California – San Jose Division against Adtalem and DeVry University on behalf of 102 individual former DeVry University students in Alvarez v. Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. The plaintiffs contend that defendants misrepresented the benefits of graduating from DeVry University and falsely and misleadingly advertised the employment rate and income rate of their graduates to induce potential students to purchase educational products and services, and to remain students through graduation. The lawsuit seeks exemplary damages, restitution, economic damages, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and the cost of suit. The plaintiffs brought claims for fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, negligent misrepresentation, civil theft, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and violation of California’s False Advertising Law. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 1, 2019. On December 16, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on January 13, 2020. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 31, 2020, and defendants filed an amended answer on March 2, 2020. The parties court-ordered mediation on May 20, 2020 has been postponed due to COVID-19. Discovery is ongoing. On August 13, 2019, a plaintiff, Magana, filed a putative class action lawsuit against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging damages based on allegedly deceptive statements made about the benefits of obtaining a DeVry University degree. Plaintiffs assert claims under the California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, and claims of fraud/material misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment/intentional omission of material facts, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. This matter is currently stayed. On June 21, 2018, Stoltmann Law Offices filed a lawsuit against Adtalem in Cook County Circuit Court, alleging that Adtalem breached a contract with Stoltmann Law Offices to pay filing fees associated with arbitration claims Stoltmann Law Offices has filed with the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. (“JAMS”). Stoltmann Law Offices is seeking specific performance from the court. Adtalem moved to dismiss this complaint on August 3, 2018. Prior to the court ruling on Adtalem’s motion to dismiss, Stoltmann Law Offices and 399 individuals filed an amended complaint on August 9, 2018, asserting claims for specific performance, declaratory judgment and a petition to compel arbitration. Adtalem moved to dismiss the amended complaint on August 31, 2018. The court granted Adtalem’s motion to dismiss on November 30, 2018, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. A single On June 7, 2019, Stoltmann Law Offices filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of Michael Forsythe seeking to compel arbitration of his consumer claims before JAMS. Adtalem moved to dismiss the complaint on July 1, 2019. The court dismissed the complaint as moot on January 31, 2020. Stoltmann Law Offices is representing hundreds of individuals who have filed claims with JAMS alleging fraud-based claims based on DeVry University’s graduate employment statistics. Stoltmann Law Offices has paid the filing fees for thirty of these arbitrations to move forward. JAMS has sent commencement letters in several waves on June 14, 2019; August 2, 2019; August 5, 2019; November 6, 2019; November 15, 2019; November 25, 2019; February 14, 2020; March 13, 2020; and April 15, 2020. Defendants have filed answers in response to twenty-two arbitration demands. These arbitrations are in various stages of litigation and discovery. On March 29, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Robby Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the Western District of Missouri. The complaint was filed on behalf of himself and two separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Missouri and who purchased or paid for and received any part of a DeVry University program. The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019. On October 9, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for unjust enrichment and conversion, allowing the remaining claims to proceed. On October 29, 2019, defendants filed an answer to the complaint. This matter is currently stayed. On or about April 1, 2019, Adtalem, Chamberlain and DeVry University received similar Civil Investigative Demands (“CID”) from the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”). The CIDs were issued pursuant to a False Claims Act inquiry concerning allegations that Adtalem, in particular Chamberlain and Adtalem’s former subsidiary DeVry University, submitted or caused the submission of false claims to the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs for federal funds under the GI Bill Programs and Tuition Assistance Program from 2011 to the date of the CIDs. It is specifically alleged that Chamberlain and DeVry University engaged in unlawful recruitment tactics, and provided incentive payments based directly or indirectly on securing federal financial aid. Adtalem cooperated with this DOJ inquiry and provided documents and other information requested by the DOJ. On February 27, 2020, the DOJ notified the U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia that it would decline to intervene in two qui tam False Claims Act actions filed by former DeVry University employees related to the subject matter of the CIDs and subsequently notified Adtalem that we are no longer needed to produce materials requested in the CID. Those actions were unsealed on March 2, 2020 and it is unknown whether the relators will pursue them. Although we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these actions, we believe they are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them. On April 3, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by T’Lani Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Adtalem and DeVry University, Inc., in the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint was filed on behalf of herself and three separate classes of similarly situated individuals who were citizens of the State of Georgia who purchased or paid for and received any part of a DeVry University program. The plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and assert claims of breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs seek compensatory, exemplary, punitive, treble, and statutory penalties and damages as allowed by law, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest disgorgement, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief, and attorneys’ fees. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 31, 2019. On November, 25, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion with prejudice. The court dismissed the claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment without prejudice, ordering plaintiffs’ to file an amended class-action complaint within fourteen days of the order. The court allowed the claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief to proceed. On December 9, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended class-action complaint. On December 23, 2019, defendants filed their answer to the amended class action complaint. The matter is currently stayed. |