UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark one)

x                              QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2006,

OR

o                                 TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM                         TO                        

Commission File Number: 0-23245

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (847) 781-3600

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes x  No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer x

Accelerated filer o

Non-accelerated filer o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o  No x

Number of shares of registrant’s common stock, par value $0.01, outstanding as of May 9, 2006: 97,657,969

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION

INDEX

 

2

PART I—FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.                        Financial Statements

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed consolidated statements.

3

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(In thousands, except per share amounts)

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed consolidated statements.

4

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
(In thousands)

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed consolidated statements.

5

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(In thousands)

 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed consolidated statements.

6

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)

1.                 ORGANIZATION AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION

As used in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, the terms “we,” us,” “our,” and “CEC” refer to Career Education Corporation and our wholly-owned subsidiaries. The terms “school” and “university” refers to an individual, branded, proprietary educational institution, owned by us and including its campus locations. The term “campus” refers to an individual main or branch campus operated by one of our schools or universities.

We are a dynamic educational services company committed to quality, career-focused learning and led by passionate professionals who inspire individual worth and lifelong achievement. Since our founding in 1994, we have progressed rapidly toward our goal of becoming the world’s leading provider of quality educational services. We are the world’s largest on-ground provider of private, for-profit postsecondary education and have a substantial and growing presence in online education. Our schools and universities prepare students for professionally and personally rewarding careers through the operation of 86 campuses, including two online campuses, located throughout the United States and in France, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, the financial statements do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments, including normal recurring accruals, considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the three months ended March 31, 2006, are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2006. The condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2005, has been derived from the audited consolidated financial statements as of that date but does not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. For additional information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and notes to consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2005, included in Part IV, Item 15 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on March 6, 2006.

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements presented herein include the accounts of CEC and our wholly-owned subsidiaries. All significant inter-company transactions and balances have been eliminated. The results of operations of all acquired businesses have been consolidated for all periods subsequent to the date of acquisition.

Certain amounts in our prior period financial statements have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation.

2.                 GOODWILL IMPAIRMENT

On the first day of January of each year, our goodwill balances are reviewed for impairment through the application of a fair-value-based test. The results of the test as of January 1, 2006, indicated no goodwill impairment, as, for all reporting units, which we define as our school operating divisions, our estimate of reporting unit fair value exceeded the carrying value of the reporting unit. Our estimate of fair value for each of our reporting units was based primarily on projected future results and cash flows and other assumptions. Although we believe our projections and resulting estimates of fair value are

7

---

reasonable, historically, our projections have not always been achieved. For our Health Education division and our Gibbs division reporting units, estimated fair values exceeded carrying values by a relatively small margin as of January 1, 2006, such that the failure of either of these reporting units to achieve projected operating results and cash flows in the near term or long term may reduce the reporting unit’s estimated fair value below its carrying value and result in the recognition of a goodwill impairment charge.

Our Gibbs division did not achieve its projected student enrollment targets, operating results, and cash flows through April 2006, and, thus, we do not believe that the reporting unit will be able to achieve full year 2006 projected operating results and cash flows. As previously disclosed, there are several key factors that contribute to the continuing weakness in our Gibbs division’s operating results, including, (1) significant past and expected future declines in student population relative to student population in prior periods, (2) negative press coverage in 2004 and 2005 regarding us and certain of our Gibbs division campuses, and (3) the overall strengthening of economic conditions in the U.S. In consideration of our Gibbs division’s weak operating results, we retested the division’s goodwill balance for impairment as of April 1, 2006. The results of the test as of April 1, 2006, indicated that the value of goodwill attributable to our Gibbs division of approximately $10.4 million had been impaired, as our estimate of the reporting unit’s fair value was less than the carrying value of the reporting unit. Thus, we recorded a goodwill impairment charge during the first quarter of 2006 of $10.4 million, pretax, or $0.06 per diluted share to reduce the carrying value of Gibbs division goodwill to zero as of March 31, 2006.

The goodwill balance as of March 31, 2006, attributable to our Health Education division is $216.0 million. The Health Education division achieved its projected first quarter 2006 operating results and cash flows and, we will continue to monitor the operating results and cash flows of this reporting unit on a quarterly basis for signs of possible declines in estimated fair value and goodwill impairment.

3.                 FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

Cash and Cash Equivalents and Investments

Cash equivalents include short-term investments with a term to maturity of less than 90 days. The U.S. Department of Education (“ED”) requires that funds from various federal financial aid programs authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (“HEA”), which we refer to as “Title IV Programs,” collected in advance of student billings be kept in a separate cash account until the students are billed for the portion of their program related to those Title IV Program funds collected. These restricted cash balances generally remain in these separate accounts for an average of 60 to 75 days from receipt. We do not recognize restricted cash balances on our consolidated balance sheets until all restrictions have lapsed. As of March 31, 2006, and December 31, 2005, the amount of restricted cash balances kept in separate cash accounts was not significant. Restrictions on cash balances have not affected our ability to fund daily operations.

8

---

Investments, which primarily consist of municipal auction rate securities and asset-backed securities, are classified as “available-for-sale” in accordance with the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 115, Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities, and are recorded at fair value. Any unrealized gains or temporary unrealized losses, net of income taxes, are reported as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income on our consolidated balance sheets. Realized gains and losses are computed on the basis of specific identification and are included in miscellaneous other income (expense) in our consolidated income statements. Cash and cash equivalents and investments consist of the following as of March 31, 2006, and December 31, 2005 (in thousands):

 

(1)          Investments in auction rate municipal bonds generally have stated terms to maturity of greater than one year. However, we classify investments in auction rate municipal bonds as current on our consolidated balance sheet because we are generally able to divest our holdings at auction 30 days from our purchase date.

9

---

Student Receivables Valuation Allowance

Changes in our student receivables allowance during the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, were as follows:

 

Credit Agreements

As of March 31, 2006, we have outstanding under our $200.0 million U.S. Credit Agreement revolving loans totaling $13.9 million and letters of credit totaling $17.7 million. Credit availability under our U.S. Credit Agreement as of March 31, 2006, is $168.4 million.

As of March 31, 2006, we have no revolving loans outstanding under our $10.0 million (USD) Canadian Credit Agreement.

4.                 RECOURSE LOAN AGREEMENTS

We have entered into agreements with Sallie Mae and Stillwater National Bank and Trust Company (“Stillwater”) to provide private recourse loans to qualifying students.

Sallie Mae.   Our original recourse loan agreement with Sallie Mae was effective from July 1, 2002, to February 28, 2006. We have entered into a new recourse loan agreement with Sallie Mae effective March 1, 2006, which has an expiration date of June 30, 2009. Under both our original and new recourse loan agreements with Sallie Mae, we are required to deposit 20% of all recourse loans funded under the agreement into a Sallie Mae reserve account.

Under our original recourse loan agreement, loans funded were intended for students whose credit scores were less than the credit score required under Sallie Mae’s non-recourse loan program for our students. A student was generally eligible for a Sallie Mae recourse loan under the original agreement if (1) the student demonstrated a specified minimum credit score, (2) any bankruptcy proceeding involving the student had been discharged for at least 18 months, and (3) the student was not in default or delinquent with respect to any prior student loan. Under the terms of the original agreement, we are obligated to purchase, with funds that have been deposited into the reserve account as discussed above, recourse loans funded under the original agreement (a) that have been delinquent for 150 days or (b) upon the bankruptcy, death, or total and permanent disability of the borrower. The amount of our repurchase obligation under the original agreement may not exceed 20% of loans funded under the original agreement, which also represents the amount that is withheld by Sallie Mae and deposited into the reserve account. Any balance remaining in the reserve account after all recourse loans have been either repaid in full or repurchased by us will be paid to us. Our new recourse loan agreement with Sallie Mae has substantially similar terms, with the exception that students and, if applicable, their qualified co-borrowers, must demonstrate a slightly higher specified minimum credit score than the credit score required under the original agreement to be eligible for a recourse loan.

We record amounts withheld by Sallie Mae in the reserve account as a deposit in long-term assets on our consolidated balance sheet. Amounts on deposit may ultimately be utilized to purchase loans in default, in which case recoverability of such amounts would be in question. Therefore, we establish a 100% reserve against amounts on deposit through the use of a deposit contra-account. We believe that costs associated with our Sallie Mae recourse loan programs are directly attributable to the educational activity

10

---

of our schools and the support of our students. Therefore, such costs are classified as educational services and facilities expense in our consolidated statement of income. Costs are recognized on a straight-line basis over the course of the instructional term for which the underlying loan was granted as the related revenues are earned. Upon purchasing Sallie Mae loans in default, we transfer an amount equal to the total balance of the loans purchased from the deposit account to a long-term recourse loan receivable account and transfer an offsetting amount from the deposit contra-account to a long-term recourse loan receivable contra-account, such that the net book value of the purchased loans is generally zero.

Stillwater.   The private student loans subject to the Stillwater purchase agreement are made by Stillwater, and serviced by Sallie Mae, to students at our schools if (1) the student demonstrates a specified minimum credit score, which is less than the minimum credit score required pursuant to our recourse loan agreement with Sallie Mae, (2) any bankruptcy proceeding involving the student has been discharged for at least 18 months, and (3) the student is not in default or delinquent with respect to any prior student loan. Under the terms of the purchase agreement, Stillwater retains 50% of the loan amounts disbursed and deposits this amount into a reserve account. Under the terms of the purchase agreement, Stillwater has an option, but not an obligation, to sell to us 100% of these private student loans on a monthly basis. We are required to purchase all private student loans offered for sale by Stillwater for a price equal to the current principal balance plus accrued interest. To date, we have purchased all private student loans offered for sale by Stillwater. Upon purchase of private student loans from Stillwater, we receive all funds that were placed into the reserve account with respect to the specific loans purchased.

Amounts held in reserve with Stillwater will be used to finance 50% of the principal balance of any loans that we are required to purchase pursuant to the agreement. We record such amounts as a deposit in long-term assets on our consolidated balance sheet. Based on our collection experience, we establish a 100% reserve against Stillwater funds on deposit. Due to the high level of uncollectible amounts expected under the Stillwater agreement, the associated costs are classified as a reduction of the related tuition revenue in our consolidated statement of income. Costs are recognized on a straight-line basis over the course of the instructional term for which the underlying loan was granted as the related revenues are earned. Upon purchasing Stillwater loans in default, we record the total balance of the loans as a long-term recourse loan receivable and transfer the reserve for recourse loans withheld by the lender, totaling approximately 50% of the related principal balance, from the deposit contra-account to the long-term loan receivable contra-account, such that the net book value of the purchased loans is approximately 50% of the related principal balance. Based on our collections experience, we believe that the 50% reserve is reasonable to provide for Stillwater loans that have been purchased or that may be purchased and that may be ultimately uncollectible. We evaluate the collectibility of our Stillwater loan receivables on a periodic basis and may adjust our reserve estimates in future periods based on collections experience.

The following table reflects selected information with respect to each of our recourse loan agreements, including cumulative loan disbursements and purchase activity under the agreements from inception through March 31, 2006 (in millions, except for cumulative loan limits per student):

(1)          Our original recourse loan agreement with Sallie Mae was effective from July 1, 2002, to February 28, 2006. We entered into a new recourse loan agreement effective March 1, 2006, that expires on June 30, 2009.

11

(2)          The Stillwater agreement commenced in December 2003 and has no stated termination date. We or Stillwater may terminate the agreement 90 days after notifying the other party of its intention to do so.

(3)          Our original recourse loan agreement with Sallie Mae had no stated limit for the amount of loans to be disbursed under the agreement. Loans funded prior to March 1, 2006, were subject to this previous agreement. Under our new recourse loan agreement with Sallie Mae, the total amount of loans that may be funded may not exceed $180.0 million through June 30, 2008, with funding limits of $20.0 million for the period of March 1, 2006, to June 30, 2006, $80.0 million for the period of July 1, 2006, to June 30, 2007, and $80.0 million for the period of July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2008. There is currently no stated loan funding limit for the period of July 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009. Instead, any funding limit must be negotiated by both parties prior to July 1, 2008.

(4)          Under the Stillwater agreement, the total amount of loans held by Stillwater under the agreement at any time cannot exceed $20.0 million.

(5)          Loan limit per student generally represents the maximum loan amount available to an individual student during his or her complete academic program at one of our schools. Loan limits vary based on the length and cost of the student’s academic program.

(6)          Loans we may be required to purchase represents the maximum principal amount of loans under each agreement that we may be required to purchase in the future based on cumulative loans disbursed and purchased through March 31, 2006.

Costs associated with our recourse loan agreements for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, are set forth below (in thousands). As discussed above, costs incurred in connection with our Sallie Mae agreement are classified as a component of educational services and facilities expense in our consolidated statement of income, and costs incurred in connection with our Stillwater agreement are classified as a reduction of tuition and registration fee revenue in our consolidated statement of income.

		For the Three Months ended March 31,
		2006			2005
Sallie Mae		$	1,591		$	3,033
Stillwater		$	1,203		$	1,922

 

Outstanding recourse loan deposit, contra-deposit, loan receivable, and contra-loan receivable balances as of March 31, 2006, and December 31, 2005, are set forth below (in thousands).

 

12

---

 

 

5.    COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation

We are, or were, a party to the following pending legal proceedings that are outside the scope of ordinary routine litigation incidental to our business.

Employment Litigation

Vander Vennet, et al. v. American InterContinental University, Inc., et al.    As previously disclosed, on August 24, 2005, former admissions advisors of American InterContinental University (“AIU”) Online filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that we, AIU Online, and the President of our University division, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act by failing to pay the plaintiffs for all of the overtime hours they allegedly worked. Plaintiffs seek unspecified lost wages, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs are also seeking certification as a class under the FLSA. On December 22, 2005, and April 7, 2006, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motions to send FLSA Notice, and plaintiffs’ counsel has distributed such notice to certain current and former admissions advisors. On April 7, 2006, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to expand the class to include temporary admissions advisors. Defendants deny all of the material allegations in the complaint and are vigorously defending the claims and opposing class certification.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. An unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition.

Securities Litigation

In re Career Education Corporation Securities Litigation.   As previously disclosed, In re Career Education Corporation Securities Litigation represents the consolidation into one suit of six purported class action lawsuits filed between December 9, 2003, and February 5, 2004, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by and on behalf of certain purchasers of our common stock against us and two of our executive officers, John M. Larson and Patrick K. Pesch. The suits purportedly were brought on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of our common stock during specified class periods. The complaints allege that in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, the defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts about the condition of our business and prospects during the putative class periods, causing the respective plaintiffs to purchase shares of our common stock at artificially inflated prices. The plaintiffs further claim that John M. Larson and Patrick K. Pesch are liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs ask for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief. Five of these lawsuits were

13

---

found to be related to the first filed lawsuit, captioned Taubenfeld v. Career Education Corporation et al. (No. 03 CV 8884), and were reassigned to the same judge. On March 19, 2004, the Court ordered these six cases to be consolidated and appointed Thomas Schroeder as lead plaintiff. On April 6, 2004, the Court appointed the firm of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, which represents Mr. Schroeder, as lead counsel. Subsequently, the Court issued an order changing the caption of this lawsuit to In re Career Education Corporation Securities Litigation.

On June 17, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. On February 11, 2005, defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted, without prejudice. On April 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On March 28, 2006, defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was granted, without prejudice. On May 1, 2006, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.

Derivative Actions.   As previously disclosed, on January 5, 2004, a derivative action captioned McSparran v. John M. Larson, et al. (“McSparran”), was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of CEC, against John M. Larson, Patrick K. Pesch, Wallace O. Laub, Keith K. Ogata, Dennis H. Chookaszian, Robert E. Dowdell, Thomas B. Lally, Nick Fluge, Jacob P. Gruver, and Todd H. Steele, and CEC as a nominal defendant. Each individual defendant in this action is or was one of our officers and/or directors. The lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duties for insider stock sales and misappropriation of information, generally based on allegations of conduct similar to that complained of in the In re Career Education Corporation Securities Litigation matter described above. The plaintiffs ask for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary relief.

On October 1, 2004, the court ordered the McSparran lawsuit to be consolidated with the derivative action captioned Ulrich v. John M. Larson, et al., which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 20, 2004, and names the same defendants and asserts the same claims as alleged in the McSparran lawsuit. On November 5, 2004, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in this matter, which the defendants moved to dismiss on December 16, 2004. On March 24, 2005, the Court stayed discovery pending resolution of defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 27, 2006, the Court issued an order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss. On February 15, 2006, defendants filed a motion for expedited reconsideration of the Court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court heard oral argument on this motion on March 1, 2006, and defendants are awaiting a ruling on the motion.

As previously disclosed, on July 2, 2004, a derivative action captioned Xiao-Qiong Huang v. John M. Larson, et al., was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, on behalf of CEC, against John M. Larson, Patrick K. Pesch, Wallace O. Laub, Keith K. Ogata, Dennis H. Chookaszian, Robert E. Dowdell, Thomas B. Lally, Nick Fluge, and Jacob P. Gruver, and CEC as a nominal defendant. Each of the individual defendants is or was one of our officers and/or directors. The lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of confidential information for personal profit by the individual defendants and seeks contribution and indemnification on behalf of CEC. On February 17, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended derivative complaint in this lawsuit, which the defendants moved to dismiss on
April 4, 2005. On September 12, 2005, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, but ordered a stay of the action until further order of the Court in deference to the prior-filed McSparran lawsuit.

As previously disclosed, on November 10, 2004, a derivative suit captioned Nicholas v. Dowdell, et al., was filed in the Chancery Court of New Castle County, Delaware, on behalf of CEC against John M. Larson, Patrick K. Pesch, Wallace O. Laub, Keith K. Ogata, Dennis H. Chookaszian, Robert E. Dowdell, Thomas B. Lally, Nick Fluge, and Jacob P. Gruver, and CEC as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty for insider stock sales and misappropriation of confidential information, breach of fiduciary duty of good faith, and unjust enrichment and seeks a constructive trust, disgorgement of profits, damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. On December 20, 2004, defendants filed a motion to

14

---

dismiss. On March 17, 2005, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay the action pending final resolution of the McSparran lawsuit described above.

As previously disclosed, on June 3, 2005, a derivative suit captioned Romero v. Dowdell, et al., was filed in the Chancery Court of New Castle County, Delaware, on behalf of CEC against John M. Larson, Patrick K. Pesch, Wallace O. Laub, Keith K. Ogata, Dennis H. Chookaszian, Robert E. Dowdell, Thomas B. Lally, and CEC as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty for insider stock sales, misappropriation of information for personal profit and breach of fiduciary duty of good faith, generally based on allegations of conduct similar to that complained of in the lawsuits captioned In re Career Education Corporation Securities Litigation, McSparran v. John M. Larson, et al., Xiao-Qiong Huang v. John M. Larson, et al., and Nicholas v. Dowdell, et al. On July 5, 2005, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On October 12, 2005, in response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the plaintiff filed an amended derivative complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended derivative complaint on October 26, 2005.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these matters. An unfavorable outcome of any one or more of these matters could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition.

Special Committee Investigation

As previously disclosed, our Board of Directors formed a special committee to conduct an independent investigation of allegations of securities laws violations against us. These allegations were asserted in the In re Career Education Corporation Securities Litigation matter described above (the “Class Action”). The Special Committee retained the law firm of McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, which in turn retained the forensic accounting firm Navigant Consulting, Inc., to assist in the investigation. Among other things, the investigation reviewed the allegations related to our accounting practices and reported statistics relating to starts, student population, and placement.

As previously disclosed, the Special Committee did not find support for the claims that CEC or its senior management engaged in the securities laws violations alleged in the Class Action. The Special Committee did find wrongful conduct by individual employees of CEC but specifically found that the wrongful activity was not directed or orchestrated by our senior management.

Also, as previously disclosed, the Special Committee conducted a further investigation of assertions related to the claims of securities laws violations made for the first time, and not previously examined, in the second amended complaint filed in the Class Action. The Special Committee completed its investigation of these new assertions and concluded that it did not find support for them. In so doing, the Special Committee reaffirmed its prior conclusion that it did not find support for the claims that CEC or its senior management engaged in the securities laws violations alleged in the Class Action. With respect to the recently filed third amended complaint in the Class Action, the Special Committee is aware of the new amended complaint but has not decided if there are additional issues raised in that complaint that will require review by the Special Committee.

We have undertaken a number of steps to improve our internal controls in the areas of finance and compliance, including the further development and expansion of our compliance, legal, and internal audit infrastructure processes. The Special Committee recommended additional improvements relating to our financial, compliance, and other controls. Our Board of Directors and senior management are continuing to evaluate the results and recommendations of the special committee. Our Board of Directors has requested that the Special Committee and its counsel remain in place and available, as needed.

15

Action against Former Owners of Western School of Health and Business Careers

As previously disclosed, on March 12, 2004, we and WAI, Inc. (“WAI”), our wholly-owned subsidiary, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Division, against the former owners of Western School of Health and Business Careers (“Western”), located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In the lawsuit, we allege that the former owners of Western made material misrepresentations of fact and breached certain representations and warranties regarding the accreditation and approval of several programs of study offered by Western and seek full indemnification for all losses, costs, and damages, including attorneys’ fees, resulting from the alleged misrepresentation and breaches. On July 12, 2004, we filed a similar complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, and subsequently voluntarily dismissed the federal lawsuit. The defendants filed an Answer and New Matter in response to the state court complaint on December 3, 2004. On January 24, 2005, we filed a response to the New Matter, which is a series of factual assertions akin to affirmative defenses. On May 2, 2006, we filed a motion seeking leave to assert claims for breach of contract, professional malpractice and negligent misrepresentation against Western’s former accounting firm. This motion is currently pending before the Court. Discovery is in progress.

The misrepresentations we allege in this matter came to light during a routine change of ownership review undertaken by the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology (“ACCSCT”), subsequent to our acquisition of Western. On March 4, 2004, the ACCSCT notified us of discrepancies in accreditation and approval documents related to several academic programs. Immediately thereafter, Western suspended marketing, new enrollments, and disbursement of funds issued under Title IV Programs for all affected academic programs. Western promptly applied for approval of all academic programs referenced in the lawsuit, and, in June 2004, both the ACCSCT and the ED issued approvals for the diploma programs. Western then resumed marketing, enrolling new students, and disbursement of Title IV Program aid to students in the diploma programs. On July 12, 2004, the ACCSCT approved the degree programs effective upon a demonstration that several stipulations had been addressed. Western addressed these stipulations to the satisfaction of the ACCSCT, and marketing, enrollment of new students, and disbursing of Title IV Program funds to students in the degree programs has since resumed.

We are working in close cooperation with ED officials to resolve any remaining issues in a manner that will best serve the interest of our students at Western. As a result of this matter, we may be required to reimburse the ED for Title IV Program funds improperly disbursed in relation to the affected programs. The pending lawsuit seeks to recover any such funds from the former owners of Western.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.

Student Litigation

Laronda Sanders, et al. v. Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc. et al.   On March 15, 2006, 12 former students of the Landover, Maryland campus of Sanford-Brown Institute (“SBI”), one of our schools, filed a class action complaint, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against us and Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc., one of our subsidiaries, in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland. The complaint alleges that the defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations and violated the Maryland consumer fraud act by misrepresenting or failing to disclose, among other things, details regarding instructors’ experience or preparedness, availability of clinical externship assignments, and estimates for the dates upon which the plaintiffs would receive their certificates and be able to enter the work force. Plaintiffs further allege that defendants failed to maintain accurate attendance records, and that defendants have negligently or deliberately dropped students without justification. The complaint also alleges that defendants breached the enrollment contract with plaintiffs by failing to provide the promised instruction, training, externships, and placement services. Plaintiffs seek actual damages, punitive

16

---

damages, and costs. Defendants will be seeking to remove the action to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division.

McCarten et al. v. Allentown Business School, Ltd. t/a Lehigh Valley College.   As previously disclosed, on September 28, 2005, a complaint was filed against Allentown Business School, Ltd. (“Allentown”), one of our subsidiaries, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all former students of Allentown, now know as Lehigh Valley College, who received allegedly “high interest private loans” to fund their tuition requirements. The complaint alleges that Allentown violated Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and engaged in intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence by allegedly rushing students through a loan application process, through which students applied for and accepted “private, non-federal, non-state loans” at times when such students were allegedly eligible for low interest federal or state guaranteed education loans. The plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class, seek compensatory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. On December 12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims as set forth in the initial compliant. On December 14, 2005, Allentown moved to compel arbitration. No date has been scheduled for oral argument on the motion to compel arbitration.

Bradley et al. v. Sanford-Brown College, Inc. et al.   As previously disclosed, on August 25, 2005, eight former students of the radiography program at our Sanford-Brown College (“SBC”) school in Kansas City, Missouri filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri against us, SBC, Colorado Technical University, Inc. (“UDS”), one of our subsidiaries, and Whitman Education Group, Inc., one of our subsidiaries. The complaint alleges that the defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations and violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act by misrepresenting or failing to disclose, among other things, details regarding instructors’ experience or preparedness, estimates for starting salaries of program graduates, that the curriculum would prepare the students for the state board exams for radiography, that credit hours earned at SBC were transferable, and that SBC reported false expense estimates and false class credits in applications for federal and state grant and loan programs, and that admissions representatives had sales quotas for enrolling new students. The complaint also alleges that the defendants breached enrollment contracts with the plaintiffs by failing to provide the promised instruction, training, and placement services. Plaintiffs seek actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief. On October 5, 2005, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, and on October 13, 2005, filed a motion to dismiss. Pursuant to the Court’s order, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 16, 2005, which the defendants have answered. Discovery is in progress.

Onate and Lawrence, et al. v. The Katharine Gibbs Corp.—New York, the Katharine Gibbs Corp.—Melville, and Career Education Corp.   As previously disclosed, on August 12, 2005, a purported class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by and on behalf of persons enrolled or attending the Katharine Gibbs School—New York and the Katharine Gibbs School—Melville, located in Melville, New York, between January 1, 2002, and June 30, 2005. Plaintiffs allege that they have been injured as a result of what they describe as false and misleading practices by the defendants. Plaintiffs assert causes of action for violations of the New York General Obligations Law, the New York Education Law as well as for unjust enrichment and punitive damages. The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants misrepresented the reputation of the schools and what job placement assistance the defendants would provide. On October 11, 2005, the Court granted defendants’ motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained within the plaintiffs’ enrollment agreements.

Benoit, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al.   As previously disclosed, on June 24, 2005, a purported class action was filed in Hillsborough County, Florida against us and UDS. The action is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who have been enrolled in the Medical Billing and Coding Program (“MBC Program”) at our Sanford-Brown—Tampa campus in the last four years. The complaint

17

---

alleges that the defendants breached enrollment contracts with the plaintiffs and other class members and violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) by, among other things, failing to properly train students, offer and require sufficient hours of course work, provide properly trained instructors, provide appropriate curriculum consistent with the represented degree, award the represented degree, provide adequate career placement services, and by misrepresenting that they would provide such services. The complaint also alleges that the defendants “padded” the MBC Program curriculum to charge greater tuition, purportedly in violation of the FDUTPA. Plaintiffs seek actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief. On October 11, 2005, the Court ordered that the lawsuit be stayed pending completion of arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement contained within the plaintiffs’ enrollment agreements.

Thurston, et al. v. Brooks College, Ltd., et al.   As previously disclosed, on March 21, 2005, a purported class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against Brooks College, one of our subsidiaries. The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of all current and former attendees of Brooks College. The complaint alleges that Brooks College violated the California Business and Professions Code and Consumer Legal Remedies Act by allegedly misleading potential students regarding Brooks College’s admission criteria, transferability of credits, and retention and placement statistics, and by engaging in false and misleading advertising. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, restitution, unspecified punitive and exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, costs, and other relief. On June 24, 2005, the Court ruled that this action was related to the case captioned Outten, et al. vs. Career Education Corporation, et al., which is described below. The Court has lifted the discovery stay and the parties are engaged in pre-trial discovery. No date has been set for determining whether the case is suitable for class certification and no date has been set for trial.

Nilsen v. Career Education Corporation, et al.   As previously disclosed, on February 4, 2005, three former students of Brooks Institute of Photography (“BIP”), one of our subsidiaries, filed a purported class action complaint captioned in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Barbara, against us and BIP. The action was purportedly brought on behalf of all students who attended BIP from February 4, 2001, to the present. The complaint primarily alleges that BIP violated the California Education Code, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California Unfair Competition Law by allegedly misleading potential students regarding BIP’s placement rates and by engaging in false and misleading advertising. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On August 17, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint, alleging violations of the California Education Code, violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, false advertising in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, fraud and unfair competition. Each cause of action in the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint arises from allegations that the defendants made misrepresentations to the plaintiffs concerning their career prospects. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, interest and attorneys’ fees and costs on the first amended complaint.

On October 17, 2005, defendants filed a motion to stay the case pending the outcome of the administrative proceedings involving BIP and the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (“BPPVE”), as discussed below under “State Regulatory Actions.” Defendants also filed a demurrer to the plaintiffs’ first amended complaint, and a motion to compel arbitration and stay the action pending the administrative proceeding, if necessary. On December 6, 2005, the Court granted the motion to stay the action pending the administrative proceeding, and reserved ruling on the defendants’ demurrer and motion to compel arbitration. The stay was lifted on March 7, 2006. The Court denied the motion to compel arbitration on April 4, 2006. On April 18, 2006, the Court sustained the demurrer as to the first, second, third, and fifth cause of action. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 2, 2006.

18

---

Viles v. Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc., et al.   As previously disclosed, on October 13, 2004, a purported class action was filed in Broward County, Florida against us and UDS. The action was purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who attended UDS’ Diagnostic Medical Sonography Program or Cardiovascular Technology Program in the State of Florida at any time during the period of October 12, 2000, to the present. The complaint alleges that UDS violated the FDUTPA by misrepresenting placement rates, potential salaries, and accreditation, falsifying clinical training records, failing to properly supervise students, failing to provide competent faculty and proper equipment, and admitting more students than UDS had space to properly educate. The plaintiff seeks damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief. On April 7, 2005, defendants filed motions to compel arbitration and transfer venue to Miami-Dade County, Florida. The parties have agreed to transfer venue to Miami-Dade County.

Outten, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al.   As previously disclosed, on July 19, 2004, an amended complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against us and AIU, one of our subsidiaries. We filed an answer to the amended complaint, denying all material allegations therein, and have raised various affirmative defenses. On October 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which added individuals who are current and former employees of AIU. The second amended complaint alleges that AIU violated the California Unfair Competition Law (California Business and Professions Code), the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California Education Code, and engaged in common law consumer fraud by allegedly misleading potential students regarding AIU’s placement, retention, and matriculation rates, and engaging in financial aid and admission improprieties. The lawsuit appears to have been brought on behalf of all current and prior attendees of AIU residing in California. The plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class, seek injunctive relief, restitution, unspecified punitive and exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, interest, and other relief. On March 10, 2005, defendants filed an answer to the second amended complaint as well as a cross-complaint. On June 24, 2005, the Court ruled that this action was related to another action captioned Thurston, et al. v. Brooks College, Ltd., et al., which is described above. The parties are engaged in pre-trial discovery. No date has been set for determining whether the case is suitable for class certification and no date has been set for trial.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these matters. An unfavorable outcome of any one or more of these matters could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition.

Other Litigation

In addition to the legal proceedings and other matters described above, we are also subject to a variety of other claims, suits, and investigations that arise from time to time in the ordinary conduct of our business, including, but not limited to, claims involving students or graduates and routine employment matters. While we currently believe that such claims, individually or in aggregate, will not have a material adverse impact on our financial position, cash flows, or results of operations, the litigation and other claims noted above are subject to inherent uncertainties, and management’s view of these matters may change in the future. Were an unfavorable final outcome to occur in any one or more of these matters, there exists the possibility of a material adverse impact on our business, reputation, financial condition, cash flows, and the results of operations for the period in which the effect becomes reasonably estimable.

Federal, State, and Accrediting Body Regulatory Actions

Our schools are subject to extensive regulation by federal and state governmental agencies and accrediting bodies. See Note 11 “Regulation of the U.S. Post-secondary Education Industry” of these notes to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for a detailed discussion of such regulation.

19

---

On an ongoing basis, we evaluate the results of our internal compliance monitoring activities and those of applicable regulatory agencies, and, when appropriate, record liabilities to provide for the estimated costs of any necessary remediation.

The following is an update of selected recent regulatory and accreditation actions affecting us and certain of our schools:

Federal Regulatory Actions

U.S. Department of Education.   As previously disclosed, the ED notified us in June 2005 that it is reviewing our previously announced restated consolidated financial statements and our annual compliance audit opinions for the years 2000 through 2003. At the same time, the ED also advised us that it is evaluating pending school program reviews that have taken place at Collins College in Tempe, Arizona (“Collins”), Pennsylvania Culinary Institute in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (“PCI”), and Brooks College in Long Beach, California (“Brooks College”). The ED has indicated that until these matters are addressed to its satisfaction, it will not approve any new applications by us for pre-acquisition review or change of ownership. The ED has further advised us that during this period, it will not approve applications for any additional branch campuses, which the ED refers to generally in its regulations as “additional locations.” However, the ED has confirmed that it will not delay its review and certification of certain of our previously submitted and pending applications for additional branch campuses.

In February 2006, we received a letter from the ED notifying us that it is reviewing our 2004 compliance audit opinions and that the general restrictions imposed pursuant to its letter to us in June 2005 will remain in place as it continues its review. However, making an exception to its position stated in its June 2005 letter, the ED agreed to consider and evaluate, but not necessarily approve, any applications that we may submit for new campus locations in San Antonio, TX and Sacramento, CA.

In July 2005, we received the ED’s interim program review determination letter concerning the Collins program review. In that letter, the ED accepted Collins’ explanations for certain issues initially raised by the ED in its July 2004 report, but required Collins to submit extensive additional information and documentation, including several file reviews. In September 2005, we responded in full to each of the remaining open items in this program review, and completed the requested file reviews. In April 2006, we entered into a settlement agreement with the ED whereby we paid $23,000 to the ED, and the ED agreed that the program review would be closed without issuance of a final program review determination letter. Total Title IV Program funds received by Collins during the period subject to the program review was approximately $57.6 million.

In May 2005, we received the ED’s program review report on the PCI program review, and in August 2005, we submitted our response to the ED’s findings in that report. In February 2006, we received a final program review determination letter from the ED. The letter identified liabilities due from PCI as a result of the program review findings and advised the school of its right to appeal. PCI declined to appeal the final determination and has remitted the requested payment of $486,959. Total Title IV Program funds received by PCI during the period subject to the program review was approximately $34.0 million.

In February 2005, the ED initiated a program review at the Long Beach campus of Brooks College. In March 2006, we received the ED’s program review report on the Brooks College program review, and in April 2006, we submitted our response to the ED’s findings in that report. In May 2006, we received a final program review determination letter from the ED. The letter identified liabilities due from Brooks College as a result of the program review findings and advised the school of its right to appeal. Brooks College declined to appeal the final determination and has remitted the requested payments of $8,969 to the ED and $14,625 to Title IV Program lenders. Total Title IV Program funds received by Brooks College during the period subject to the program review was approximately $63.2 million.

20

---

An additional ED program review is currently pending for Gibbs College in Livingston, New Jersey, and its branch campus, Katharine Gibbs School in Piscataway, New Jersey. In January 2004, we responded to the ED’s initial findings report. In June 2005, the ED performed a follow-up review, and, in September 2005, the ED notified the school that additional information was required in response to its initial findings report. In November 2005, we provided the ED with the requested additional information, and we are awaiting a response from the ED.

We are committed to resolving all issues identified in connection with these program reviews and ensuring that our schools operate in compliance with all applicable Title IV Program requirements.

We cannot predict the outcome of these ED actions, and any unfavorable outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition. We have evaluated these matters in connection with our ongoing evaluation of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets for impairment, when applicable.

SEC and Department of Justice Investigations.   As previously disclosed, on January 7, 2004, we received notification from the Midwest Regional Office of the SEC that it was conducting an inquiry concerning us and requested that we voluntarily provide certain information. On June 22, 2004, the SEC notified us that it was conducting a formal investigation. On April 5, 2006, we disclosed that we were advised by the staff of the Midwest Regional Office of the SEC that the staff intends to recommend to the SEC that it terminate its investigation of us. The staff of the SEC also advised us that it will recommend that no enforcement action be taken against us. Recommendations by the SEC staff do not constitute final action by the SEC, as the SEC thereafter makes its own determination as to whether to follow the recommendations of the SEC staff.

As previously disclosed, the U.S. Department of Justice (“Justice Department”) is conducting an investigation concerning us. Upon request, we have voluntarily provided the Justice Department with certain information that we had provided to the SEC. The Justice Department investigation is ongoing, and we intend to continue to cooperate fully with it.

State Regulatory Actions

Texas Culinary Academy (“TCA”).   On October 21, 2005, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (“THECB”) conducted an unannounced visit to TCA. Two follow-up visits were held in November. On January 13, 2006, representatives from TCA and CEC met with the THECB to review the school’s compliance with the Texas Success Initiative. The Texas Success Initiative is a state-legislated program designed to improve student success in college. The program requires that an institution perform an assessment of every student to diagnose the student’s basic skills in reading, mathematics, and writing, and provide developmental instruction to strengthen academic skills that need improvement. TCA was given 90 days, until May 26, 2006, to perform remediation or risk losing degree-granting authority. In March 2006, TCA submitted a remediation plan to the THECB, and is awaiting a response. We are committed to resolving all issues identified by the THECB.

Lehigh Valley College (“Lehigh”).   As previously disclosed, on July 20, 2005, the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Office of Attorney General in Pennsylvania (“Pennsylvania AG”) notified Lehigh that it had begun a review into the business practices of the school. The Pennsylvania AG requested certain documents, including information relating to Lehigh’s recruitment practices, student complaints, and financial aid policies and procedures, which we provided in August 2005. No further communication has been received from the Pennsylvania AG.

Brooks Institute of Photography (“BIP”).   As previously disclosed, on July 11, 2005, BIP received a notice of conditional approval (“Notice”) to operate from the BPPVE for a period of two years, through June 30, 2007. The BPPVE conditioned the approval based on, among other things, findings of what the

21

---

BPPVE contends to be pervasive provision of false and misleading information about potential salaries, false and misleading information about certain placement services and statistics, and BIP’s alleged improper calculation of contributions to the state tuition recovery fund. We and BIP have closely investigated these allegations, and believe them to be false and/or grossly exaggerated. This investigation of the facts is ongoing.

BIP requested an administrative hearing to contest what it believed to be unfair, unwarranted, and unsupported findings and conditions. The administrative law judge assigned to preside over this matter bifurcated this administrative hearing. On February 2, 2006, the parties tried the sole issue of whether the BPPVE’s notice is void because the BPPVE violated its own enabling legislation by its admitted failure to conduct a qualitative review of BIP’s renewal application by a “visiting committee” of independent experts. On March 16, 2006, the administrative law judge ruled that the BPPVE improperly issued the Notice and that the Notice is invalid. The administrative law judge found that the BPPVE failed to follow the California Education code and its own regulations. However, the California Department of Consumer Affairs (“CDCA”), which oversees the BPPVE, notified BIP that it has not adopted the administrative law judge’s ruling and has requested additional briefing before deciding whether to adopt, reject, or change the administrative law decision. We cannot predict the outcome of the Director of the CDCA’s review of this issue. If the Director of the CDCA were to accept the administrative law judge’s decision, the BPPVE may be required to consider BIP’s renewal application again and impanel a visiting committee to conduct a qualitative review before deciding what, if any, conditions to impose on BIP’s approval to operate.

The conditions that the BPPVE seeks to impose on BIP’s approval to operate if we are unsuccessful in resolving the issues outlined in the Notice include, among other things, limitations on BIP’s right to enroll students until BIP verifies and discloses certain placement information for each 2003 graduate and provides certain assurances about information to be described in manuals used by admissions representatives. Also, the BPPVE seeks to condition BIP’s approval to operate upon BIP making some plan to provide unspecified “restitution” to all students from May 4, 1999, to the present. BIP does not believe that the BPPVE has the right as a matter of law to impose restitution as a condition on BIP’s approval to operate and will challenge that and other conditions in the event that the BPPVE is successful in proving the findings set forth in the notice.

We are committed to resolving any issues that may place conditions on BIP’s approval to operate and to fully and fairly disclosing information to BIP’s students and the BPPVE. This Notice only relates to BIP and does not impact operations at any of our other schools.

International Academy of Design and Technology—Sacramento (“IADT—Sacramento”).   As previously disclosed, on June 20, 2005, the BPPVE granted IADT—Sacramento a temporary approval to operate through May 31, 2006. A temporary approval is an interim designation pending a qualitative review and assessment of the school. Approved programs include both associate and bachelor degrees in Fashion Design and Marketing, Interior Design, Criminal Justice, and Visual Communication. On July 25, 2005, the ACICS notified us of approval of IADT—Sacramento as a branch campus of IADT—Tampa and of its approval of accreditation for the programs listed above. However, as described above, the ED, in a letter dated June 2005, informed us that it would not approve any applications to participate in Title IV Programs for any additional branch campuses until certain Title IV Program-related matters have been addressed to the satisfaction of the ED. We have provided the ED with all documentation that it has requested pursuant to its June 2005 letter. In a letter dated February 2006, the ED informed us that it would consider and evaluate any application that we may submit for a new campus location in Sacramento.

International Academy of Design and Technology—San Antonio (“IADT—San Antonio”).   As previously disclosed, on June 1, 2005, the Texas Workforce Commission granted IADT—San Antonio a Certificate of Approval for two diploma programs submitted on behalf of IADT—San Antonio. On May 4, 2005, a letter of intent to submit an application for approval to offer associate degree programs was

22

---

submitted to the THECB. On July 25, 2005, the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (“ACICS”) notified us of its approval of IADT—San Antonio as a branch campus of IADT—Tampa and of its approval of accreditation for the two programs cited above. On July 27, 2005, the THECB notified IADT—San Antonio that it would not consider the application until the ED granted the campus eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs. However, as described above, the ED, in a letter dated June 2005, informed us that it would not approve any applications to participate in Title IV Programs for any additional branch campuses until certain Title IV Program-related matters have been addressed to the satisfaction of the ED. We have provided the ED with all documentation that it has requested pursuant to its June 2005 letter. In a letter dated February 2006, the ED informed us that it would consider and evaluate any application that we may submit for a new campus location in San Antonio.

Sanford-Brown Institute—Iselin (“SBI—Iselin”).   As previously disclosed, on May 6, 2005, SBI—Iselin received a letter from the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“DLWD”) expressing concerns regarding allegations against SBI—Iselin reported in a 60 Minutes segment that aired on January 30, 2005. The letter requested that the school provide the DLWD with an explanation of the issues raised in the 60 Minutes story and an argument that would convince the DLWD that SBI—Iselin should be allowed to continue to operate. The school submitted a formal written response on July 17, 2005. SBI—Iselin’s administration met with the DLWD in September 2005 and was given verbal confirmation during that meeting that they could proceed with the school’s license application submission. On April 26, 2006, SBI—Iselin received its license renewal.

We cannot predict the outcome of pending state regulatory matters, and an unfavorable outcome of any one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition. We have evaluated these matters in connection with our ongoing evaluation of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets for impairment, when applicable.

Accrediting Body Actions

AIU—London.   American InterContinental University London (“AIU—London”) has been authorized by the applicable U.S. and United Kingdom agencies to grant academic credentials. AIU—London is authorized to grant academic degrees by the Nonpublic Postsecondary Education Commission of the State of Georgia. U.S. students that attend AIU—London are eligible to participate in Title IV Programs through AIU—London’s status as branch campus of AIU—Buckhead. As previously disclosed, on December 12, 2005, AIU—London entered into an accreditation agreement with London South Bank University, which is currently reviewing AIU—London’s programs in order to validate student degrees in those programs. AIU—London’s prior accreditation agreement with The Open University will terminate on June 15, 2006. AIU—London is currently working with The Open University to resolve issues relating to the validation of degrees of certain classes of current students. AIU—London is a “Listed Body” pursuant to The Education (Listed Bodies) (England) Order 2002.

American InterContinental University (“AIU”).   As previously disclosed, the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Associations of Colleges and Schools (“SACS”) placed AIU on Warning status in June 2004. In December 2002, AIU’s accreditation was reaffirmed for the normal 10-year period, through 2012. In the course of the accreditation process, SACS requested that AIU provide additional information on several accreditation matters, with the expectation that those matters be addressed within a two-year timeframe. In placing AIU on Warning status, SACS advised AIU that it had satisfactorily addressed a majority of those matters. SACS requested AIU to satisfy the remaining accreditation matters by December 2004, the end of the two-year period. As requested by SACS, AIU submitted its report to SACS in September 2004, and, on December 10, 2004, SACS provided written notification that AIU was removed from Warning status.

In addition, SACS deferred consideration of substantive changes and authorized a SACS special committee to visit the school in 2005. The SACS special committee was directed to visit AIU and evaluate

23

---

the school regarding certain of SACS Principles of Accreditation. The SACS special committee completed its visits to certain of our AIU campuses in July 2005, and delivered a formal report. In September 2005, AIU submitted its response to the SACS special committee’s recommendations included in the July 2005 visit formal report. Subsequently, on December 6, 2005, SACS notified AIU that SACS had placed the school on Probation status for one year. A formal letter from SACS dated January 5, 2006, notified AIU that only two of the 18 response items from AIU’s September 2005 submission were accepted. The letter also notified AIU that the SACS special committee will perform a follow-up visit in October 2006. A status review of AIU’s Probation status is currently scheduled for SACS December 2006 meeting. AIU is in the process of addressing SACS recommendations and is committed to resolving all issues identified.

Brooks College.   As previously disclosed, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (“ACCJC”) placed Brooks College on Probation in June 2004 following a re-accreditation review. At the request of the ACCJC, Brooks College provided the ACCJC with a progress report in October 2004 to address certain matters. The ACCJC conducted a follow-up visit to Brooks College, and, at its January 2005 meeting, the ACCJC continued the Probation status for Brooks College. Subsequently, the ACCJC conducted a scheduled follow-up visit to Brooks College in April 2005. As previously disclosed, the ACCJC removed Brooks College from Probation status on June 29, 2005, and reaffirmed Brooks College’s accreditation through 2010. At the request of ACCJC, Brooks College submitted a progress report in March 2006. The ACCJC conducted follow-up site visits to both of Brooks College’s campuses in April 2006 and the school awaits its report.

We cannot predict the outcome of any pending accreditation actions, and an unfavorable outcome of any one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition. We have evaluated these matters in connection with our ongoing evaluation of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets for impairment, when applicable.

6.   STOCK REPURCHASE PROGRAM

In July 2005, our Board of Directors authorized us to use up to $300.0 million for the repurchase of shares of our outstanding common stock. Pursuant to this stock repurchase program, we may repurchase shares of our outstanding common stock on the open market or in private transactions from time to time, depending on certain factors including market conditions and corporate and regulatory requirements. The stock repurchase program does not have an expiration date and may be suspended or discontinued at any time. During the year ended December 31, 2005, we repurchased approximately 5.3 million shares of our common stock for approximately $200.2 million at an average price of approximately $37.97 per share.

In February 2006, our Board of Directors authorized us to use an additional $200.2 million for the repurchase of shares of our outstanding common stock under the stock repurchase program. This authorization was in addition to the $99.8 million that was still available under our $300.0 million stock repurchase program authorization in July 2005. During the three months ended March 31, 2006, we repurchased approximately 0.7 million shares of our common stock for approximately $24.9 million at an average price of approximately $36.16 per share.

From July 2005 through March 31, 2006, we repurchased approximately 6.0 million shares of our common stock for approximately $225.1 million at an average price of approximately $37.76 per share.

The repurchase of shares of our common stock reduces the amount of cash available to pay cash dividends to our common stockholders. We have never paid cash dividends on our common stock.

7.   SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION

On January 1, 2006, we adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 123 (revised), Share-Based Payment (“SFAS 123(R)”). SFAS 123(R), which is a revision of SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based

24

---

Compensation (“SFAS 123”) replaces our previous accounting for share-based awards under Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees (“Opinion 25”) for periods beginning in 2006. SFAS 123(R) requires that all share-based payments to employees, including grants of stock options and the compensatory elements of employee stock option plans, be recognized in the financial statements based on the estimated fair value of the equity or liability instrument issued.

We previously accounted for share-based compensation using the intrinsic value method as defined in Opinion 25. Prior to January 1, 2006, no share-based employee compensation cost other than for issuances of nonvested stock, which were not significant, was reflected in net income. SFAS 123(R) requires that we report the tax benefit from the tax deduction related to share-based compensation that is in excess of recognized compensation costs, as a financing cash flow rather than as an operating cash flow in our consolidated statements of cash flows. Prior to January 1, 2006, Opinion 25 required that we report the entire tax benefit related to the exercise of stock options as an operating cash flow.

We adopted SFAS 123(R) using the modified prospective transition method. Under this method, employee compensation cost recognized during the first quarter of 2006 includes (1) compensation costs for all share-based payments granted prior to, but not yet vested, as of January 1, 2006, based on grant date fair value estimated in accordance with the original provisions of SFAS 123 and (2) compensation cost for all share-based payments granted on or subsequent to January 1, 2006, based on the grant date fair value estimated in accordance with the provisions of SFAS 123(R). Under the modified prospective transition method, the provisions of SFAS 123(R) were not applied to periods prior to adoption, and, thus, prior period financial statements have not been restated. In accordance with SFAS 123(R), the fair value of options grants is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model.

Consistent with our approach under the disclosure only provisions of SFAS 123, we will continue to recognize the value of share-based compensation as expense during the vesting period of the underlying share-based awards using the straight-line method. SFAS 123(R) requires forfeitures of share-based awards to be estimated at the time of grant and revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from those estimates. Consistent with our approach under the disclosure only provisions of SFAS 123, we will continue to estimate forfeitures at the time of grant.

Our adoption of SFAS 123(R) on January 1, 2006, resulted in a reduction of our income before provision for income taxes and net income for the three months ended March 31, 2006, of $4.0 million and $2.5 million, respectively. If we had not adopted SFAS 123(R) but, rather, continued to account for share-based compensation under the provisions of Opinion 25, basic and diluted net income per share for the three months ended March 31, 2006, would have been $0.56 and $0.55, respectively, compared to reported basic and diluted net income per share of $0.54 and $0.53, respectively.

The following table summarizes share-based compensation expense related to share-based awards subject to SFAS 123(R) recognized during the three months ended March 31, 2006, (in thousands):

 

25

---

The table below reflects net income and net income per share for the three months ended March 31, 2006, compared to pro forma net income and net income per share for the three months ended March 31, 2005, presented as if we had applied the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS 123 to share-based employee compensation during the three months ended March 31, 2005 (in thousands, except per share amounts):

(1)          Net income and net income per share prior to 2006 does not include share-based employee compensation expense under SFAS 123, as we had only adopted the disclosure provisions of SFAS 123.

(2)          Share-based employee compensation expense prior to 2006 was caculated in accordance with SFAS 123.

On December 15, 2005, we accelerated the vesting of all outstanding, unvested stock options with a per share exercise price greater than $32.63 (the market closing price of our common stock as of December 15, 2005) that were previously awarded to employees, including executive officers, and directors during 2003 and 2004 under our stock option plans, such that all such options became immediately exercisable.

Options to purchase approximately 1.0 million shares of our common stock, or approximately 26% of the total outstanding unvested options as of December 15, 2005, were subject to the vesting acceleration. This amount includes approximately 336,000 options held by our executive officers and directors. The weighted average exercise price of the options that were subject to the vesting acceleration was $60.38, and the individual exercise prices of such options ranged from $35.73 to $68.24. The exercise price of all options subject to the vesting acceleration held by our executive officers and directors was $62.56.

As of December 15, 2005, the weighted average exercise price of $60.38 per share of the options subject to the accelerated vesting exceeded the current per share market value of our common stock of $32.63 by approximately 85%.

26