UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
Form 10-K
|
|
|
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
|
|
|
For the fiscal year ended:
August 31,
2009
|
|
|
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: 0-25232
APOLLO GROUP, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as
specified in its charter)
|
|
|
ARIZONA
(State or other jurisdiction
of
incorporation or organization)
|
|
86-0419443
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|
4025 S. RIVERPOINT PARKWAY, PHOENIX, ARIZONA
85040
(Address of principal executive
offices, including zip code)
Registrants telephone number, including area code:
(480) 966-5394
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the
Act:
|
|
|
(Title of Each Class)
|
|
(Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered)
|
Apollo Group, Inc.
Class A common stock, no par value
|
|
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
|
|
|
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the
Act:
None
(Title of class)
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act. YES þ NO o
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Act. YES o NO þ
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 þ NO o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this Form
10-K or any
amendment to this
Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any,
every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of
Regulation S-T
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
that the registrant was required to submit and post such
files). YES o NO o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated
filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of
large accelerated filer, accelerated
filer and smaller reporting company in Rule
12b-2 of the
Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated
filer þ
|
|
Accelerated
filer o
|
|
Non-accelerated
filer o
|
|
Smaller reporting
company o
|
|
|
|
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
|
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the Securities Exchange
Act). YES o NO þ
No shares of Apollo Group, Inc. Class B common stock, its
voting stock, are held by non-affiliates. The holders of Apollo
Group, Inc. Class A common stock are not entitled to any
voting rights. The aggregate market value of Apollo Group
Class A common stock held by
non-affiliates
as of February 28, 2009 (last day of the registrants
most recently completed second fiscal quarter), was
approximately $9.9 billion.
The number of shares outstanding for each of the
registrants classes of common stock as of October 16,
2009 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Apollo Group, Inc. Class A common stock, no par value
|
|
|
154,359,000 Shares
|
|
Apollo Group, Inc. Class B common stock, no par value
|
|
|
475,000 Shares
|
|
DOCUMENTS
INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the Information Statement for the 2010 Annual
Meeting of Shareholders (Part III)
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
FORM 10-K
INDEX
2
Special
Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
including Item 7, Managements Discussion and Analysis
of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
(MD&A), contains certain forward-looking
statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements
other than statements of historical fact may be forward-looking
statements. Such forward-looking statements include, among
others, those statements regarding future events and future
results of Apollo Group, Inc. (the Company,
Apollo Group, Apollo, APOL,
we, us or our) that are
based on current expectations, estimates, forecasts, and the
beliefs and assumptions of us and our management, and speak only
as of the date made and are not guarantees of future performance
or results. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be
identified by terminology such as may,
will, should, could,
believe, expect, anticipate,
estimate, plan, predict,
target, potential, continue,
objectives, or the negative of these terms or other
comparable terminology. Such forward-looking statements are
necessarily estimates based upon current information and involve
a number of risks and uncertainties. Such statements should be
viewed with caution. Actual events or results may differ
materially from the results anticipated in these forward-looking
statements as a result of a variety of factors. While it is
impossible to identify all such factors, factors that could
cause actual results to differ materially from those estimated
by us include but are not limited to:
|
|
|
|
|
changes in regulation of the education industry, including
the regulatory and other requirements discussed in Item 1,
Business, under Accreditation and Jurisdictional
Authorizations, Financial Aid Programs, and
Regulatory Environment;
|
|
|
|
each of the factors discussed in Item 1A, Risk Factors;
and
|
|
|
|
those factors set forth in Item 7, Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations.
|
The cautionary statements referred to above also should be
considered in connection with any subsequent written or oral
forward-looking statements that may be issued by us or persons
acting on our behalf. We undertake no obligation to publicly
update or revise any forward-looking statements, for any facts,
events, or circumstances after the date hereof that may bear
upon forward-looking statements. Furthermore, we cannot
guarantee future results, events, levels of activity,
performance, or achievements.
3
Part I
Overview
Apollo Group, Inc. is one of the worlds largest private
education providers and has been in the education business for
more than 35 years. We offer innovative and distinctive
educational programs and services both online and on-campus at
the undergraduate, graduate and doctoral levels through our
wholly-owned subsidiaries:
|
|
|
|
|
The University of Phoenix, Inc. (University of
Phoenix);
|
|
|
Western International University, Inc. (Western
International University);
|
|
|
Institute for Professional Development (IPD);
|
|
|
The College for Financial Planning Institutes Corporation
(CFFP); and
|
|
|
Meritus University, Inc. (Meritus).
|
In addition to these wholly-owned subsidiaries, in October 2007,
we formed a joint venture with The Carlyle Group
(Carlyle), called Apollo Global, Inc. (Apollo
Global), to pursue investments primarily in the
international education services industry. Apollo Group
currently owns 86.1% of Apollo Global, with Carlyle owning the
remaining 13.9%. As of August 31, 2009, total cash
contributions made to Apollo Global were approximately
$511.8 million, of which $440.5 million was funded by
us. Apollo Global is consolidated in our financial statements.
Apollo Global has completed the following acquisitions:
|
|
|
|
|
BPP Holdings plc (BPP) in the United Kingdom,
|
|
|
Universidad de Artes, Ciencias y Comunicación
(UNIACC) in Chile, and
|
|
|
Universidad Latinoamericana (ULA) in Mexico.
|
University of Phoenix. University of
Phoenix has been accredited by The Higher Learning Commission of
the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools since 1978
and holds other programmatic accreditations. University of
Phoenix offers associates, bachelors, masters
and doctoral degrees in a variety of program areas. University
of Phoenix offers its educational programs worldwide through its
online education delivery system and at its campus locations and
learning centers in 39 states and the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico. University of Phoenixs online programs
are designed to provide uniformity with University of
Phoenixs on-campus operations, which enhances University
of Phoenixs ability to expand into new markets while
maintaining academic quality. University of Phoenix has
customized computer programs for academic quality management,
faculty recruitment and training, student tracking and
marketing, which we believe provides us with a competitive
advantage. University of Phoenixs net revenue represented
approximately 95% of our consolidated net revenue for the fiscal
year ended August 31, 2009.
Western International
University. Western International University
has been accredited by The Higher Learning Commission of the
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools since 1984.
Western International University offers associates,
bachelors and masters degrees in a variety of
program areas as well as certificate programs. Western
International University offers its undergraduate program
courses at its Arizona campus locations and online at Western
International University Interactive Online.
IPD. IPD provides program development,
administration and management consulting services to private
colleges and universities (Client Institutions) to
establish or expand their programs for working learners. These
services typically include degree program design, curriculum
development, market research, student recruitment, accounting,
and administrative services.
4
CFFP. CFFP has been accredited by The
Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of
Colleges and Schools since 1994. CFFP provides financial
services education programs, including a Master of Science in
three majors, and certification programs in retirement, asset
management, and other financial planning areas. CFFP offers
these programs online and from its headquarters in Colorado.
Meritus. Meritus was designated by the
Government of New Brunswick to grant degrees in May 2008.
Meritus offers degree programs online to working learners
throughout Canada and abroad and launched its first three
programs in the fall of 2008.
BPP. BPP College of Professional
Studies is the first proprietary institution to have been
granted degree awarding powers in the United Kingdom. BPP,
acquired by Apollo Global in July 2009 and headquartered in
London, England, is a provider of education and training to
professionals in the legal and finance industries. It is
organized into the following three divisions:
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Education, which provides exam training and
sells published products for external certification training in
accounting, tax, financial services, and actuarial
qualifications and post qualification professional development;
|
|
|
College of Professional Studies, which operates four law
schools, human resource training and a business school; and
|
|
|
Mander Portman Woodward, which operates independent fifth
and sixth form colleges (similar to preparatory schools in the
U.S.).
|
BPP provides these services through schools located in the
United Kingdom, a European network of BPP offices, and the sale
of books and other publications in over 150 countries.
UNIACC. UNIACC is accredited by the
Chilean Council of Higher Education. UNIACC is an arts and
communications university which offers bachelors and
masters programs on campuses in Chile and online. UNIACC
was acquired by Apollo Global in March 2008.
ULA. ULA carries authorization from the
Ministry of Public Education (Secretaría de Educación
Publica) in Mexico, from the National Autonomous University of
Mexico (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México) for
its high school and undergraduate psychology and law programs
and by the Ministry of Education of the State of Morelos
(Secretaría de Educación del Estado de Morelos) for
its medicine and nutrition programs. ULA offers degree programs
at its four campuses throughout Mexico. Apollo Global purchased
a 65% ownership interest in ULA in August 2008 and purchased the
remaining ownership interest in July 2009.
We also operate online high school programs through our Insight
Schools, Inc. (Insight Schools) wholly-owned
subsidiary, which is included in our Insight Schools reportable
segment. Subsequent to our 2009 fiscal year end, we decided to
explore the sale of Insight Schools.
Our schools described above are managed in the following five
reportable segments:
|
|
|
|
|
University of Phoenix;
|
|
|
Apollo Global BPP;
|
|
|
Apollo Global Other;
|
|
|
Insight Schools; and
|
|
|
Other Schools.
|
5
The Apollo Global Other segment includes UNIACC, ULA
and Apollo Global corporate operations. The Other Schools
segment includes Western International University, IPD, CFFP,
and Meritus. The Corporate caption, as detailed in the table
below, includes adjustments to reconcile segment results to
consolidated results, which primarily consist of net revenue and
corporate charges that are not allocated to our reportable
segments. The following table presents the net revenue for
fiscal years 2009, 2008 and 2007 for each of our reportable
segments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
University of Phoenix
|
|
$
|
3,766.6
|
|
|
$
|
2,987.7
|
|
|
$
|
2,537.8
|
|
Apollo Global:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BPP
|
|
|
13.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
54.3
|
|
|
|
13.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Apollo Global
|
|
|
67.4
|
|
|
|
13.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insight Schools
|
|
|
20.6
|
|
|
|
7.5
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
Other Schools
|
|
|
116.8
|
|
|
|
122.5
|
|
|
|
182.6
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Revenue
|
|
$
|
3,974.2
|
|
|
$
|
3,140.9
|
|
|
$
|
2,723.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See Note 19, Segment Reporting, in Item 8,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, for the
segment and related geographic information required by
Items 101(b) and 101(d) of
Regulation S-K,
which information is incorporated by this reference.
Our operations are generally subject to seasonal trends. We
experience, and expect to continue to experience, seasonal
fluctuations in our results of operations as a result of
seasonal variations in the level of student enrollments. While
University of Phoenix enrolls students throughout the year, our
net revenue generally is lower in the second quarter (December
through February) than the other quarters due to holiday breaks
in December and January. Most of our other subsidiaries
experience more significant seasonality, as they have limited
enrollment during their respective summer breaks.
University of Phoenix degreed enrollment (Degreed
Enrollment) for the quarter ended August 31, 2009 was
443,000. Degreed Enrollment for a quarter represents individual
students enrolled in a University of Phoenix degree program who
attended a course during the quarter and did not graduate as of
the end of the quarter. Degreed Enrollment also includes any
student who previously graduated from one degree program and
started a new degree program in the quarter (for example, a
graduate of the associates degree program returns for a
bachelors degree or a bachelors degree graduate
returns for a masters degree). In addition, Degreed
Enrollment includes students participating in University of
Phoenix certificate programs of at least 18 credit hours in
length with some course applicability into a related degree
program.
University of Phoenix combined new degreed enrollment (New
Degreed Enrollment) for the four quarters in fiscal year
2009 was 355,800. New Degreed Enrollment for a quarter
represents any individual student enrolled in a University of
Phoenix degree program who is a new student and started a course
in the quarter, any individual student who previously graduated
from one degree program and started a new degree program in the
quarter (for example, a graduate of an associates degree
program returns for a bachelors degree program, or a
graduate of a bachelors degree program returns for a
masters degree program), as well as any individual student
who started a program in the quarter and had been out of
attendance for greater than 12 months. In addition, New
Degreed Enrollment also includes students who during the quarter
started participating in University of Phoenix certificate
programs of at least 18 credit hours in length with some course
applicability into a related degree program.
Students enrolled in or serviced by Apollo Globals
institutions, Insight Schools and Other Schools (Western
International University, IPD, CFFP, and Meritus) are not
included in Degreed Enrollment or New Degreed Enrollment.
6
We incorporated in Arizona in 1981 and maintain our principal
executive offices at 4025 S. Riverpoint Parkway,
Phoenix, Arizona 85040. Our telephone number is
(480) 966-5394.
Our website addresses are as follows:
|
|
|
Apollo
Group
University of
Phoenix
Apollo Global
BPP
UNIACC
ULA
Insight Schools
Western International
University
IPD
CFFP
Meritus
|
|
www.apollogrp.edu
www.phoenix.edu
www.apolloglobal.us
www.bpp.com
uniacc08eng.uniacc.cl
www.ula.edu.mx
www.insightschools.net
www.west.edu
www.ipd.org
www.cffp.edu
www.meritusu.ca
|
Our fiscal year is from September 1 to August 31. Unless
otherwise stated, references to the years 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006
and 2005 relate to fiscal years 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005,
respectively.
Strategy
Our goal is to strengthen and capitalize on our position as a
leading provider of high quality, accessible education for
individuals around the world by affording strong returns for all
of our stakeholders: students, faculty, employees, and
investors. Our principal focus is to provide high quality
educational products and services to our students in order for
them to maximize the benefit of their educational experience. We
believe that a superior student experience, enabled by our
engaged and energized faculty and employees, is essential for
our shareholders to achieve attractive returns on their capital
over time. We intend to pursue our goal in a manner that is
consistent with our core organizational values: 1) operate
with integrity and social responsibility; 2) change lives
through education; 3) be the employer of choice and
4) build long-term value. These values provide the
foundation for everything we do as a business.
In late fiscal year 2009, we embarked on a company-wide
initiative to refresh and validate our strategic plan to further
enhance our competitive situation and position the Company for
continued growth into the future. The key themes of the plan are
presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
Maximize the value of our University of Phoenix
business. This is our highest priority over the
next several years and we believe that investing in the
University of Phoenix will continue to produce the highest
return on our capital. We believe that we can strengthen our
position and produce solid growth in revenue and cash flow by
increasing our penetration in target markets, enhancing our
current product offerings, improving our brand and continuing to
deliver a high value experience to our students. In addition, we
will strive to improve operating efficiency and will re-invest
excess capital into key strategic initiatives.
|
|
|
|
Expand intelligently beyond University of
Phoenix. We believe we can capitalize on
opportunities to utilize our core expertise and organizational
capabilities to grow in areas outside of the University of
Phoenix, both domestically and internationally. In particular,
we have observed a growing demand for high quality postsecondary
and other education services outside of the U.S., including in
Europe, Latin America and Asia, and believe that we have the
capabilities and expertise to provide these services beyond our
current reach. We intend to actively pursue quality
opportunities to partner with
and/or
acquire existing institutions of higher learning where we can
best position ourselves for longer-term attractive growth and
value creation.
|
We intend to use our expertise to enhance the quality, delivery
and student outcomes associated with the respective curricula
across our entire group of owned and operated institutions and
companies. We believe we can leverage our organizational
capabilities to offer innovative products, optimize our cost
structure and create new growth opportunities. Finally, we
intend to continue to invest in our people, systems and
organization, as
7
they are the foundation for our future success. In our opinion,
these efforts are the basis for enabling us to meet and exceed
our customers expectations and further differentiate us
from our competition.
Industry
Background
Domestic
Postsecondary Education
The domestic non-traditional education sector is a significant
and growing component of the postsecondary degree-granting
education industry, which was estimated to be a
$386 billion industry in 2007, according to the Digest of
Education Statistics published in 2009 by the
U.S. Department of Educations National Center for
Education Statistics. According to the same study, in 2007, over
6.9 million, or 38%, of all students enrolled in higher
education programs were over the age of 24, and enrollment in
degree-granting institutions between 2008 and 2017 is expected
to increase 19% for students over age 25. These students
would not be classified as traditional (i.e., 18 to
24 years of age, living on campus, supported by parents,
and not working full-time). The non-traditional students
typically are looking to improve their skills and enhance their
earnings potential within the context of their careers. We
believe that the demand for non-traditional education will
continue to increase, reflecting the knowledge-based economy in
the U.S.
Many working learners seek accredited degree programs that
provide flexibility to accommodate the fixed schedules and time
commitments associated with their professional and personal
obligations. The education formats offered by our institutions
enable working learners to attend classes and complete
coursework on a more convenient schedule than traditional
universities offer. Although more colleges and universities are
beginning to address some of the needs of working learners, many
universities and institutions do not effectively address the
needs of working learners for the following reasons:
|
|
|
|
|
Traditional universities and colleges were designed to fulfill
the educational needs of conventional, full-time students
ages 18 to 24, and that industry sector remains the primary
focus of these universities and institutions. This focus has
resulted in a capital-intensive teaching/learning model that may
be characterized by:
|
|
|
|
|
|
a high percentage of full-time, tenured faculty;
|
|
|
physical classrooms, library facilities and related full-time
staff;
|
|
|
dormitories, student unions, and other significant physical
assets to support the needs of younger students; and
|
|
|
an emphasis on research and related laboratories, staff, and
other facilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The majority of accredited colleges and universities continue to
provide the bulk of their educational programming on an agrarian
calendar with time off for traditional breaks. The traditional
academic year runs from September to mid-December and from
mid-January to May. As a result, most full-time faculty members
only teach during that limited period of time. While this
structure may serve the needs of the full-time, resident, 18- to
24-year-old
student, it limits the educational opportunity for working
learners who must delay their education for up to four months
during these traditional breaks.
|
|
|
|
Traditional universities and colleges may also be limited in
their ability to provide the necessary customer service for
working learners because they lack the necessary administrative
and enrollment infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
Diminishing financial support for public colleges and
universities has required them to focus more tightly on their
existing student populations and missions, which has reduced
access to education.
|
International
Education
There were approximately 153 million students enrolled in
postsecondary education worldwide in 2007 according to the
Global Education Digest 2009 published in 2009 by the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Institute for Statistics.
We believe that private education is playing a critical role in
advancing the development of education, specifically higher
education and lifelong learning, in many countries around the
world. While primary and
8
secondary education outside the U.S. are still funded
mainly through government expenditures, we believe that
postsecondary education outside of the U.S. is experiencing
governmental funding constraints that create opportunities for a
broader private sector role. The International Finance
Corporation of the World Bank reported in May 2008 that
governments around the world are embracing private sector
participation as a way to increase quality and efficiency.
We believe that the following key trends are driving the growth
in private education worldwide:
|
|
|
|
|
unmet demand for education;
|
|
|
insufficient public funding to meet demand for education;
|
|
|
shortcomings in the quality of higher education offerings,
resulting in the rise of supplemental training to meet industry
demands in the developing world;
|
|
|
worldwide appreciation of the importance that knowledge plays in
economic progress;
|
|
|
globalization of education; and
|
|
|
increased availability and role of technology in education,
broadening the accessibility and reach of education.
|
Our
Programs
Our more than 35 years as a provider of education enables
us to provide students with quality education and responsive
customer service at the undergraduate, graduate and doctoral
levels. Our institutions have gained expertise in designing
curriculum, recruiting and training faculty, monitoring academic
quality, and providing a high level of support services to
students. Our institutions offer the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Accredited Degree Programs. University of
Phoenix, Western International University and CFFP are
accredited by The Higher Learning Commission of the North
Central Association of Colleges and Schools. BPPs College
of Professional Studies is a recognized body by order of the
United Kingdoms Privy Council. Our other educational
institutions are accredited by appropriate accrediting entities.
See Accreditation and Jurisdictional Authorizations,
below.
|
|
|
|
Professional Examinations Training and Professional
Development. BPP provides training and published
materials for qualifications in accountancy (including tax),
financial services and actuarial science. BPP also provides
professional development through continuing education training
and supplemental skills courses to post-qualification markets in
finance, law, general management and insolvency. University of
Phoenix and certain of our other institutions, including CFFP,
also provide various training and professional development
education.
|
|
|
|
Faculty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic Postsecondary: Substantially
all University of Phoenix faculty possess either a masters
or doctoral degree. Faculty members typically have many years of
experience in the field in which they instruct. Our institutions
have well-developed methods for hiring and training faculty,
which include peer reviews of newly hired instructors by other
members of the faculty, training in student instruction and
grading, and teaching mentorships with more experienced faculty
members.
|
|
|
|
International: Our recruitment
standards and processes for international faculty are
appropriate for the respective markets in which we operate and
are consistent with and in compliance with local accreditation
and regulatory requirements in these markets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic Postsecondary: Faculty content
experts design curriculum for the majority of programs at our
domestic postsecondary institutions. This enables us to offer
current and relevant standardized programs to our students. We
also utilize standardized tests and institution-wide systems to
assess the educational outcomes of our students and improve the
quality of our curriculum and instructional model. These systems
evaluate the cognitive (subject matter) and affective
(educational, personal and professional values) skills of our
students upon registration and upon conclusion of the program,
and
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
also survey students two years after graduation in order to
assess the quality of the education they received. Classes are
designed to be small and engaging.
|
|
|
|
|
|
International: Our international
institutions typically follow a course development process in
which faculty members who are subject matter experts work with
instructional designers to develop curriculum materials based on
learning objectives provided by school academic officers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits to Employers. The employers of
students enrolled in our programs often provide input to faculty
members in designing curriculum, and class projects are based on
issues relevant to the companies that employ our students.
Classes are taught by faculty members, many of whom, in our
domestic postsecondary institutions, are practitioners and
employers who emphasize the skills desired by employers. We
conduct focus groups with business professionals, students, and
faculty members who provide feedback on the relevancy of course
work. Our objective is to gain insight from these groups so that
we can develop new courses and offer relevant subject matter
that reflect the changing needs of the marketplace and prepare
our students for todays workplace. In addition, the class
time flexibility further benefits employers since it minimizes
conflict with their employees work schedules.
|
Teaching
Model and Degree Programs and Services
Domestic
Postsecondary
Teaching
Model
While students over the age of 24 comprise approximately 38% of
all higher education enrollments in the U.S., the primary
mission of most accredited four-year colleges and universities
is to serve 18- to
24-year-old
students and conduct research. The teaching/learning models used
by University of Phoenix were designed specifically to meet the
educational needs of working learners, who seek accessibility,
curriculum consistency, time- and cost-effectiveness, and
learning that has immediate application to the workplace. The
models are structured to enable students who are employed
full-time to earn their degrees and still meet their personal
and professional responsibilities. Our focus on working,
non-residential students minimizes the need for
capital-intensive facilities and services like dormitories,
student unions, food service, personal and employment
counseling, health care, sports and entertainment.
University of Phoenix online classes employ a proprietary online
learning system. Online classes are small and have mandatory
participation requirements for both the faculty and the
students. Each class is instructionally designed so that
students have learning outcomes that are consistent with the
outcomes of their on-campus counterparts. All class materials
are delivered electronically.
Components of our teaching/learning models at University of
Phoenix for both online and on-campus classes include:
|
|
|
Curriculum |
|
Curriculum is designed by teams of academicians and
practitioners to integrate academic theory and professional
practice and their application to the workplace. The curriculum
provides for the achievement of specified educational outcomes
that are based on input from faculty, students, and
students employers. |
|
Faculty |
|
All faculty applicants participate in a rigorous selection and
training process. For substantially all University of Phoenix
faculty positions, the faculty member must have earned a
masters or doctoral degree from a regionally accredited
institution or international equivalent and have recent
professional experience in a field related to the relevant
course. With courses designed to facilitate the application of
knowledge and skills to the workplace, faculty members are able
to share their professional knowledge and skills with the
students. |
10
|
|
|
Accessibility |
|
Our academic programs may be accessed through a variety of
delivery modes (electronically delivered, campus-based or a
blend of both), which make our educational programs accessible
and even portable, regardless of where the students work and
live. |
|
Class Schedule and Active Learning Environment |
|
Courses are designed to encourage and facilitate collaboration
among students and interaction with the instructor. The
curriculum requires a high level of student participation for
purposes of enhancing learning and increasing the students
ability to work as part of a team. University of Phoenix
students (excluding associates degree students) are
enrolled in five- to eight-week courses year round and complete
classes sequentially, rather than concurrently. This permits
students to focus their attention and resources on one subject
at a time and creates a better balance between learning and
ongoing personal and professional responsibilities. In addition
to attending class, University of Phoenix students (excluding
associates degree students) meet weekly (online or
in-person) as part of a three- to five-person learning team.
Learning team sessions are an integral part of each University
of Phoenix course to facilitate in-depth review of and
reflection on course materials. Members work together to
complete assigned group projects and develop communication and
teamwork skills. In the associates degree programs, the
courses are nine weeks and classes are offered in pairs to
complement each other. |
|
Library and Other Learning Resource Services |
|
Students and faculty members are provided with electronic and
other learning resources for their information and research
needs. Students access these services directly through the
Internet or with the help of a learning resource services
research librarian. |
|
Academic Quality |
|
Over the last few years, University of Phoenix implemented an
academic quality assessment plan with the purpose of measuring
whether the institution meets its mission and purposes. A major
component of this plan is the assessment of student learning. To
assess student learning, University of Phoenix measures whether
graduates meet its programmatic and learning goals. The
measurement is composed of the following four ongoing and
iterative steps: |
|
|
|
|
|
1. preparing an annual assessment plan for academic
programs; |
|
|
2. preparing an annual assessment result report for
academic programs, based on student learning outcomes;
|
|
|
3. implementing improvements based on assessment
results; and |
|
|
4. monitoring effectiveness of implemented improvements. |
|
|
|
|
|
By achieving programmatic competencies, University of Phoenix
graduates are expected to become proficient in the following
areas: |
|
|
|
|
|
critical thinking and problem solving;
|
|
|
collaboration;
|
|
|
information utilization;
|
|
|
communication; and
|
|
|
professional values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have developed an assessment matrix which outlines specific
learning outcomes to measure whether students are meeting |
11
|
|
|
|
|
University of Phoenix learning goals. Multiple methods have been
identified to assess each outcome. |
Degree
Programs
University of Phoenix offers degrees in the following program
areas:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associates
|
|
|
Bachelors
|
|
|
Masters
|
|
|
Doctoral
|
Arts and Sciences
Business and Management
Criminal Justice and Security
Education
Health Care
Human Services
Psychology
Technology
|
|
|
Arts and Sciences
Business and Management
Criminal Justice and Security
Education
Health Care
Human Services
Nursing
Psychology
Technology
|
|
|
Business and Management
Counseling
Criminal Justice and Security
Education
Health Care
Nursing
Psychology
Technology
|
|
|
Business and Management
Education
Health Care
Nursing
Psychology
Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Academic
Annual Report
In 2008, University of Phoenix published its first Academic
Annual Report which contains a transparent look at a variety of
comparative performance measures related to student outcomes and
university initiatives related to quality and accountability.
The report was created within the framework set forth in the
2006 report commissioned by former U.S. Secretary of
Education Margaret Spellings, entitled A Test of
Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher
Education, which focused on access, accountability,
quality, and affordability. The Academic Annual Report is
available on the University of Phoenix website at
www.phoenix.edu.
International
Teaching
Model
Our international operations include full-time, part-time and
distance learning courses for professional examination
preparation, professional development training and various
degree programs. Our international operations faculty members
consist of both full-time and part-time professors.
Degree
Programs and Services
Our international operations offer bachelors,
masters and doctoral degrees, which include a variety of
degree programs and related areas of specialization.
Additionally, we offer training and published materials for
qualifications in specific markets for accountancy (including
tax), financial services and actuarial science. We also provide
professional development through continuing education training
and supplemental skills courses primarily in the legal and
finance industries.
Admissions
Standards
Domestic
Postsecondary
To gain admission to undergraduate programs at University of
Phoenix, students must have a high school diploma or a
Certificate of General Educational Development, commonly
referred to as GED, and satisfy employment requirements, if
applicable, for their field of study. Applicants whose native
language is not English must take and pass the Test of English
as a Foreign Language or Test of English for International
Communication.
Non-U.S. citizens
attending a campus located in the U.S. are required to hold
an approved visa or to have been granted permanent residency.
Additional requirements may apply to individual programs or to
students who are attending a specific campus. Students already
in undergraduate programs at other schools may petition to be
12
admitted to University of Phoenix on a provisional status if
they do not meet certain criteria. Some programs have work
requirements (e.g. nursing) such that students must have a
certain amount of experience in given areas in order to be
admitted. These vary by program, and not all programs have them.
To gain admission to graduate programs at University of Phoenix,
students must have an undergraduate degree from a regionally or
nationally accredited college or university, satisfy the minimum
grade point average requirement, and have relevant work and
employment experience, if applicable for their field of study.
Applicants whose native language is not English must take and
pass the Test of English as a Foreign Language or Test of
English for International Communication.
Non-U.S. citizens
attending a campus located in the U.S. are required to hold
an approved visa or have been granted permanent residency.
Additional requirements may apply to individual programs or to
students who are attending a specific campus. Students in
graduate programs at other schools may be admitted to University
of Phoenix on provisional status if they do not meet grade point
average admission requirements.
To gain admission to doctoral programs at University of Phoenix,
students must generally have a masters degree from a
regionally accredited college or university, satisfy the minimum
grade point average requirement, satisfy employment requirements
as appropriate to the program applied for, have a laptop
computer and have membership in a research library. Applicants
whose native language is not English must take and pass the Test
of English as a Foreign Language, Test of English for
International Communication or
Berlitz®
Online English Proficiency Exam.
The admission requirements for our Other Schools are similar to
University of Phoenix and vary depending on the respective
degree program.
International
In general, postsecondary students in our international
institutions must have obtained a high school or equivalent
diploma from an approved school. Other requirements apply for
graduate and other programs. Admissions requirements for our
international institutions are appropriate for the respective
markets in which we operate.
Students
University
of Phoenix Degreed Enrollment
University of Phoenix Degreed Enrollment for the quarter ended
August 31, 2009 was 443,000. See Item 1,
Business, Overview, for a description of the
manner in which we calculate Degreed Enrollment. The following
table details Degreed Enrollment for the respective periods:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended August 31,
|
|
|
%
|
|
(Rounded to the nearest hundred)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Associates
|
|
|
201,200
|
|
|
|
146,500
|
|
|
|
37.3
|
%
|
Bachelors
|
|
|
163,600
|
|
|
|
141,800
|
|
|
|
15.4
|
%
|
Masters
|
|
|
71,200
|
|
|
|
67,700
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
%
|
Doctoral
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
6,100
|
|
|
|
14.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
443,000
|
|
|
|
362,100
|
|
|
|
22.3
|
%
|
13
The following chart details quarterly Degreed Enrollment by
degree type for the respective periods:
University
of Phoenix New Degreed Enrollment
University of Phoenix combined New Degreed Enrollment for fiscal
year 2009 was 355,800. See Item 1, Business,
Overview, for a description of the manner in which
we calculate New Degreed Enrollment. The following table details
University of Phoenix combined New Degreed Enrollment for the
respective fiscal years:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
|
%
|
|
(Rounded to the nearest hundred)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Associates
|
|
|
191,700
|
|
|
|
143,400
|
|
|
|
33.7
|
%
|
Bachelors
|
|
|
108,900
|
|
|
|
92,400
|
|
|
|
17.9
|
%
|
Masters
|
|
|
51,900
|
|
|
|
49,400
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
%
|
Doctoral
|
|
|
3,300
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
355,800
|
|
|
|
288,200
|
|
|
|
23.5
|
%
|
14
The following chart details quarterly New Degreed Enrollment by
degree type for the respective periods:
We have a diverse student population. During fiscal years 2009
and 2008, approximately 66% of students enrolled in University
of Phoenix degree programs who attended a course were women.
Approximately 69% and 70% during fiscal years 2009 and 2008,
respectively, of the students enrolled in University of Phoenix
degree programs who attended a course provided us information on
their race/ethnicity. The relative percentages by race/ethnicity
category for those students who responded during the respective
periods are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Race/Ethnicity
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
African-American
|
|
|
27.7
|
%
|
|
|
25.0
|
%
|
Asian/Pacific Islander
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
|
4.1
|
%
|
Caucasian
|
|
|
52.2
|
%
|
|
|
53.8
|
%
|
Hispanic
|
|
|
11.6
|
%
|
|
|
12.0
|
%
|
Native American/Alaskan
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
|
|
1.3
|
%
|
Other/Unknown
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
|
|
3.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The relative percentages by age of incoming students that
comprise New Degreed Enrollment during fiscal years 2009 and
2008 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
22 and under
|
|
|
14.9
|
%
|
|
|
14.0
|
%
|
23 to 29
|
|
|
34.3
|
%
|
|
|
34.0
|
%
|
30 to 39
|
|
|
31.0
|
%
|
|
|
31.0
|
%
|
40 to 49
|
|
|
14.5
|
%
|
|
|
15.0
|
%
|
50 and over
|
|
|
5.3
|
%
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15
Marketing
In October 2007, we acquired Aptimus, Inc., an online
advertising company, which has been successfully integrated into
our marketing organization. Our primary purpose in acquiring
Aptimus was to help us more effectively monitor, manage, and
control our marketing investments and brands by leveraging its
industry-specific knowledge and technology platform. Our
marketing strategy is to increase awareness of and access to
quality and affordable education through improved messaging and
sharpened focus on our different communication channels and to
attract students who are more likely to persist in our programs.
We engage in a broad range of marketing activities to inform
potential students about our teaching/learning model and the
programs offered, including online advertising, broadcast,
outdoor advertising, print, and direct mail. In fiscal year
2009, we launched a national marketing campaign called I
am a Phoenix to develop and strengthen our brand identity.
Internet
Marketing
We advertise on the Internet using search engine keywords,
banners, and custom advertising placements on targeted sites,
such as education portals, career sites, and industry-specific
websites. Our Internet and non-Internet advertising activities
have improved the quality of the consumer traffic and interest
on our owned and operated website, website www.phoenix.edu,
which provides prospective students with relevant information
and resources about University of Phoenixs degrees and
programs.
We intend to continue to leverage the unique qualities of the
Internet and its emerging technologies to enhance our brand
awareness among prospective students, and to improve our ability
to deliver relevant messages to satisfy prospective
students specific needs and requirements. New media
technologies that we have begun to use to communicate with our
current and prospective students include online social networks,
search engine marketing and emerging video advertising.
Broadcast
and Print
We utilize non-Internet marketing, primarily through broadcast
and print advertising, to reach new prospects and to establish
brand recognition among key segments of prospective students.
Broadcast advertising includes advertisements on cable, local
and national television networks. In addition, we advertise in
select print publications, including national and local
newspapers and publications with focused areas of content, to
target programs and fields in which we provide classes and
degrees.
Direct
Mail
Direct mail is effective at reaching targeted individuals in
specific career fields of interest including Accounting,
Business, Education, Technology, Criminal Justice and Nursing.
Direct mail also allows us to reach specific metropolitan areas
for focused local marketing efforts. We currently purchase
education-related mailing lists from various sources that
specialize in this area. In addition, we track student prospects
for every direct mail campaign by variety of methods including
postage-paid reply cards, a specific toll-free number and
dedicated online links.
Sponsorships
and Other Advertising
We selectively sponsor and provide advertising to support
specific activities, including local and national sports and
entertainment events. We also utilize outdoor advertising,
including billboards, to communicate the quality and
affordability of our on campus educational offerings in regional
markets.
Stadium
Naming Rights
In 2006, we obtained naming and sponsorship rights on a stadium
in Glendale, Arizona, which is home to the Arizona Cardinals
team in the National Football League. These naming and
sponsorship rights are in effect until 2026 with options to
extend and include opportunities for signage, advertising, and
other promotional rights and benefits to enhance the University
of Phoenix brand awareness.
16
Relationships
with Employers
We work closely with many businesses and governmental agencies
to meet their specific educational and training needs either by
modifying existing programs or, in some cases, by developing
customized programs. These programs are often held at the
employers offices or on site at select military bases.
University of Phoenix has formed educational partnerships with
various corporations to provide programs specifically designed
for their employees. BPP enrolls the majority of its students
through relationships with employers. We consider the employers
that provide tuition assistance to their employees through
tuition reimbursement plans or direct bill arrangements to be
our secondary customers.
Referrals
Referrals continue to be an important source of new students,
including those from employers, co-workers, current students,
alumni, family members and friends.
Competition
Domestic
Postsecondary
The higher education industry is highly fragmented with no
single private or public institution enjoying a significant
market share. We compete primarily with traditional four- and
two-year degree-granting public and private regionally
accredited colleges and universities. While students over the
age of 24 comprise approximately 38% of all higher education
enrollments in the U.S., the primary mission of most accredited
four-year colleges and universities is to serve 18- to
24-year-old
students and conduct research. University of Phoenix
acknowledges the differences in educational needs between
working learners and traditional students and provides programs
and services that allow students to earn their degrees without
major disruption to their personal and professional lives.
An increasing number of colleges and universities enroll working
learners in addition to the traditional 18- to
24-year-old
students, and we expect that these colleges and universities
will continue to modify their existing programs to serve working
learners more effectively, including by offering more distance
learning programs. We believe that the primary factors on which
we compete are the following:
|
|
|
|
|
the ability to provide flexible and convenient access to
programs and classes;
|
|
|
cost of the program;
|
|
|
breadth of programs offered;
|
|
|
active and relevant curriculum development that considers needs
of employers;
|
|
|
the time necessary to earn a degree;
|
|
|
reliable and high-quality products and services;
|
|
|
qualified and experienced faculty;
|
|
|
reputation of programs and classes; and
|
|
|
comprehensive student support services.
|
In our offerings of non-degree programs, we compete with a
variety of business and information technology providers,
primarily those in the for-profit training sector. Many of these
competitors have significantly more market share in given
geographical regions and longer-term relationships with key
employers of potential students.
International
Competitive factors for our international schools vary by
country and generally include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
breadth of programs offered;
|
|
|
active and relevant curriculum development that considers the
needs of employers; and
|
|
|
reputation of programs and classes.
|
17
In addition, BPP competes with other training providers, public
and private colleges, and universities primarily in the United
Kingdom. The primary factors on which BPP competes with these
institutions include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
reputation of programs and classes;
|
|
|
examination success;
|
|
|
reliable and high-quality products and services;
|
|
|
qualified and experienced faculty;
|
|
|
flexible learning programs;
|
|
|
active and relevant curriculum development that considers the
needs of employers;
|
|
|
relationships with employers; and
|
|
|
degree awarding powers.
|
Employees
We believe that our employee relations are satisfactory. As of
August 31, 2009, we had the following numbers of employees:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Faculty
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Full-Time
|
|
|
Part-Time
|
|
|
Faculty(1)
|
|
|
University of Phoenix
|
|
|
15,725
|
|
|
|
291
|
|
|
|
27,361
|
|
Apollo Global:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BPP
|
|
|
1,273
|
|
|
|
249
|
|
|
|
647
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1,244
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,080
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Apollo Global
|
|
|
2,517
|
|
|
|
249
|
|
|
|
1,727
|
|
Insight Schools
|
|
|
140
|
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
376
|
|
Other Schools
|
|
|
741
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
1,912
|
|
Corporate(2)
|
|
|
2,391
|
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
21,514
|
|
|
|
608
|
|
|
|
31,376
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes both full-time and part-time faculty. Also includes
1,113 employees counted as non-faculty that serve in both
roles. |
|
(2) |
|
Consists primarily of employees in executive management,
information systems, accounting and finance, financial aid, and
corporate human resources. |
Accreditation
and Jurisdictional Authorizations
Domestic
Postsecondary
Accreditation
University of Phoenix is covered by regional accreditation,
which provides the following:
|
|
|
|
|
recognition and acceptance by employers, other higher education
institutions and governmental entities of the degrees and
credits earned by students;
|
|
|
qualification to participate in Title IV programs (in
combination with state higher education operating and degree
granting authority); and
|
|
|
qualification for authorization in certain states.
|
Regional accreditation is accepted nationally as the basis for
the recognition of earned credit and degrees for academic
purposes, employment, professional licensure and, in some
states, authorization to operate as a degree-granting
institution. Under the terms of a reciprocity agreement among
the six senior regional accrediting associations,
representatives of each region in which a regionally accredited
institution operates may participate in the evaluations for
reaffirmation of accreditation of which the North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools is a member.
18
Accreditation information for University of Phoenix and
applicable programs is described in the chart below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Institution/Program
|
|
|
Accrediting Body (Year Accredited)
|
|
|
Status
|
University of Phoenix
|
|
|
The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools (1978, reaffirmed in 1982,
1987, 1992, 1997, and 2002)
|
|
|
Next comprehensive evaluation visit by The Higher
Learning Commission is scheduled to be conducted in 2012
(maximum period of reaffirmation is 10 years)
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools may
require focused visits between comprehensive visits as part of
normal and continuing relationship
|
Business programs
|
|
|
Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs
(2007)
|
|
|
Next reaffirmation visit expected in 2017, with interim
focus report to be submitted by us in 2011
|
Bachelor of Science in Nursing
|
|
|
Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (2005)
Previously accredited by National League for Nursing
Accrediting Commission from 1989 to 2005
|
|
|
Reaccreditation due in 2010 by Commission on Collegiate
Nursing Education
|
Master of Science in Nursing
|
|
|
Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (2005)
Previously accredited by National League for Nursing
Accrediting Commission from 1996 to 2005
|
|
|
Reaccreditation due in 2010 by Commission on Collegiate
Nursing Education
|
Master of Counseling in Community Counseling
(Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona campuses)
|
|
|
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related
Educational Programs (1995, reaffirmed in 2002)
|
|
|
Reaffirmation visit expected in 2010
|
Master of Counseling in Mental Health Counseling
Salt Lake City, Utah campus
|
|
|
Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related
Educational Programs (2001)
|
|
|
Reaffirmation visit expected in 2009
|
Master of Arts in Education with options in
Elementary Teacher Education and Secondary Teacher Education
|
|
|
Teacher Education Accreditation Council (preaccredited in
2007)
|
|
|
Reaccreditation due in 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The schools in our Other Schools segment maintain the requisite
accreditations for their respective operations.
Jurisdictional
Authorizations
In addition to accreditation by independent accrediting bodies,
our schools must be authorized to operate by the appropriate
regulatory authorities in many of the jurisdictions in which
they operate.
In the U.S., institutions that participate in Title IV
programs must be authorized to operate by the appropriate
postsecondary regulatory authority in each state where the
institution has a physical presence, or
19
be exempt from such regulatory authorization, usually based on
recognized accreditation. As of August 31, 2009, University
of Phoenix is authorized to operate and has a physical presence
in 39 states and the District of Columbia. University of
Phoenix has held these authorizations for periods ranging from
less than two years to over 25 years. As of August 31,
2009, University of Phoenix has also been approved to operate in
Alaska, Mississippi, Montana and South Dakota, but does not yet
have a physical presence in these states.
All regionally accredited institutions, including University of
Phoenix, are required to be evaluated separately for
authorization to operate in Puerto Rico. University of Phoenix
obtained authorization from the Puerto Rico Commission on Higher
Education, and that authorization remains in effect.
Some states assert authority to regulate all degree-granting
institutions if their educational programs are available to
their residents, whether or not the institutions maintain a
physical presence within those states. University of Phoenix has
obtained licensure in these states.
The schools in our Other Schools segment maintain the requisite
authorizations in the jurisdictions in which they operate.
International
Our international schools must be authorized by the relevant
regulatory authorities under applicable local law, which in some
cases requires accreditation, as described in the chart below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
School
|
|
|
Accrediting Body
|
|
|
Operational Authority
|
BPP
|
|
|
BPP Professional Education and BPP College of Professional Studies operate under a number of professional body accreditations to offer training towards professional body certifications
BPP has additional accreditations by country and/or program as necessary
|
|
|
The Privy Council for the United Kingdom has designated BPP College of Professional Studies Limited as an awarding body for qualifications (including degrees) in the United Kingdom
BPP College of Professional Studies reauthorization will be due when its current authority expires in August 2013
|
UNIACC
|
|
|
Council for Higher Education (Consejo Superior de Educación)
National Commission on Accreditation (Comisión Nacional de Acreditación)
|
|
|
Chilean Ministry of Education (Ministerio de Educación de Chile)
Reaccreditation due in 2011
|
ULA
|
|
|
N/A
|
|
|
Mexicos Secretary of Public Education (Secretaria de Educación Pública)
Ministry of Education of the State of Morelos (Secretaria de Educación del Estado de Morelos)
National Autonomous University of Mexico (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial
Aid Programs
Domestic
Postsecondary
The Higher Education Act of 1965 and the related regulations
govern all higher education institutions participating in
U.S. Title IV federal financial aid programs. In
August 2008, the Higher Education Act was
20
reauthorized through September 30, 2013 by the Higher
Education Opportunity Act. Financial aid under Title IV of
the Higher Education Act, as reauthorized (which we refer to
generally as Title IV), is awarded every academic year to
eligible students. Certain types of U.S. federal student
aid are awarded on the basis of financial need, generally
defined as the difference between the cost of attending an
educational institution and the amount the student
and/or the
students family, as the case may be, can reasonably be
expected to contribute to that cost. The amount of financial aid
awarded per academic year is based on many factors, including,
but not limited to, program of study, grade level, Title IV
annual loan limits, and financial need. All recipients of
Title IV program funds must maintain satisfactory academic
progress within the guidelines published by the
U.S. Department of Education.
We collected the majority of our fiscal year 2009 total
consolidated net revenue from receipt of Title IV financial
aid program funds, principally from federal Stafford loans, also
known as Federal Family Education Loan Program
(FFELP) loans, and Pell Grants. University of
Phoenix represented approximately 95% of our fiscal year 2009
total consolidated net revenue and University of Phoenix
generated 86% of its cash basis revenue for eligible tuition and
fees during fiscal year 2009 from the receipt of Title IV
financial aid program funds, as calculated under the 90/10 Rule,
excluding the benefit from the temporary relief for loan limit
increases, described further below.
FFELP loans are currently the most significant source of
U.S. federal student aid and are low interest, federally
guaranteed loans made by private lenders. Annual and aggregate
loan limits apply based on the students grade level. There
are two types of Stafford loans: subsidized Stafford loans,
which are based on the U.S. federal statutory calculation
of student need, and unsubsidized Stafford loans, which are not
need-based. Neither type of Stafford loan is based on
creditworthiness. The U.S. federal government pays the
interest on subsidized Stafford loans while the student is
enrolled in school; the borrower is responsible for the interest
on unsubsidized Stafford loans regardless of school attendance.
The student has the option to defer payment on the principal and
interest while enrolled in school. Repayment on Stafford loans
begins six months after the date the student ceases enrollment.
The loan may be paid back to the lender over the course of up to
10 years or longer. Both graduate and undergraduate
students may apply for Stafford loans. During fiscal year 2009,
Stafford loans represented approximately 85% of the gross
Title IV funds received by University of Phoenix.
In addition to FFELP loans made by private lenders, the
U.S. Department of Education also administers the Federal
Direct Loan Program (FDLP), which eliminates the
private financial institution as the lender. Under the FDLP, the
federal government makes the loans directly to the students with
terms consistent with FFELP loans. During fiscal year 2009, we
began participating in the FDLP for a small portion of our
Title IV eligible students. During fiscal year 2009, FDLP
loans represented less than 1% of the gross Title IV funds
received by University of Phoenix. In U.S. President Barack
Obamas 2010 budget request delivered to Congress on
February 26, 2009, the U.S. Department of Education
proposed to eliminate FFELP loans and instead require all
Title IV student loans to be administered through the FDLP
commencing July 1, 2010. We expect to be able to fully
transition from the FFELP program to the FDLP by the proposed
July 1, 2010 phase-out date, if necessary. If this proposal
is adopted, the transition would require us to develop and
implement administrative capabilities and procedures for volume
processing of loans under the FDLP. If we experience a
disruption in our ability to process student loans through the
FDLP, either because of administrative challenges on our part or
the inability of the U.S. Department of Education to
process the increased volume of direct loans on a timely basis,
our results of operations and cash flows could be adversely and
materially affected.
Federal Pell Grants are generally awarded based on need only to
undergraduate students who have not earned a bachelors or
professional degree. Unlike loans, Pell Grants do not have to be
repaid. During fiscal year 2009, Pell Grants represented
approximately 14% of the gross Title IV funds received by
University of Phoenix.
Funding from student loans not guaranteed by the federal
government represented approximately 1% of the cash basis
revenue for eligible tuition and fees for University of Phoenix
during fiscal year 2009. See Item 1A, Risk
Factors Risks Related to the Highly Regulated
Industry in Which We Operate.
21
International
Government financial aid funding for students enrolled in our
international institutions is not widely available.
Regulatory
Environment
Domestic
Postsecondary
Our domestic postsecondary operations are subject to significant
regulations. New or revised interpretations of regulatory
requirements could have a material adverse effect on us. In
addition, changes in existing or new interpretations of
applicable laws, rules, or regulations could have a material
adverse effect on our accreditation, authorization to operate in
various states, permissible activities, and operating costs. The
failure to maintain or renew any required regulatory approvals,
accreditation, or state authorizations could have a material
adverse effect on us. See Item 1A, Risk
Factors Risks Related to the Highly Regulated
Industry in Which We Operate.
The Higher Education Act, as reauthorized, and the related
regulations govern all higher education institutions
participating in U.S. Title IV federal financial aid
programs, and provide for a regulatory triad by mandating
specific regulatory responsibilities for each of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
the accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Department
of Education;
|
|
|
the federal government through the U.S. Department of
Education; and
|
|
|
state higher education regulatory bodies.
|
To be eligible to participate in Title IV programs, a
postsecondary institution must be accredited by an accrediting
body recognized by the U.S. Department of Education and
must comply with the Higher Education Act, as reauthorized, and
all applicable regulations thereunder. University of Phoenix and
Western International University currently meet the requirements
for Title IV participation. The most significant regulatory
requirements applicable to our domestic postsecondary operations
are summarized below.
Eligibility and Certification Procedures. The
Higher Education Act, as reauthorized, specifies the manner in
which the U.S. Department of Education reviews institutions
for eligibility and certification to participate in
Title IV programs. Every educational institution involved
in Title IV programs must be certified to participate and
is required to periodically renew this certification. University
of Phoenix was recertified in June 2003 and its current
certification for the Title IV programs expired in June
2007. In March 2007, University of Phoenix submitted its
Title IV recertification application to the
U.S. Department of Education. We have been collaborating
with the U.S. Department of Education since that date and
continue to supply additional
follow-up
information based on requests from the U.S. Department of
Education. Our eligibility continues on a
month-to-month
basis until the U.S. Department of Education issues its
decision on the application. We have no reason to believe that
our application will not be renewed in due course.
In February 2009, unrelated to our recertification application,
the U.S. Department of Education performed an ordinary
course, focused program review of University of Phoenixs
policies and procedures involving Title IV programs. We
have not yet received the program review report.
Western International University was recertified in October 2003
and its current certification for participation in Title IV
programs expired on June 30, 2009. In March 2009, Western
International University submitted its Title IV
recertification application to the U.S. Department of
Education and Western International Universitys
eligibility continues on a
month-to-month
basis until the U.S. Department of Education completes its
review of the application and issues its decision. As with
University of Phoenix, we have no reason to believe that the
application will not be renewed in due course.
The 90/10 Rule. A requirement of
the Higher Education Act, as reauthorized by the Higher
Education Opportunity Act, commonly referred to as the
90/10 Rule, applies only to proprietary institutions
of higher education, which includes University of Phoenix and
Western International University. Under this rule, a proprietary
institution will be ineligible to participate in Title IV
programs if for any two consecutive fiscal years it derives more
than 90% of its cash basis revenue, as defined in the rule, from
Title IV programs. An
22
institution that derives more than 90% of its revenue from
Title IV programs for any single fiscal year will be placed
on provisional certification for two fiscal years and will be
subject to possible additional sanctions determined to be
appropriate under the circumstances by the U.S. Department
of Education in the exercise of its broad discretion. An
institution that derives more than 90% of its revenue from
Title IV programs for two consecutive fiscal years will be
ineligible to participate in Title IV programs. University
of Phoenix and Western International University are required to
calculate this percentage at the end of each fiscal year. If an
institution violates the 90/10 Rule and becomes ineligible to
participate in Title IV programs, any disbursements of
Title IV program funds while ineligible must be repaid to
the U.S. Department of Education.
The 90/10 Rule percentage for University of Phoenix has
increased materially over the past several fiscal years and we
expect the trend will continue in fiscal year 2010. The increase
has been driven primarily by the following factors:
|
|
|
|
|
Increased student loan limits. In May 2008,
the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008
increased the annual loan limits on federal unsubsidized student
loans by $2,000 for the majority of our students enrolled in
associates and bachelors degree programs, and also
increased the aggregate loan limits (over the course of a
students education) on total federal student loans for
certain students. This increase in student loan limits, together
with increases in Pell Grants, has increased the amount of
Title IV program funds available to and used by our
students to satisfy tuition, fees and other costs, which has
increased the proportion of our revenue deemed to be from
Title IV programs.
|
|
|
|
Increased associates degree
enrollment. The proportion of our revenue from
associates degree programs is composed of a higher
percentage of Title IV funds than is the case for our
bachelors and other degree programs. As a result, our
90/10 Rule percentage tends to increase as associates
degree enrollment increases relative to other programs. Because
our associates degree enrollment continues to grow at a
higher rate than our other programs, this growth has contributed
to the increase in the 90/10 Rule percentages for the University
of Phoenix.
|
The Higher Education Opportunity Act provides temporary relief
from the impact of the loan limit increases by excluding from
the 90/10 Rule calculation any amounts received between
July 1, 2008 and July 1, 2011 that are attributable to
the increased annual loan limits. The implementing regulations
for this temporary relief are being developed in a negotiated
rulemaking process involving the U.S. Department of
Education, industry representatives and other interested
parties. The proposed rules were published for comment by the
U.S. Department of Education in August 2009, and are
expected to be published in final form by November 1, 2009.
There is uncertainty about the manner and extent in which the
temporary relief will apply to University of Phoenix and Western
International University, which have atypical academic
calendars. We continue to monitor the rulemaking process, as the
resolution of the interpretive issues and subsequent guidance
from the U.S. Department of Education could have an impact
on the benefit derived from the temporary relief. The
application of this temporary relief will decrease the 90/10
Rule percentages for University of Phoenix and Western
International University for fiscal year 2009. However, at
present given the evolving rule-making process as well as the
complexity of such a calculation given our atypical academic
calendars, we are unable to quantify precisely the benefit that
we will derive in the 90/10 Rule percentage from the temporary
relief. As such, our reported rates below exclude the benefits
from the temporary relief, which we currently estimate will
reduce our University of Phoenix rate between 50 and
300 basis points.
The 90/10 Rule percentages, excluding the benefit from the
temporary relief for loan limit increases, for University of
Phoenix and Western International University for fiscal year
2009 were 86% and 57%, respectively.
University of Phoenix is taking various measures to reduce the
percentage of its cash basis revenue attributable to
Title IV funds, including emphasizing employer-paid and
other direct-pay education programs, encouraging students to
carefully evaluate the amount of necessary Title IV
borrowing, and increasing the focus on professional development
and continuing education programs. Although we expect that these
measures will favorably impact the 90/10 Rule calculation in the
future, there is no assurance that these initiatives will be
effective in reducing the 90/10 Rule calculation, or that they
will be adequate to prevent the
23
90/10 Rule calculation from exceeding 90% in fiscal year 2010 or
future fiscal years. We do not believe that these measures
significantly impacted our 90/10 Rule calculation for fiscal
year 2009.
In addition, we intend to consider other measures to favorably
impact the 90/10 Rule calculation for University of Phoenix,
including appropriate domestic acquisitions and tuition price
increases. These efforts, and our other long-term initiatives to
impact this calculation, may increase our operating expenses
and/or
reduce our revenue and may have a materially adverse effect on
our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
Student Loan Defaults. To remain eligible to
participate in Title IV programs, educational institutions
must maintain an appropriate student loan cohort default rate.
The U.S. Department of Education reviews an educational
institutions cohort default rate annually as a measure of
administrative capability. The cohort is the group of students
who first enter into student loan repayment during a federal
fiscal year (ending September 30). The currently applicable
cohort default rate for each cohort is the percentage of the
students in the cohort who default on their student loans prior
to the end of the following federal fiscal year. The cohort
default rates are published by the U.S. Department of
Education approximately 12 months after the end of the
measuring period. Thus, in September 2009 the
U.S. Department of Education published the cohort default
rates for the 2007 cohort, which measured the percentage of
students who first entered into repayment during the year ended
September 30, 2007 and defaulted prior to
September 30, 2008. As discussed below, the measurement
period for the cohort default rate has been increased to three
years starting with the 2009 cohort.
If an educational institutions cohort default rate exceeds
10% for any one of the three preceding years, it must delay for
30 days the release of the first disbursement of
U.S. federal student loan proceeds to first time borrowers
enrolled in the first year of an undergraduate program. Western
International University implemented a 30 day delay for
such disbursements in fiscal year 2007, and University of
Phoenix proactively implemented a 30 day delay for such
disbursements in July 2009. If an institutions cohort
default rate exceeds 25% for three consecutive years or exceeds
40% in any one year, it will be ineligible to participate in
Title IV programs and, as a result, its students would not
be eligible for federal student financial aid.
The cohort default rates for University of Phoenix, Western
International University and for all proprietary postsecondary
institutions for the federal fiscal year periods 2007, 2006 and
2005 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cohort Year Ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
University of Phoenix
|
|
|
9.3
|
%
|
|
|
7.2
|
%
|
|
|
7.3
|
%
|
Western International University
|
|
|
18.5
|
%
|
|
|
27.4
|
%
|
|
|
11.4
|
%
|
All proprietary postsecondary institutions(1)
|
|
|
11.0
|
%
|
|
|
9.7
|
%
|
|
|
8.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Information published by the U.S. Department of Education. |
The University of Phoenix cohort default rate has ranged from
approximately 4% to 9.3% over the past several years. The
increase in the rate is, in large measure, the result of our
transitioning associates degree students from Western
International University to University of Phoenix beginning in
April 2006 and the general expansion of the University of
Phoenix associates degree program. Student loan default
rates tend to be higher in our associates degree student
population than in our bachelors and graduate degree
student populations. We believe that the 2008 University of
Phoenix cohort default rate for the period ending
September 30, 2009 will exceed 10%, although we do not
expect that this will have a material impact on our business as
we have already implemented a 30 day delay in the
disbursement of Title IV loan proceeds for first time
borrowers enrolled in the first year of an undergraduate program.
The increase in Western International Universitys cohort
default rate from 2005 to 2006 is due to the enrollment of
associates degree students in Western International
University from September 2004 through March 2006. The
transition of the associates degree program to University
of Phoenix in April 2006 has resulted in a decrease in Western
International Universitys cohort default rate from 2006 to
2007. We anticipate a further decrease in student loan defaults
for Western International University based on this transition.
24
We have implemented initiatives to mitigate the increased risk
of student loan defaults for University of Phoenix and Western
International University students. We have dedicated resources
focused on assisting the students who are at risk of default.
These dedicated resources contact students and offer assistance,
which includes providing students with specific loan repayment
information, lender contact information and attempts to transfer
these students to the lender to resolve their delinquency. In
addition, we have refined and improved our student retention
programs, resulting in improved student retention rates.
Accordingly, we believe that the increase in cohort default
rates for University of Phoenix arising from the increased
proportion of associates degree students will be
significantly less pronounced than it was for Western
International University.
The cohort default rate calculation was modified by the Higher
Education Opportunity Act enacted in August 2008. As modified,
effective for the federal fiscal year 2009 cohort, the measuring
period for the cohort default rate will be extended to the end
of the second year after a student first enters repayment,
rather than the end of the first year following the commencement
of repayment. Accordingly, the cohort default rate for the 2009
cohort will measure the percentage of students entering student
loan repayment during the year ended September 30, 2009 who
default on their student loans on or before September 30,
2011 (rather than September 30, 2010).
The Higher Education Opportunity Act also modified several
provisions to counterbalance the extended measurement period
with increased threshold cohort default rates that trigger
penalties along with the penalties imposed based on an
institutions cohort default rate effective with the
federal fiscal year 2009 cohort as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
The trigger based on a single cohort default rate of 10%, which
would result in a required
30-day delay
in disbursing Title IV loan proceeds to first year, first
time borrowers, will be increased to 15%;
|
|
|
The trigger based on cohort default rates of more than 25% for
three consecutive cohorts, which would result in Title IV
ineligibility, will be increased to 30%; and
|
|
|
The trigger based on a single cohort default rate of more than
40%, which would result in Title IV ineligibility, is
unchanged.
|
At this time we are unable to forecast the impact of these
modifications on our business due to the uncertain impact on
student loan defaults of the current adverse economic conditions.
Administrative Capability. The Higher
Education Opportunity Act directs the U.S. Department of
Education to assess the administrative capability of each
institution to participate in Title IV programs. The
failure of an institution to satisfy any of the criteria used to
assess administrative capability may allow the
U.S. Department of Education to determine that the
institution lacks administrative capability and, therefore, may
be subject to additional scrutiny or denied eligibility for
Title IV programs.
Standards of Financial
Responsibility. Pursuant to the Title IV
regulations, as revised, each eligible higher education
institution must satisfy the minimum standard established for
three tests which assess the financial condition of the
institution at the end of the institutions fiscal year.
The three tests measure primary reserve, equity, and net income
ratios by using information from the institutions audited
financial statements. These ratios take into account the total
financial resources of the school. The Primary Reserve Ratio is
a measure of an institutions financial viability and
liquidity. The Equity Ratio is a measure of an
institutions capital resources and its ability to borrow.
The Net Income Ratio is a measure of an institutions
profitability. These tests provide three individual scores which
are converted into a single composite score. The maximum
composite score is 3.0. If the institution achieves a composite
score of at least 1.5, it is considered financially responsible.
A composite score from 1.0 to 1.4 is considered financially
responsible, subject to additional monitoring and other
consequences, and the institution may continue to participate as
a financially responsible institution for up to three years. If
an institution does not achieve a composite score of at least
1.0, it can be transferred from the advance system
of payment of Title IV funds to cash monitoring status or
to the reimbursement system of payment, under which
the institution must disburse its own funds to students and
document the students eligibility for Title IV
program funds before receiving such funds from the
U.S. Department of Education. The composite scores for
Apollo Group, University of Phoenix and Western International
University exceed the required minimum of 1.5.
25
Limits on Title IV Program Funds. The
Title IV regulations place restrictions on the types of
programs offered and the amount of Title IV program funds
that a student is eligible to receive in any one academic year.
Only certain types of educational programs offered by an
institution qualify for Title IV program funds. For
students enrolled in qualified programs, the Title IV
regulations place limits on the amount of Title IV program
funds that a student is eligible to receive in any one academic
year, as defined by the U.S. Department of Education. An
academic year must consist of at least 30 weeks of
instructional time and a minimum of 24 credit hours. Most of
University of Phoenixs and Western International
Universitys degree programs meet the academic year minimum
definition of 30 weeks of instructional time and 24 credit
hours. Substantially all of University of Phoenixs degree
programs qualify for Title IV program funds. The programs
that do not qualify for Title IV program funds consist
primarily of corporate training programs and certain certificate
and continuing professional education programs. These programs
are paid directly by the students or their employers.
Restricted Cash. The U.S. Department of
Education places restrictions on excess Title IV program
funds collected for unbilled tuition and fees transferred to
University of Phoenix, Western International University or IPD
Client Institutions. If an institution holds excess
Title IV program funds with student authorization, the
institution must maintain, at all times, cash in its bank
account (not an escrow account) in an amount at least equal to
the amount of funds the institution holds for students.
Compensation of Representatives. The Higher
Education Opportunity Act prohibits an institution from
providing any commission, bonus or other incentive payment based
directly or indirectly on success in securing enrollments or
financial aid to any person or entity engaged in any student
recruitment, admission, or financial aid awarding activity.
Title IV regulations provide safe harbors for activities
and arrangements that an institution may carry out without
violating the Higher Education Act, as reauthorized, which
include, but are not limited to, the payment of fixed
compensation (annual salary), as long as that compensation is
not adjusted up or down more than twice during any
12-month
period, and any adjustment is not based solely on the number of
students recruited, admitted, enrolled, or awarded financial
aid. University of Phoenix, Western International University,
and IPD believe that their current methods of compensating
enrollment counselors and financial aid staff comply with the
Title IV regulations. See Note 18, Commitments and
Contingencies, in Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, regarding the Incentive Compensation
False Claims Act lawsuit.
Authorizations for New Locations and
Programs. University of Phoenix, Western
International University and CFFP are required to have
authorization to operate as degree-granting institutions in each
state where they physically provide educational programs.
Certain states accept accreditation as evidence of meeting
minimum state standards for authorization or for exempting the
institution entirely from formal state licensure or approval.
Other states require separate evaluations for authorization.
Depending on the state, the addition of a degree program not
offered previously or the addition of a new location must be
included in the institutions accreditation and be approved
by the appropriate state authorization agency. University of
Phoenix, Western International University and CFFP are currently
authorized to operate in all states in which they have physical
locations.
University of Phoenix, Western International University and CFFP
also must obtain the prior approval of The Higher Learning
Commission before expanding into new locations to conduct
instructional activities.
Branching and Classroom Locations. The
Title IV regulations contain specific requirements
governing the establishment of new main campuses, branch
campuses and classroom locations at which the eligible
institution offers, or could offer, 50% or more of an
educational program. In addition to classrooms at campuses and
learning centers, locations affected by these requirements
include the business facilities of client companies, military
bases and conference facilities used by University of Phoenix
and Western International University. The U.S. Department
of Education requires that the institution notify the
U.S. Department of Education of each location offering 50%
or more of an educational program prior to disbursing
Title IV program funds to students at that location.
University of Phoenix and Western International University have
procedures in place to ensure timely notification and
acquisition of all necessary location approvals prior to
disbursing Title IV funds to students attending any new
location. In addition, The Higher Learning
26
Commission requires that each new campus or learning center of
University of Phoenix or Western International University be
approved before offering instruction. States in which the two
universities operate have varying requirements for approval of
branch and classroom locations.
Change of Ownership or Control. A change of
ownership or control, depending on the type of change, may have
significant regulatory consequences for University of Phoenix,
Western International University and CFFP. Such a change of
ownership or control could trigger recertification by the
U.S. Department of Education, reauthorization by state
licensing agencies, or the reevaluation of the accreditation by
The Higher Learning Commission.
The U.S. Department of Education has adopted the change of
ownership and control standards used by the U.S. federal
securities laws for institutions owned by publicly-held
corporations. If a change of ownership and control occurs that
requires us to file a
Form 8-K
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or there is a
change in the identity of a controlling shareholder of Apollo
Group, the University of Phoenix
and/or
Western International University may become ineligible to
participate in Title IV programs until recertified by the
U.S. Department of Education. Under some circumstances, the
U.S. Department of Education may continue an
institutions participation in Title IV programs on a
temporary provisional basis pending completion of the change in
ownership approval process. In addition, some states where
University of Phoenix, Western International University or CFFP
are presently licensed have requirements governing change of
ownership or control that require approval of the change to
remain authorized to operate in those states. See Item 1A,
Risk Factors Our Executive Chairman and Vice
Chairman of the Board control 100% of our voting stock and
control substantially all actions requiring the vote or consent
of our shareholders. Moreover, University of Phoenix,
Western International University and CFFP are required to report
any material change in stock ownership to The Higher Learning
Commission. In the event of a material change in stock
ownership, The Higher Learning Commission may seek to evaluate
the effect of such a change on the continuing operations of
University of Phoenix, Western International University and CFFP.
New U.S. Department of Education Reporting and
Disclosure requirements. The Higher Education
Opportunity Act includes various provisions aimed at the rising
cost of postsecondary education and other efforts for more
transparency. Beginning July 1, 2011, the
U.S. Department of Education will publish national lists
disclosing the top five percent in each of nine institutional
categories with the highest college costs and largest percentage
increases. Additional consumer information disclosures required
of all Title IV eligible institutions, include, but are not
limited to, plans for improving the academic program,
institutional policies and sanctions related to the unauthorized
distribution of copyrighted material, retention rates, placement
information, completion and graduation rates and campus/student
safety awareness provisions.
U.S. Department of Education Audits and Other
Matters. From time to time as part of the normal
course of business, University of Phoenix and Western
International University are subject to program reviews and
audits by regulating bodies as a result of their participation
in Title IV programs. In February 2009, the
U.S. Department of Education performed an ordinary course,
focused program review of University of Phoenixs policies
and procedures involving Title IV programs. We have not
received the program review report resulting from this visit.
U.S. Department of Education regulations require
institutions and third-party servicers to submit annually to the
Secretary of Education their student financial aid compliance
audit, prepared by an independent auditor, no later than six
months after the last day of the institutions or
third-party servicers fiscal year. University of Phoenix,
Western International University and IPD have timely submitted
their respective fiscal year 2008 annual student financial aid
compliance audits.
During a previous internal review of certain Title IV
policies and procedures, it came to our attention that certain
Satisfactory Academic Progress calculations performed by
University of Phoenix and Western International University
failed to properly identify students who should have been placed
on financial aid disqualification status and therefore were
ineligible to participate in Title IV financial aid
programs. Additionally, we determined that University of Phoenix
was incorrectly disbursing certain funds under a grant program.
These matters were self-reported to the U.S. Department of
Education in October 2008. In February 2009, after completing
our review of these practices, we reported to the
U.S. Department of Education the
27
results of our review and paid the U.S. Department of
Education our best estimate of the liability, which was
$8.4 million. Approximately half of this amount was
recorded in our Consolidated Statements of Income in fiscal year
2008, which was our best estimate based on the information
available when we identified the matter. We recorded the
remaining amount in our Consolidated Statements of Income in the
first half of fiscal year 2009 following completion of our
review. The U.S. Department of Education has informed us
that this matter has been resolved.
International
Governmental regulations in foreign countries significantly
affect our international operations. New or revised
interpretations of regulatory requirements could have a material
adverse effect on us. Changes in existing or new interpretations
of applicable laws, rules, or regulations in the foreign
jurisdictions in which we operate could have a material adverse
effect on our accreditation, authorization to operate,
permissible activities, and costs of doing business outside of
the U.S. The failure to maintain or renew any required
regulatory approvals, accreditation, or state authorizations
could have a material adverse effect on our international
operations. See Item 1A, Risk Factors Risks
Related to the Highly Regulated Industry in Which We Operate.
Other
Matters
We file annual, quarterly and current reports with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. You may read and copy any
document we file at the Securities and Exchange
Commissions Public Reference Room at
100 F Street N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. Please
call the Securities and Exchange Commission at
1-800-SEC-0330
for information on the Public Reference Room. The Securities and
Exchange Commission maintains a website that contains annual,
quarterly and current reports that issuers file electronically
with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Securities and
Exchange Commissions website is
http://www.sec.gov.
Our website address is www.apollogrp.edu. We make available free
of charge on our website our Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
Quarterly Reports on
Form 10-Q,
Current Reports on
Form 8-K,
Information Statements on Schedule 14C, Forms 3, 4,
and 5 filed on behalf of directors and executive officers, and
all amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as soon as reasonably
practicable after such reports are electronically filed with, or
furnished to, the Securities and Exchange Commission.
You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties
described below and all other information contained in this
Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
In order to help assess the major risks in our business, we have
identified many, but not all, of these risks. Due to the scope
of our operations, a wide range of factors could materially
affect future developments and performance.
If any of the following risks are realized, our business,
financial condition, cash flow or results of operations could be
materially and adversely affected, and as a result, the trading
price of our Class A common stock could be materially and
adversely impacted. These risk factors should be read in
conjunction with other information set forth in this Annual
Report, including Item 7, Managements Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations, and Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, including the related Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements.
Risks
Related to the Control Over Our Voting Stock
Our
Executive Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board control 100%
of our voting stock and control substantially all actions
requiring the vote or consent of our shareholders.
Dr. John G. Sperling, our Executive Chairman of the Board
and Founder, and his son, Mr. Peter V. Sperling, our Vice
Chairman of the Board, control the John Sperling Voting Stock
Trust and the Peter Sperling
28
Voting Stock Trust. Dr. Sperling, Mr. Sperling and the
two trusts collectively own 100% of our voting securities, the
Apollo Group Class B common stock. Through their individual
holdings and their control of these trusts, Dr. Sperling
and Mr. Sperling together control the election of all
members of our Board of Directors and substantially all other
actions requiring a vote of our shareholders, except in certain
limited circumstances. Holders of our outstanding Apollo Group
Class A common stock do not have the right to vote for the
election of directors or for substantially any other action
requiring a vote of shareholders, except in certain limited
circumstances. In the event of Dr. Sperlings passing,
control of the John Sperling Voting Stock Trust, which holds a
majority of the outstanding Apollo Group Class B common
stock, will be exercised by a majority of three successor
trustees: Mr. Sperling, Terri Bishop, who is an executive
officer and Director of Apollo, and Darby Shupp, an employee of
an entity affiliated with Dr. Sperling. No assurances can
be given that the Apollo Group Class B shareholders will
exercise their control of Apollo Group in the same manner that a
majority of the outstanding Class A shareholders would if
they were entitled to vote on actions currently reserved
exclusively for our Class B shareholders. In addition, the
control of 100% of our voting stock by Dr. Sperling and
Mr. Sperling makes it impossible for a third party to
acquire voting control of us without Dr. Sperlings
consent.
We are a Controlled Company as defined in
Rule 5615(c)(1) of the NASDAQ Listing Rules, since more
than 50% of the voting power of Apollo Group is held by the John
Sperling Voting Stock Trust. As a consequence, we are exempt
from certain requirements of NASDAQ Listing Rule 5605,
including that:
|
|
|
|
|
our Board be composed of a majority of Independent Directors (as
defined in NASDAQ Listing Rule 5605(a)(2));
|
|
|
|
the compensation of our officers be determined by a majority of
the independent directors or a compensation committee composed
solely of independent directors; and
|
|
|
|
nominations to the Board of Directors be made by a majority of
the independent directors or a nominations committee composed
solely of independent directors.
|
However, NASDAQ Listing Rule 5605(b)(2) does require that
our independent directors have regularly scheduled meetings at
which only independent directors are present (executive
sessions). In addition, Internal Revenue Code
Section 162(m) requires that a compensation committee of
outside directors (within the meaning of Section 162(m))
approve stock option grants to executive officers in order for
us to be able to claim deductions for the compensation expense
attributable to such stock options. Notwithstanding the
foregoing exemptions, we do have a majority of independent
directors on our Board of Directors and we do have an Audit
Committee, a Compensation Committee and a Nominating and
Governance Committee composed entirely of independent directors.
The charters for the Compensation, Audit and Nominating and
Governance Committees have been adopted by the Board of
Directors and are available on our website, www.apollogrp.edu.
These charters provide, among other items, that each member must
be independent as such term is defined by the applicable rules
of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC and the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Risks
Related to the Highly Regulated Industry in Which We
Operate
U.S.
Operations
If we
fail to comply with the extensive regulatory requirements for
our business, we could face significant monetary liabilities,
fines and penalties, including loss of access to U.S. federal
student loans and grants for our students.
As a provider of higher education, we are subject to extensive
U.S. regulation on both the federal and state levels. In
particular, the Higher Education Act, as reauthorized by the
Higher Education Opportunity Act in August 2008, and related
regulations impose significant regulatory scrutiny on University
of Phoenix and Western International University, and all other
higher education institutions that participate in the various
federal student financial aid programs under Title IV of
the Higher Education Act (Title IV programs).
We collected the majority of our fiscal year 2009 total
consolidated net revenue from receipt of Title IV financial
29
aid program funds. University of Phoenix represented
approximately 95% of our fiscal year 2009 total consolidated net
revenue and University of Phoenix generated 86% of its cash
basis revenue for eligible tuition and fees during fiscal year
2009 from receipt of Title IV financial aid program funds,
as calculated under the 90/10 Rule, excluding the benefit from
the temporary relief for loan limit increases.
These regulatory requirements cover virtually all phases of our
U.S. operations, including educational program offerings,
facilities, instructional and administrative staff,
administrative procedures, marketing and recruiting, financial
operations, payment of refunds to students who withdraw,
maintenance of restricted cash, acquisitions or openings of new
schools, commencement of new educational programs and changes in
our corporate structure and ownership.
The Higher Education Act, as reauthorized, mandates specific
regulatory responsibilities for each of the following components
of the higher education regulatory triad: (1) the
U.S. federal government through the U.S. Department of
Education; (2) independent accrediting agencies recognized
by the U.S. Secretary of Education; and (3) state
education regulatory bodies.
The regulations, standards and policies of these regulatory
agencies frequently change and are subject to interpretation,
particularly where they are crafted for traditional, academic
term-based schools rather than our non-term academic delivery
model. Changes in, or new interpretations of, applicable laws,
regulations, or standards could have a material adverse effect
on our accreditation, authorization to operate in various
states, permissible activities, receipt of funds under
Title IV programs, or costs of doing business. We cannot
predict with certainty how all of the requirements applied by
these agencies will be interpreted or whether our schools will
be able to comply with these requirements in the future.
From time to time, we identify inadvertent compliance
deficiencies that we must address and, where appropriate, report
to the U.S. Department of Education. Such reporting, even
in regard to a minor compliance issue, could result in a more
significant compliance review by the U.S. Department of
Education or even a full recertification review, which may
require the expenditure of substantial administrative time and
resources to address. If the U.S. Department of Education
concluded that these reported deficiencies reflect a lack of
administrative capability, we could be subject to additional
sanctions or even lose our eligibility to participate in
Title IV programs. See A failure to demonstrate
administrative capability or financial
responsibility may result in the loss of eligibility to
participate in Title IV programs, below.
If we are found to be in noncompliance with any of these
regulations, standards or policies, any one of the relevant
regulatory agencies may be able to do one or more of the
following:
|
|
|
|
|
impose monetary fines or penalties;
|
|
|
|
limit or terminate our operations or ability to grant degrees
and diplomas;
|
|
|
|
restrict or revoke our accreditation, licensure or other
approval to operate;
|
|
|
|
limit, suspend or terminate our eligibility to participate in
Title IV programs or state financial aid programs;
|
|
|
|
require repayment of funds received under Title IV programs
or state financial aid programs;
|
|
|
|
require us to post a letter of credit with the
U.S. Department of Education;
|
|
|
|
subject our schools to heightened cash monitoring by the
U.S. Department of Education;
|
|
|
|
transfer us from the U.S. Department of Educations
advance system of receiving Title IV program funds to its
reimbursement system, under which a school must disburse its own
funds to students and document the students eligibility
for Title IV program funds before receiving such funds
backed by the U.S. Department of Education;
|
|
|
|
subject us to other civil or criminal penalties; and/or
|
|
|
|
subject us to other forms of censure.
|
30
In addition, in some circumstances of noncompliance or alleged
noncompliance, we may be subject to qui tam lawsuits under the
Federal False Claims Act. In these actions, private plaintiffs
seek to enforce remedies under the Act on behalf of the
U.S. and, if successful, are entitled to recover their
costs and to receive a portion of any amounts recovered by the
U.S. in the lawsuit. These lawsuits can be prosecuted by a
private plaintiff in respect of some action taken by us, even if
the Department of Education does not agree with plaintiffs
theory of liability.
Any of the penalties, injunctions, restrictions or other forms
of censure listed above could have a material adverse effect on
our business, financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows. If we lose our Title IV eligibility, we would
experience a dramatic and adverse decline in revenue and we
would be unable to continue our business as it currently is
conducted.
The
reauthorization of the federal Higher Education Act in August
2008 includes substantially increased reporting and other
requirements which may impair our reputation and adversely
affect our enrollments. In addition, not all of these new
requirements are clear on their face. Our failure to accurately
interpret these new requirements may subject us to penalties and
other sanctions imposed by the U.S. Department of
Education.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act, enacted on August 14,
2008, extends the Higher Education Act through
September 30, 2013. Among other things, the Higher
Education Opportunity Act imposes more than 100 new reporting
requirements. Beginning July 1, 2011, the
U.S. Department of Education will publish national lists
disclosing various statistics including the top five percent of
schools in each of nine institutional categories with the
highest college costs and largest percentage increases. If
University of Phoenix or Western International University is
highlighted negatively on one or more of these lists, our
reputation may be impaired and our enrollments may be adversely
affected. In addition, many of the Higher Education Opportunity
Act provisions will be further specified in regulations
promulgated by the U.S. Department of Education. The
U.S. Department of Education currently is evaluating which
provisions in the law should be the subject of regulation. This
regulatory process may impose additional or apparently different
reporting and other requirements on institutions that
participate in Title IV programs. Some period will elapse
before the U.S. Department of Education determines which
provisions of the Higher Education Opportunity Act will be the
subject of administrative rulemaking and issues final rules. In
the interim, the uncertainty about various requirements of the
Higher Education Opportunity Act will remain. Any failure by us
to properly interpret the effect of the Higher Education
Opportunity Act could subject us to the consequences, penalties
and other sanctions imposed by the U.S. Department of
Education discussed in the preceding risk factor, which could
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows. The prospect of
such sanctions may cause us to conservatively interpret the
Higher Education Opportunity Acts requirements pending
interpretive guidance, which may limit our flexibility in
operating or growing our business.
Our
schools and programs would lose their eligibility to participate
in federal student financial aid programs if the percentage of
our revenues derived from those programs is too
high.
The 90/10 Rule. A requirement of the Higher
Education Act, as reauthorized by the Higher Education
Opportunity Act, commonly referred to as the 90/10
Rule, applies only to proprietary institutions of higher
education, which includes University of Phoenix and Western
International University. Under this rule, a proprietary
institution will be ineligible to participate in Title IV
programs if for any two consecutive fiscal years it derives more
than 90% of its cash basis revenue, as defined in the rule, from
Title IV programs. An institution that derives more than
90% of its revenue from Title IV programs for any single
fiscal year will be placed on provisional certification for two
fiscal years and will be subject to possible additional
sanctions determined to be appropriate under the circumstances
by the U.S. Department of Education in the exercise of its
broad discretion. An institution that derives more than 90% of
its revenue from Title IV programs for two consecutive
fiscal years will be ineligible to participate in Title IV
programs. University of Phoenix and Western International
University are required to calculate this percentage at the end
of each fiscal year. If an
31
institution violates the 90/10 Rule and becomes ineligible to
participate in Title IV programs, any disbursements of
Title IV program funds while ineligible must be repaid to
the U.S. Department of Education.
The 90/10 Rule percentage for University of Phoenix has
increased materially over the past several fiscal years and we
expect the trend will continue in fiscal year 2010. The increase
has been driven primarily by the following factors:
|
|
|
|
|
Increased student loan limits. In May 2008,
the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act of 2008
increased the annual loan limits on federal unsubsidized student
loans by $2,000 for the majority of our students enrolled in
associates and bachelors degree programs, and also
increased the aggregate loan limits (over the course of a
students education) on total federal student loans for
certain students. This increase in student loan limits, together
with increases in Pell Grants, has increased the amount of
Title IV program funds available to and used by our
students to satisfy tuition, fees and other costs, which has
increased the proportion of our revenue deemed to be from
Title IV programs.
|
|
|
|
Increased associates degree
enrollment. The proportion of our revenue from
associates degree programs is composed of a higher
percentage of Title IV funds than is the case for our
bachelors and other degree programs. As a result, our
90/10 Rule percentage tends to increase as associates
degree enrollment increases relative to other programs. Because
our associates degree enrollment continues to grow at a
higher rate than our other programs, this growth has contributed
to the increase in the 90/10 Rule percentages for the University
of Phoenix.
|
The Higher Education Opportunity Act provides temporary relief
from the impact of the loan limit increases by excluding from
the 90/10 Rule calculation any amounts received between
July 1, 2008 and July 1, 2011 that are attributable to
the increased annual loan limits. The implementing regulations
for this temporary relief are being developed in a negotiated
rulemaking process involving the U.S. Department of
Education, industry representatives and other interested
parties. The proposed rules were published for comment by the
U.S. Department of Education in August 2009, and are
expected to be published in final form by November 1, 2009.
There is uncertainty about the manner and extent in which the
temporary relief will apply to University of Phoenix and Western
International University, which have atypical academic
calendars. We continue to monitor the rulemaking process, as the
resolution of the interpretive issues and subsequent guidance
from the U.S. Department of Education could have an impact
on the benefit derived from the temporary relief. The
application of this temporary relief will decrease the 90/10
Rule percentages for University of Phoenix and Western
International University for fiscal year 2009. However, at
present given the evolving rule-making process as well as the
complexity of such a calculation given our atypical academic
calendars, we are unable to quantify precisely the benefit that
we will derive in the 90/10 Rule percentage from the temporary
relief. As such, our reported rates below exclude the benefits
from the temporary relief, which we currently estimate will
reduce our University of Phoenix rate between 50 and
300 basis points.
The 90/10 Rule percentages, excluding the benefit from the
temporary relief for loan limit increases, for University of
Phoenix and Western International University for fiscal year
2009 were 86% and 57%, respectively.
University of Phoenix is taking various measures to reduce the
percentage of its cash basis revenue attributable to
Title IV funds, including emphasizing employer-paid and
other direct-pay education programs, encouraging students to
carefully evaluate the amount of necessary Title IV
borrowing, and increasing the focus on professional development
and continuing education programs. Although we expect that these
measures will favorably impact the 90/10 Rule calculation in the
future, there is no assurance that these initiatives will be
effective in reducing the 90/10 Rule calculation, or that they
will be adequate to prevent the 90/10 Rule calculation from
exceeding 90% in fiscal year 2010 or future fiscal years. We do
not believe that these measures significantly impacted our 90/10
Rule calculation for fiscal year 2009.
In addition, we intend to consider other measures to favorably
impact the 90/10 Rule calculation for University of Phoenix,
including appropriate domestic acquisitions and tuition price
increases. These efforts, and our other long-term initiatives to
impact this calculation, may increase our operating expenses
and/or
32
reduce our revenue and may have a materially adverse effect on
our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.
If the U.S. Congress acts to further increase the student
loan limits or to increase the amount of Pell or other grants
available to students, the 90/10 Rule percentage for University
of Phoenix could increase. Absent corresponding changes in the
90/10 Rule to address the effects of any such increase, such an
increase may require us to accelerate our efforts to manage the
proportion of our cash basis revenue composed of Title IV
funds.
We collected the majority of our fiscal year 2009 total
consolidated net revenue from receipt of Title IV financial
aid program funds, and continued Title IV eligibility is
critical to the operation of our business. If University of
Phoenix becomes ineligible to participate in Title IV
federal student financial aid programs, we could not conduct our
business as it is currently conducted and it would have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows. See the discussion of the
90/10 Rule, including the changes enacted by the Higher
Education Opportunity Act, in Item 1, Business,
Regulatory Environment Domestic Postsecondary
The 90/10 Rule, which
discussion is incorporated by this reference.
If we
are not recertified to participate in Title IV programs by
the U.S. Department of Education, we would lose eligibility to
participate in Title IV programs.
University of Phoenix and Western International University are
eligible and certified to participate in Title IV programs.
University of Phoenix was recertified for Title IV programs
in June 2003 and its current certification expired in June 2007.
In March 2007, University of Phoenix submitted its Title IV
recertification application to the U.S. Department of
Education. We have been collaborating with the
U.S. Department of Education since that date and continue
to supply additional
follow-up
information based on requests from the U.S. Department of
Education. Our eligibility continues on a
month-to-month
basis until the U.S. Department of Education issues its
decision on the application. We have no reason to believe that
our application will not be renewed in due course.
In February 2009, unrelated to our recertification application,
the U.S. Department of Education performed an ordinary
course, focused program review of University of Phoenixs
policies and procedures involving Title IV programs. We
have not yet received the program review report.
Western International University was recertified in October 2003
and its current certification for participation in Title IV
programs expired on June 30, 2009. In March 2009, Western
International University submitted its Title IV
recertification application to the U.S. Department of
Education. Western International Universitys eligibility
continues on a
month-to-month
basis until the U.S. Department of Education completes it
review of the application and issues its decision. As with
University of Phoenix, we have no reason to believe that the
application will not be renewed in due course.
Generally, the recertification process includes a review by the
U.S. Department of Education of the institutions
educational programs and locations, administrative capability,
financial responsibility, and other oversight categories. The
U.S. Department of Education could limit, suspend or
terminate an institutions participation in Title IV
programs for violations of the Higher Education Act, as
reauthorized, or Title IV regulations.
We collected the majority of our fiscal year 2009 total
consolidated net revenue from receipt of Title IV financial
aid program funds. University of Phoenix represented
approximately 95% of our fiscal year 2009 total consolidated net
revenue and University of Phoenix generated 86% of its cash
basis revenue for eligible tuition and fees during fiscal year
2009 from receipt of Title IV financial aid program funds,
as calculated under the 90/10 Rule, excluding the benefit from
the temporary relief for loan limit increases. Continued
Title IV eligibility is critical to the operation of our
business. If University of Phoenix becomes ineligible to
participate in Title IV federal student financial aid
programs, we could not conduct our business as it is currently
conducted and it would have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.
33
Our
business could be harmed if we experience a disruption in our
ability to process student loans because of the proposed
phase-out of Family Education Loan Program loans and the
corresponding transition to direct student loans under the
Federal Direct Loan Program.
Student loans under the Federal Family Education Loan Program
(FFELP) are currently the most significant source of
U.S. federal student aid and are low interest, federally
guaranteed loans made by private lenders. We collected the
majority of our fiscal year 2009 total consolidated net revenue
from receipt of Title IV financial aid program funds,
principally from FFELP student loans. In addition to FFELP loans
made by private lenders, the U.S. Department of Education
also administers the Federal Direct Loan Program
(FDLP), which eliminates the private financial
institution as the lender. Under the FDLP, the federal
government makes the loans directly to the students on terms
consistent with FFELP loans. During fiscal year 2009, FDLP loans
represented less than 1% of the gross Title IV funds
received by University of Phoenix.
In U.S. President Barack Obamas 2010 budget request
to Congress, the U.S. Department of Education proposed to
eliminate FFELP loans and instead require all Title IV
student loans to be administered through the FDLP commencing
July 1, 2010. We expect to be able to fully transition from
the FFELP program to the FDLP by the proposed July 1, 2010
phase-out date, if necessary. If this proposal is adopted, the
transition would require us to develop and implement
administrative capabilities and procedures for volume processing
of loans under the FDLP. If we experience a disruption in our
ability to process student loans through the FDLP, either
because of administrative challenges on our part or the
inability of the U.S. Department of Education to process
the increased volume of direct student loans on a timely basis,
our business, financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows could be adversely and materially affected.
If
regulators do not approve or delay their approval of
transactions involving a change of control of our company, our
state licenses, accreditation, and ability to participate in
Title IV programs may be impaired.
A change of ownership or control of Apollo Group, depending on
the type of change, may have significant regulatory consequences
for University of Phoenix and Western International University.
Such a change of ownership or control could require
recertification by the U.S. Department of Education,
reauthorization by state licensing agencies, or the reevaluation
of the accreditation by The Higher Learning Commission of the
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. The
U.S. Department of Education has adopted the change of
ownership and control standards used by the federal securities
laws for institutions owned by publicly-held corporations. Upon
a change of ownership and control sufficient to require us to
file a
Form 8-K
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or a change in the
identity of a controlling shareholder of the Apollo Group,
University of Phoenix
and/or
Western International University may cease to be eligible to
participate in Title IV programs until recertified by the
U.S. Department of Education. There can be no assurances
that such recertification would be obtained on a timely basis.
Under some circumstances, the U.S. Department of Education
may continue an institutions participation in the
Title IV programs on a temporary provisional basis pending
completion of the change in ownership approval process. In
addition, some states where University of Phoenix, Western
International University or CFFP is presently licensed have
requirements governing change of ownership or control that
require approval of the change to remain authorized to operate
in those states. Moreover, University of Phoenix, Western
International University and CFFP are required to report any
material change in stock ownership to The Higher Learning
Commission. In the event of a material change in stock ownership
of Apollo Group, The Higher Learning Commission may seek to
evaluate the effect of such a change of stock ownership on the
continuing operations of University of Phoenix, Western
International University and CFFP.
Substantially all of our voting stock is owned and controlled by
Dr. John Sperling and Mr. Peter Sperling. We cannot
prevent a change of ownership or control that would arise from a
transfer of voting stock by Dr. Sperling or
Mr. Sperling, including a transfer that may occur or be
deemed to occur upon the death of one or both of
Dr. Sperling or Mr. Sperling. Dr. and
Mr. Sperling have established voting stock trusts and other
agreements with the intent to maintain the Companys voting
stock in such a way as to prevent a change of ownership or
control upon eithers death, but we cannot assure you that
these arrangements will have the desired effect.
34
If
regulators do not approve our domestic acquisitions, the
acquired schools state licenses, accreditation, and
ability to participate in Title IV programs may be
impaired.
When we acquire an institution, we must seek approval from the
U.S. Department of Education, if the acquired institution
participates in Title IV programs, and from most applicable
state agencies and accrediting agencies because an acquisition
is considered a change of ownership or control of the acquired
institution under applicable regulatory standards. A change of
ownership or control of an institution under the
U.S. Department of Education standards can result in the
temporary suspension of the institutions participation in
the Title IV programs unless a timely and materially
complete application for recertification is filed with the
U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department
of Education issues a temporary provisional certification. If we
are unable to obtain approvals from the state agencies,
accrediting agencies or U.S. Department of Education for
any institution we may acquire in the future, depending on the
size of that acquisition, such a failure to obtain approval
could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Action
by the U.S. Congress to revise the laws governing the federal
student financial aid programs or reduce funding for those
programs could reduce our student population and increase our
costs of operation.
The U.S. Congress must periodically reauthorize the Higher
Education Act and annually determine the funding level for each
Title IV program. In 2008, the Higher Education Act was
reauthorized through September 30, 2013 by the Higher
Education Opportunity Act. Changes to the Higher Education Act
are likely to result from subsequent reauthorizations, and the
scope and substance of any such changes cannot be predicted. Any
action by the U.S. Congress that significantly reduces
Title IV program funding or the ability of our institutions
or students to participate in Title IV programs would have
a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows. Congressional action may also require
us to modify our practices in ways that could increase our
administrative costs and reduce our profit margin, which could
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.
If the U.S. Congress significantly reduced the amount of
available Title IV program funding, we would attempt to
arrange for alternative sources of financial aid for our
students, but it is unlikely that private sources would be able
to provide as much funding to our students on as favorable terms
as is currently provided by Title IV. In addition, private
organizations could require us to guarantee all or part of this
assistance and we might incur other additional costs. For these
reasons, private, alternative sources of student financial aid
would only partly offset, if at all, the impact on our business
of reduced Title IV program funding.
Student
loan defaults could result in the loss of eligibility to
participate in Title IV programs.
Currently, under the Higher Education Act, as reauthorized, an
educational institution will lose its eligibility to participate
in some or all Title IV programs if its student loan cohort
default rate equals or exceeds 25% for three consecutive years
or 40% for any given year. If our student loan default rates
approach these limits, we may be required to expend substantial
effort and resources to improve these default rates. In
addition, because there is a lag between the funding of a
student loan and a default thereunder, many of the borrowers who
are in default or at risk of default are former students with
whom we may have only limited contact. Accordingly, there can be
no assurance that we would be able to effectively improve our
default rates or improve them in a timely manner to meet the
requirements for continued participation in Title IV
funding if we begin to experience a substantial increase in our
student loan default rates.
The cohort default rate requirements were modified by the Higher
Education Opportunity Act enacted in August 2008 to increase by
one year the measuring period for each cohort and increase some
of the threshold rates that trigger penalties. We do not expect
the change in the measurement period for the calculation of the
cohort default rate and the related thresholds to have a
material impact on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows.
If we lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV
programs because of high student loan default rates, we could
not conduct our business as it is currently being conducted and
it would have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. See
the discussion of student loan cohort default rates, including
the changes enacted by the Higher Education Opportunity Act, in
Item 1,
35
Business Regulatory Environment
Domestic Postsecondary
Student Loan Defaults, which discussion
is incorporated by this reference.
If any
regulatory audit, investigation or other proceeding finds us not
in compliance with the numerous laws and regulations applicable
to the postsecondary education industry, we may not be able to
successfully challenge such finding and our business could
suffer.
Due to the highly regulated nature of the postsecondary
education industry, we are subject to audits, compliance
reviews, inquiries, complaints, investigations, claims of
non-compliance and lawsuits by federal and state governmental
agencies, regulatory agencies, accrediting agencies, present and
former students and employees, shareholders and other third
parties, any of whom may allege violations of any of the
regulatory requirements applicable to us. If the results of any
such claims or actions are unfavorable to us, we may be required
to pay monetary fines or penalties, be required to repay funds
received under Title IV programs or state financial aid
programs, have restrictions placed on or terminate our
schools or programs eligibility to participate in
Title IV programs or state financial aid programs, have
limitations placed on or terminate our schools operations
or ability to grant degrees and certificates, have our
schools accreditations restricted or revoked, or be
subject to civil or criminal penalties. Any one of these
sanctions could materially adversely affect 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.
If we
fail to maintain our institutional accreditation, we would lose
our ability to participate in Title IV
programs.
University of Phoenix and Western International University are
institutionally accredited by The Higher Learning Commission,
one of the six regional accrediting agencies recognized by the
Secretary of Education. Accreditation by an accrediting agency
recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education is required
in order for an institution to become and remain eligible to
participate in Title IV programs. The loss of accreditation
would, among other things, render our schools and programs
ineligible to participate in Title IV programs, affect our
authorization to operate in certain states and decrease student
demand. If University of Phoenix becomes ineligible to
participate in Title IV federal student financial aid
programs, we could not conduct our business as it is currently
conducted and it would have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.
If we
fail to maintain any of our state authorizations, we would lose
our ability to operate in that state and to participate in
Title IV programs there.
University of Phoenix and Western International University are
authorized to operate and to grant degrees by the applicable
state agency of each state where such authorization is required
and where we maintain a campus. In addition, several states
require University of Phoenix to obtain separate authorization
for the delivery of distance education to residents of those
states. Compliance with these state requirements is also
necessary for students in the respective states to participate
in Title IV programs. The loss of such authorization in one
or more states would render students resident in those states
ineligible to participate in Title IV programs and could
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows. Loss of
authorization in one or more states could increase the
likelihood of additional scrutiny and potential loss of
operating
and/or
degree granting authority in other states in which we operate,
which would further impact our business.
A
failure to demonstrate administrative capability or
financial responsibility may result in the loss of
eligibility to participate in Title IV
programs.
The U.S. Department of Education regulations specify
extensive criteria an institution must satisfy to establish that
it has the requisite administrative capability to participate in
Title IV programs. These criteria require, among other
things, that the institution:
|
|
|
|
|
comply with all applicable Title IV program regulations;
|
36
|
|
|
|
|
have capable and sufficient personnel to administer the federal
student financial aid programs;
|
|
|
|
have acceptable methods of defining and measuring the
satisfactory academic progress of its students;
|
|
|
|
not have a student loan cohort default rate above specified
levels;
|
|
|
|
have procedures in place for safeguarding federal funds;
|
|
|
|
not be, and not have any principal or affiliate who is, debarred
or suspended from federal contracting or engaging in activity
that is cause for debarment or suspension;
|
|
|
|
provide financial aid counseling to its students;
|
|
|
|
refer to the Office of Inspector General any credible
information indicating that any applicant, student, employee or
agent of the institution has been engaged in any fraud or other
illegal conduct involving Title IV programs;
|
|
|
|
submit in a timely manner all reports and financial statements
required by the regulations; and
|
|
|
|
not otherwise appear to lack administrative capability.
|
Furthermore, to participate in Title IV programs, an
eligible institution must satisfy specific measures of financial
responsibility prescribed by the U.S. Department of
Education, or post a letter of credit in favor of the
U.S. Department of Education and possibly accept other
conditions on its participation in Title IV programs. If
our schools eligible to participate in Title IV programs
fail to maintain administrative capability or financial
responsibility, as defined by the U.S. Department of
Education, those schools could lose their eligibility to
participate in Title IV programs or have that eligibility
adversely conditioned, which would have a material adverse
effect on our business. Limitations on, or termination of,
participation in Title IV programs as a result of the
failure to demonstrate administrative capability or financial
responsibility would limit students access to
Title IV program funds, which could significantly reduce
the enrollments and revenues of our schools eligible to
participate in Title IV programs and materially and
adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows. See the discussion of financial
responsibility in Item 1, Business
Regulatory Environment Domestic
Postsecondary Standards of Financial
Responsibility, which discussion is incorporated by this
reference.
We
will be subject to sanctions if we fail to properly calculate
and make timely payment of refunds of Title IV program
funds for students who withdraw before completing their
educational program.
The Higher Education Act, as reauthorized, and
U.S. Department of Education regulations require us to
calculate refunds of unearned Title IV program funds
disbursed to students who withdraw from their educational
program before completing it. If refunds are not properly
calculated or timely paid for 5% or more of students sampled in
the institutions annual compliance audit or in a program
review, generally within 45 days of the date the school
determines that the student has withdrawn, we may have to post a
letter of credit in favor of the U.S. Department of
Education or otherwise be subject to adverse actions by the
U.S. Department of Education, which could increase our cost
of regulatory compliance and adversely affect our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We are
subject to sanctions if we pay impermissible commissions,
bonuses, or other incentive payments to individuals involved in
certain recruiting, admission, or financial aid
activities.
A school participating in Title IV programs may not provide
any commission, bonus, or other incentive payment based directly
or indirectly on success in securing enrollments or financial
aid to any person or entity engaged in any student recruitment
or admission activity or in making decisions regarding the
awarding of Title IV program funds. The law and regulations
governing this requirement do not establish clear criteria for
compliance in all circumstances. If the U.S. Department of
Education determined that our compensation practices violated
these standards, the U.S. Department of Education could
subject us to monetary fines, penalties, or other sanctions,
which could adversely affect our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.
37
If
IPDs Client Institutions are sanctioned due to
non-compliance with Title IV requirements, our business
could be responsible for any resulting fines and
penalties.
IPD provides to its Client Institutions numerous consulting and
administrative services, including services that involve the
handling and receipt of Title IV funds. As a result of
this, IPD may be jointly and severally liable for any fines,
penalties or other sanctions imposed by the U.S. Department
of Education on the Client Institution for violation of
applicable Title IV regulations, regardless of the degree
of fault, if any, on IPDs part. The imposition of such
fines, penalties or other sanctions could have a material
adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows.
Government
regulations relating to the Internet could increase our cost of
doing business, affect our ability to grow or otherwise have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.
The increasing popularity and use of the Internet and other
online services has led and may lead to further adoption of new
laws and regulatory practices in the U.S. or foreign
countries and to new interpretations of existing laws and
regulations. These new laws and interpretations may relate to
issues such as online privacy, copyrights, trademarks and
service marks, sales taxes, value-added taxes, withholding
taxes, allocation and apportionment of income amongst various
state, local and foreign jurisdictions, fair business practices
and the requirement that online education institutions qualify
to do business as foreign corporations or be licensed in one or
more jurisdictions where they have no physical location or other
presence. New laws, regulations or interpretations related to
doing business over the Internet could increase our costs and
materially and adversely affect our enrollments, which could
have a material adverse affect on our business, financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Non-U.S.
Operations
Our
non-U.S. operations
are subject to regulatory requirements of the applicable
countries in which we operate, and our failure to comply with
these requirements may result in substantial monetary
liabilities, fines and penalties and a loss of authority to
operate.
We operate physical and online educational institutions in the
United Kingdom, Europe, China, India, Canada, Chile, Mexico, and
elsewhere, and are actively seeking further expansion in other
countries. Our operations in each of the relevant foreign
jurisdictions are subject to educational and other regulations,
which may differ materially from the regulations applicable to
our U.S. operations.
Risks
Related to Our Business
Our
business may be adversely affected by a further economic
slowdown in the U.S. or abroad or by an economic recovery in the
U.S.
The U.S and much of the world economy are in the midst of an
economic downturn. We believe the current economic downturn has
contributed to a portion of our recent enrollment growth as an
increased number of working learners seek to advance their
education to improve job security or reemployment prospects.
This effect cannot be quantified. However, to the extent that
the economic downturn has increased demand for our programs, a
subsequent economic recovery may eliminate this effect and
reduce such demand as fewer potential students seek to advance
their education. This reduction could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows. A worsening of the economic downturn
may reduce the demand for our programs among students and the
willingness of employers to sponsor educational opportunities
for their employees, either of which could materially and
adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows. In addition, these events could
adversely affect the ability or willingness of our former
students to repay student loans, which could increase our bad
debt expense and our student loan cohort default rate and
require increased time, attention and resources to manage these
defaults, either of which could have a material adverse effect
on our business. See Risks Related to the Highly Regulated
Industry in Which We Operate Student loan
defaults could result in the loss of eligibility to participate
in Title IV programs, above.
38
If we
are unable to successfully conclude pending litigation and
governmental inquiries, our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows could be adversely
affected.
We, certain of our subsidiaries, and certain of our current and
former directors and executive officers have been named as
defendants in lawsuits alleging violations of the federal
securities laws and the federal False Claims Act. In August
2008, the U.S. District Court for the District Court of
Arizona vacated a judgment for damages against us in a
securities class action, and the plaintiffs have appealed to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We also are awaiting trial in a
separate qui tam action against us alleging violations of the
Higher Education Act, as reauthorized, and federal securities
laws and the federal False Claims Act. We are also subject to
various other lawsuits, investigations and claims, covering a
range of matters, including, but not limited to, claims
involving shareholders and employment matters and an informal
inquiry by the Enforcement Division of the Securities and
Exchange Commission regarding our revenue recognition practices.
Refer to Note 18, Commitments and Contingencies, in
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,
for further discussion of pending litigation and other
proceedings.
We cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these matters and
expect to incur significant defense costs and other expenses in
connection with them. Such costs and expenses could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows and the market price of our
common stock. We may be required to pay substantial damages or
settlement costs in excess of our insurance coverage related to
these matters, or may be required to pay substantial fines or
penalties, any of which could have a further material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows.
We may
not be able to sustain our recent growth rate or profitability,
and we may not be able to manage future growth
effectively.
Our ability to sustain our current rate of growth or
profitability depends on a number of factors, including our
ability to obtain and maintain regulatory approvals, our ability
to attract and retain students, our ability to maintain
operating margins, our ability to recruit and retain high
quality academic and administrative personnel and competitive
factors. Over the past three years, our growth has been
predominately in our associates degree programs. If we do
not sustain our growth rate in the associates degree
programs, or fail to transition students to our bachelors
degree, advanced degree and other potential new programs, our
business could be adversely affected. In addition, growth may
place a significant strain on our resources and increase demands
on our management information and reporting systems, financial
management controls, and personnel. Although we have made a
substantial investment in augmenting our financial and
management information systems and other resources to support
future growth, we cannot assure you that we will have adequate
capacity to accommodate substantial growth or that we will be
able to manage further growth effectively. Failure to do so
could adversely affect our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.
In addition, our growth could be adversely impacted by a
reduction in the growth rate of overall postsecondary
enrollment. According to the U.S. Department of Education,
enrollment in degree-granting, postsecondary institutions is
projected to grow approximately 10% over the ten-year period
ending in 2017, to approximately 20.1 million students.
This growth compares with a 25.5% increase reported in the prior
ten-year period ended in 2007, when enrollment increased from
14.5 million students in 1997 to 18.2 million students
in 2007. This projected reduction in the growth rate of
postsecondary enrollment could negatively affect our ability to
grow our business in the U.S.
Our
financial performance depends on our ability to continue to
develop awareness among, and recruit and retain
students.
Building awareness of our schools and the programs we offer is
critical to our ability to attract prospective students. If our
schools are unable to successfully market and advertise their
educational programs, our schools ability to attract and
enroll prospective students in such programs could be adversely
affected, and, consequently, our ability to increase revenue or
maintain profitability could be impaired. It is also critical to
our success that we convert these prospective students to
enrolled students in a cost-effective manner and
39
that these enrolled students remain active in our programs. Some
of the factors that could prevent us from successfully enrolling
and retaining students in our programs include:
|
|
|
|
|
the emergence of more attractive competitors;
|
|
|
|
factors related to our marketing, including the cost and
effectiveness of Internet advertising and broad-based branding
campaigns;
|
|
|
|
inability to expand program content and develop new programs in
a timely and cost-effective manner;
|
|
|
|
performance problems with or capacity constraints of our online
education delivery systems;
|
|
|
|
failure to maintain accreditation;
|
|
|
|
inability to continue to recruit, train and retain quality
faculty;
|
|
|
|
student or employer dissatisfaction with the quality of our
services and programs;
|
|
|
|
student financial, personal or family constraints;
|
|
|
|
adverse publicity regarding us, our competitors or online or
for-profit education generally;
|
|
|
|
tuition rate reductions by competitors that we are unwilling or
unable to match;
|
|
|
|
a decline in the acceptance of online education;
|
|
|
|
increased regulation of online education, including in states in
which we do not have a physical presence;
|
|
|
|
a decrease in the perceived or actual economic benefits that
students derive from our programs or education in
general; and
|
|
|
|
litigation or regulatory investigations that may damage our
reputation.
|
If the
proportion of our students who are enrolled in our
associates degree programs continues to increase, we may
experience increased cost and reduced margins.
In recent years, a substantial proportion of our overall growth
has arisen from the increase in associates degree students
enrolled in University of Phoenix. As a result of this, the
proportion of our Degreed Enrollment composed of
associates degree students has increased and may continue
to increase in the future. While this growth has generated
significant financial returns, we have experienced certain
negative effects from this shift, such as an increase in our
student loan cohort default rate. If this mix shift continues,
we may experience additional consequences, such as higher cost
per New Degreed Enrollment, lower retention rates
and/or
higher student services costs, an increase in the percentage of
our revenue derived from Title IV funding under the 90/10
Rule, more limited ability to implement tuition price increases
and other effects that may adversely affect our operating
results.
System
disruptions and security threats to our computer networks could
have a material adverse effect on our business.
The performance and reliability of our computer network
infrastructure at our schools, including our online programs, is
critical to our operations, reputation and ability to attract
and retain students. Any computer system error or failure,
regardless of cause, could cause network outages that disrupt
our online and on-ground operations. We have only limited
redundancies in our core computer network infrastructure, which
is concentrated in a single geographic area. If we experience a
catastrophic failure or unavailability for any reason of our
principal data center, we may need to replicate the function of
this data center at our existing remote data facility or
elsewhere, which may require equipping and restoring activities
that could take a week or more to complete. The disruption from
such an event could significantly impact our operations and have
a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.
40
In addition, we face the threat to our computer systems of
unauthorized access, computer hackers, computer viruses and
other security problems and system disruptions. We have devoted
and will continue to devote significant resources to the
security of our computer systems, but they may still be
vulnerable to these threats. A user who circumvents security
measures could misappropriate proprietary information or cause
interruptions or malfunctions in operations. As a result, we may
be required to expend significant resources to protect against
the threat of these system disruptions and security breaches or
to alleviate problems caused by these disruptions and breaches,
which could have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We may
not be able to successfully identify, pursue or integrate
acquisitions; acquisitions may result in additional debt or
dilution to our shareholders.
As part of our growth strategy, we are actively considering
acquisition opportunities in the U.S. and worldwide. We
have acquired and expect to acquire additional proprietary
educational institutions that complement our strategic
direction, some of which could be material. Any acquisition
involves significant risks and uncertainties, including:
|
|
|
|
|
inability to successfully integrate the acquired operations,
including the information technology systems, into our
institutions and maintain uniform standards, controls, policies
and procedures;
|
|
|
|
distraction of managements attention from normal business
operations;
|
|
|
|
challenges retaining the key employees of the acquired operation;
|
|
|
|
possibly insufficient revenue generation to offset liabilities
assumed;
|
|
|
|
expenses associated with the acquisition;
|
|
|
|
challenges relating to conforming non-compliant financial
reporting procedures to those required of a subsidiary of a
U.S. reporting company, including procedures required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; and
|
|
|
|
unidentified issues not discovered in our due diligence process,
including commitments
and/or
contingencies.
|
Acquisitions are inherently risky. We cannot be certain that our
previous or future acquisitions will be successful and will not
materially adversely affect our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows. We may not be able to
identify suitable acquisition opportunities, acquire
institutions on favorable terms, or successfully integrate or
profitably operate acquired institutions. Future transactions
may involve use of our cash resources, issuance of equity or
debt securities, incurrence of other forms of debt or a
significant increase in our financial leverage, which could
adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows, especially if the cash flows associated with any
acquisition are not sufficient to cover the additional debt
service. If we issue equity securities as consideration in an
acquisition, current shareholders percentage ownership and
earnings per share may be diluted. In addition, our acquisition
of an educational institution could be considered a change in
ownership and control of the acquired institution under
applicable regulatory standards. For such an acquisition in the
U.S., we may need approval from the U.S. Department of
Education and applicable state agencies and accrediting agencies
and possibly other regulatory bodies. Our inability to obtain
such approvals with respect to a completed acquisition could
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Our
future operating results and the market price of our common
stock could be materially adversely affected if we are required
to write down the carrying value of goodwill and other
intangible assets associated with any of our reporting units in
the future.
We review our goodwill and other indefinite-lived intangible
asset balances for impairment on at least an annual basis
through the application of a fair-value-based test. In assessing
the fair value of our reporting units, we rely primarily on
using a discounted cash flow analysis which includes our
estimates about the future cash flows of our reporting units
that are based on assumptions consistent with our plans to
manage the underlying businesses. Other factors we consider
include, but are not limited to, significant underperformance
41
relative to expected historical or projected future operating
results, significant changes in the manner or use of the
acquired assets or the overall business strategy, and
significant negative industry or economic trends. If our
estimates or related assumptions change in the future, we may be
required to record non-cash impairment charges for these assets.
In the future, if we are required to significantly write down
the carrying value of goodwill or other intangible assets
associated with any of our reporting units, our operating
results and the market price of our common stock may be
materially adversely affected.
If we
do not maintain existing, and develop additional, relationships
with employers, our future growth may be impaired.
We currently have relationships with large employers to provide
their employees with the opportunity to obtain degrees through
us while continuing their employment. These relationships are an
important part of our strategy as they provide us with a steady
source of potential working learners for particular programs and
also serve to increase our reputation among high-profile
employers. In addition, these programs have a beneficial impact
on our 90/10 Rule percentage calculation by reducing the
proportion of our cash-basis revenues attributable to
Title IV funds. If we are unable to develop new
relationships, or if our existing relationships deteriorate or
end, our efforts to seek these sources of potential working
learners may be impaired, and this could materially and
adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows.
Our
principal credit agreement limits our ability to take various
actions.
Our principal credit agreement limits our ability to take
various actions, including paying dividends, repurchasing shares
and acquiring and disposing of assets or businesses.
Accordingly, to the extent we have outstanding borrowings under
our credit agreement, we may be restricted from taking actions
that management believes would be desirable and in the best
interests of us and our shareholders. Our principal credit
agreement also requires us to satisfy specified financial and
non-financial covenants. A breach of any covenants contained in
our credit agreement could result in an event of default under
the agreement and allow the lenders to pursue various remedies,
including accelerating the repayment of any indebtedness
outstanding under the agreement, any of which could have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.
Our
financial performance depends, in part, on our ability to keep
pace with changing market needs and technology; if we fail to
keep pace or fail in implementing or adapting to new
technologies, our business may be adversely
affected.
Increasingly, prospective employers of students who graduate
from our schools demand that their new employees possess
appropriate technological skills and also appropriate
soft skills, such as communication, critical
thinking and teamwork skills. These skills can evolve rapidly in
a changing economic and technological environment. Accordingly,
it is important for our schools educational programs to
evolve in response to these economic and technological changes.
The expansion of existing programs and the development of new
programs may not be accepted by current or prospective students
or the employers of our graduates. Even if our schools are able
to develop acceptable new programs, our schools may not be able
to begin offering those new programs as quickly as required by
prospective employers or as quickly as our competitors offer
similar programs. In addition, we may be unable to obtain
specialized accreditations or licensures that may make certain
programs desirable to students. To offer a new academic program,
we may be required to obtain federal, state and accrediting
agency approvals, which may be conditioned or delayed in a
manner that could significantly affect our growth plans. In
addition, to be eligible for Title IV programs, a new
academic program may need to be certified by the
U.S. Department of Education. If we are unable to
adequately respond to changes in market requirements due to
regulatory or financial constraints, unusually rapid
technological changes, or other factors, our ability to attract
and retain students could be impaired, the rates at which our
graduates obtain jobs involving their fields of study could
suffer, and our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows could be adversely affected.
Establishing new academic programs or modifying existing
programs requires us to make investments in management and
capital expenditures, incur marketing expenses and reallocate
other resources. We may have
42
limited experience with the courses in new areas and may need to
modify our systems and strategy or enter into arrangements with
other educational institutions to provide new programs
effectively and profitably. If we are unable to increase the
number of students or offer new programs in a cost-effective
manner, or are otherwise unable to manage effectively the
operations of newly established academic programs, our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows could
be adversely affected.
We have invested and continue to invest significant resources in
information technology, which is a key element of our business
strategy. Our information technology systems and tools could
become impaired or obsolete due to our action or failure to act.
For instance, we could install new information technology
without accurately assessing its costs or benefits, or we could
experience delayed or ineffective implementation of new
information technology. Similarly, we could fail to respond in a
timely or sufficiently competitive way to future technological
developments in our industry. Should our action or failure to
act impair or otherwise render our information technology less
effective, this could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.
A
failure of our information systems to properly store, process
and report relevant data may reduce our managements
effectiveness, interfere with our regulatory compliance and
increase our operating expenses.
We are heavily dependent on the integrity of our data management
systems. If these systems do not effectively collect, store,
process and report relevant data for the operation of our
business, whether due to equipment malfunction or constraints,
software deficiencies, or human error, our ability to
effectively plan, forecast and execute our business plan and
comply with applicable laws and regulations, including the
Higher Education Act, as reauthorized, and the regulations
thereunder, will be impaired, perhaps materially. Any such
impairment could materially and adversely affect our financial
condition, results of operations, and cash flows.
The
personal information that we collect may be vulnerable to
breach, theft or loss that could adversely affect our reputation
and operations.
Possession and use of personal information in our operations
subjects us to risks and costs that could harm our business. Our
educational institutions collect, use and retain large amounts
of personal information regarding our students and their
families, including social security numbers, tax return
information, personal and family financial data and credit card
numbers. We also collect and maintain personal information of
our employees in the ordinary course of our business. Some of
this personal information is held and managed by certain of our
vendors. Although we use security and business controls to limit
access and use of personal information, a third party may be
able to circumvent those security and business controls, which
could result in a breach of student or employee privacy. In
addition, errors in the storage, use or transmission of personal
information could result in a breach of student or employee
privacy. Possession and use of personal information in our
operations also subjects us to legislative and regulatory
burdens that could require notification of data breaches and
restrict our use of personal information. We cannot assure you
that a breach, loss or theft of personal information will not
occur. A breach, theft or loss of personal information regarding
our students and their families or our employees that is held by
us or our vendors could have a material adverse effect on our
reputation and results of operations and result in liability
under state and federal privacy statutes and legal actions by
state attorneys, general and private litigants, and any of which
could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We
face intense competition in the postsecondary education market
from both public and private educational institutions, which
could adversely affect our business.
Postsecondary education in our existing and new market areas is
highly competitive. We compete with traditional public and
private two-year and four-year colleges, other for-profit
schools and alternatives to higher education, such as employment
and military service. Some of our competitors, both public and
private, have greater financial and other resources than we
have. Our competitors, both public and private, may offer
programs similar to ours at a lower tuition level as a result of
government subsidies, government and foundation grants,
tax-deductible contributions and other financial resources not
available to for-profit institutions. In addition, many of our
competitors have begun to offer distance learning and other
online
43
education programs. As the online and distance learning segment
of the postsecondary education market matures, the intensity of
the competition we face will increase further. This intense
competition could adversely affect our business, financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Our
expansion into new markets outside the U.S. subjects us to risks
inherent in international operations.
As part of our growth strategy, through Apollo Global, Inc., our
consolidated majority-owned subsidiary, we have acquired
additional universities outside the U.S. and we intend to
actively pursue further acquisitions. To the extent that we make
such acquisitions, we will face risks that are inherent in
international operations, including:
|
|
|
|
|
complexity of operations across borders;
|
|
|
|
compliance with foreign regulatory environments;
|
|
|
|
currency exchange rate fluctuations;
|
|
|
|
monetary policy risks, such as inflation, hyperinflation and
deflation;
|
|
|
|
price controls or restrictions on exchange of foreign currencies;
|
|
|
|
potential political and economic instability in the countries in
which we operate, including potential student uprisings;
|
|
|
|
expropriation of assets by local governments;
|
|
|
|
multiple and possibly overlapping and conflicting tax laws;
|
|
|
|
compliance with U.S. regulations such as the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act;
|
|
|
|
potential unionization of employees under local labor laws and
local labor laws that make it more expensive and complex to
negotiate with, retain or terminate employees;
|
|
|
|
greater difficulty in utilizing and enforcing our intellectual
property and contract rights;
|
|
|
|
failure to understand the local culture and market;
|
|
|
|
limitations on the repatriation of funds; and
|
|
|
|
acts of terrorism and war, epidemics and natural disasters.
|
Our
acquisition and operation of BPP Holdings plc may not result in
increased value.
We acquired BPP in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009. BPP faces
several risks which may adversely impact our ability to
successfully operate and grow its businesses, including:
|
|
|
|
|
BPPs success is strongly dependent on its reputation,
which may be damaged by various factors including unfavorable
public opinion in the United Kingdom regarding for-profit
schools and ownership of BPP by a U.S. company;
|
|
|
|
BPPs Business School, is newly established and its future
enrollment and success are currently unpredictable with any
degree of certainty;
|
|
|
|
the majority of BPPs business, BPP Professional Education,
is geared toward teaching for exams or to a syllabus set by
external professional bodies (Test Preparation), and a change in
the way in which subjects are examined, or a reduction in the
size of the syllabus, could have a detrimental impact on BPP;
|
|
|
|
BPP operates in markets where many of its competitors are
charities or government sponsored colleges of higher education,
which because of their legal classification do not have to
charge sales tax (value added tax or VAT) to their
students. BPP has legal structures in place that currently
provide a similar status, and thus are able not to charge VAT
for equivalent services or products. Any change in
|
44
|
|
|
|
|
interpretation of the existing tax or legal regulations could
put BPP at a competitive disadvantage and could result in a
material tax liability to BPP;
|
|
|
|
|
|
BPP has a significant concentration of students in the
professional sector, mainly accounting and legal, and adverse
changes in the economic environment for these professions could
reduce demand for BPPs services and adversely affect its
operations;
|
|
|
|
BPP has a large fixed cost base and may not be able to
effectively respond to decreases in revenue; and
|
|
|
|
The BPP College of Professional Studies is the first proprietary
postsecondary institution to be granted degree awarding powers
in the U.K. and, as such, is likely to be the first to face
reauthorization when its current authority expires in August
2013. The criteria for reauthorization have not yet been
developed and therefore the nature of the process is uncertain
at this point. Any impairment of the Colleges degree
awarding powers would materially and adversely affect BPPs
business.
|
We may
experience movements in foreign currency exchange rates which
could negatively affect our operating results.
We report revenues, costs and earnings in U.S. dollars.
Exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the local
currency in the countries where we operate are likely to
fluctuate from period to period. Because consolidated financial
results are reported in U.S. dollars, we are subject to the
risk of translation losses for reporting purposes. When the
U.S. dollar appreciates against the applicable local
currency in any reporting period, the actual earnings generated
by our business in that country are diminished in the
translation.
As we continue to expand our international operations, we will
conduct more transactions in currencies other than the
U.S. Dollar. Additionally, the volume of transactions in
the various foreign currencies will continue to increase. To the
extent that foreign revenue and expense transactions are not
denominated in the local currency
and/or to
the extent foreign earnings are reinvested in a currency other
than their functional currency, we are also subject to the risk
of transaction losses. Given the volatility of exchange rates,
there is no assurance that we will be able to effectively manage
currency transaction
and/or
translation risks. Fluctuations in foreign currency exchange
rates could have a material adverse affect on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We
rely on proprietary rights and intellectual property that may
not be adequately protected under current laws, and we encounter
disputes from time to time relating to our use of intellectual
property.
Our success depends in part on our ability to protect our
proprietary rights and intellectual property. We rely on a
combination of copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, patents,
domain names and contractual agreements to protect our
proprietary rights. For example, we rely on trademark protection
in the U.S. and various foreign jurisdictions to protect
our rights to various marks as well as distinctive logos and
other marks associated with our services. We also rely on
agreements under which we obtain intellectual property to own or
license rights to use intellectual property developed by faculty
members, content experts and other third-parties. We cannot
assure you that these measures are adequate, that we have
secured, or will be able to secure, appropriate permissions or
protections for all of the intellectual property rights we use
or claim rights to in the U.S. or various foreign
jurisdictions, or that third parties will not terminate our
license rights or infringe upon or otherwise violate our
intellectual property rights or the intellectual property rights
of others. Despite our efforts to protect these rights,
unauthorized third parties may attempt to use, duplicate or copy
the proprietary aspects of our student recruitment and
educational delivery methods and systems, curricula, online
resource material or other content. Our managements
attention may be diverted by these attempts and we may need to
use funds in litigation to protect our proprietary rights
against any infringement or violation, which could have a
material adverse affect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.
We may become party to disputes from time to time over rights
and obligations concerning intellectual property, and we may not
prevail in these disputes. For example, third parties may allege
that we have infringed upon or not obtained sufficient rights in
the technologies used in our educational delivery systems, the
content of our courses or other training materials or in our
ownership or uses of other intellectual property
45
claimed by that third party. Some third party intellectual
property rights may prove to be extremely broad, and it may not
be possible for us to conduct our operations in such a way as to
avoid violating those intellectual property rights. Any such
intellectual property claim could subject us to costly
litigation and impose a significant strain on our financial
resources and management personnel regardless of whether such
claim has merit. Our various liability insurance coverages, if
any, may not cover potential claims of this type adequately or
at all, and we may be required to alter the design and operation
of our systems or the content of our courses or pay monetary
damages or license fees to third parties, which could have a
material adverse affect on our business, financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.
We may
incur liability for the unauthorized duplication, distribution
or other use of materials posted online.
In some instances, our employees, including faculty members, or
our students may post various articles or other third-party
content online in class discussion boards or in other venues. We
may incur liability to third parties for the unauthorized
duplication, distribution or other use of this material. Any
such claims could subject us to costly litigation and impose a
significant strain on our financial resources and management
personnel regardless of whether the claims have merit. Our
various liability insurance coverages, if any, may not cover
potential claims of this type adequately or at all, and we may
be required to alter or cease our uses of such material (which
may include changing or removing content from our courses) or
pay monetary damages, which could have a material adverse affect
on our business, financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows.
Our
Insight Schools business faces regulatory and administrative
challenges in various states which may result in the imposition
of fines and other penalties and may reduce the value we receive
upon disposition of that business.
Most of Insight Schools online public high schools have
undergone or expect to undergo compliance audits by state
regulatory authorities. Adverse audit findings could result in a
reduction in the amount of state funding, repayment of
previously received state funding or other economic sanctions.
In extreme circumstances, adverse findings could result in
termination of agreements with Insight Schools by governing
authorities or by
not-for-profit
charter holders. Additionally, materially adverse findings could
result in revocation or termination of a charter schools
charter. Each of these events could have a materially adverse
effect on Insight Schools business.
We have made the decision to explore the disposition of our
Insight Schools operations. There is no assurance that we can
dispose of these operations on terms acceptable to us or at all,
and we may experience a loss upon any such disposition or, in
lieu thereof, discontinuation. If we are not successful in
correcting Insight Schools compliance challenges, the
value of Insight Schools may be diminished, perhaps
substantially. The reduction in the value of Insight Schools or
the disposition or discontinuation of Insight Schools at a loss
could have a material adverse effect our financial condition.
We may
have unanticipated tax liabilities that could adversely impact
our financial position.
We are subject to multiple types of taxes in the U.S., United
Kingdom and various other foreign jurisdictions. The
determination of our worldwide provision for income taxes and
other tax accruals involve various judgments, and therefore the
ultimate tax determination is subject to uncertainty. We are
currently subject to the following Internal Revenue Service
audits:
|
|
|
|
|
Audit relating to our U.S. federal income tax returns for
fiscal years 2003 through 2005 commenced in September 2006. In
February 2009, the Internal Revenue Service issued an
examination report and proposed to disallow deductions relating
to stock option compensation in excess of the limitations of
Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m). Under
Section 162(m), the amount of such deduction per covered
executive officer is limited to $1.0 million per year,
except to the extent the compensation qualifies as
performance-based. Compensation attributable to options with
revised measurement dates may not have qualified as
performance-based compensation. The Internal Revenue Service
examination report also proposed the additions of penalties and
interest. The proposed adjustments, including
|
46
|
|
|
|
|
penalties and interest, are consistent with our prior accruals
relating to this issue. In addition, we expensed an additional
$2.4 million in fiscal year 2009 related to interest, for a
total accrual of $50.0 million as of August 31, 2009
with respect to this uncertain tax position for the taxable
years 2003 through 2006. On March 6, 2009, we commenced
administrative proceedings with the Office of Appeals of the
Internal Revenue Service challenging the proposed adjustments,
including penalties and interest. We believe this matter will be
settled within 12 months and the accrual is now classified
as short-term. In October of 2009, we reached an agreement in
principle subject to negotiation of final documentation with the
Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals to settle this matter
for less than the $50 million we have accrued at
August 31, 2009. The settlement, when finalized, will
result in a reduction in the amount currently accrued and a
related decrease in our effective tax rate for a portion of that
reduced accrual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
An audit relating to our U.S. federal income tax returns
for the years ended in 2006, 2007 and 2008 commenced in fiscal
year 2009.
|
In addition to the above audits, we are subject to numerous
ongoing audits by state, local and foreign tax authorities.
Although we believe our tax accruals are reasonable, the final
determination of tax audits in the U.S. or abroad and any
related litigation could be materially different from our
historical income tax provisions and accruals. The results of an
audit or litigation could have a material effect on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.
Changes in tax rules may adversely affect our future reported
financial results or the way we conduct our business. In May
2009, President Obamas administration proposed significant
changes to the U.S. international tax laws, including
changes that would limit U.S. tax deductions for expenses
related to un-repatriated foreign-source income and modify the
U.S. foreign tax credit and
check-the-box
rules. We cannot determine whether these proposals will be
enacted into law or what, if any, changes may be made to such
proposals prior to their being enacted into law. If these or
other changes to the U.S. international tax laws are
enacted they could have a material effect on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We are
subject to the oversight of the Securities and Exchange
Commission and other regulatory agencies, and investigations by
these agencies could divert managements focus and have a
material adverse impact on our reputation and financial
condition.
As a result of this government regulation and oversight, we may
be subject to legal and administrative proceedings. For example,
during fiscal year 2007, we were the subject of a Securities and
Exchange Commission inquiry and a Department of Justice
investigation related to our historical stock option grant
practices. In addition, during October 2009, we received
notification from the Enforcement Division of the Securities and
Exchange Commission indicating that they had commenced an
informal inquiry into our revenue recognition practices. We
devoted a substantial amount of senior executive time and
incurred significant legal costs in connection with the 2007
inquiry and, while the scope, duration and outcome of the
current inquiry cannot be determined at this time, we may have
to devote substantial time and incur substantial legal and other
expenses in connection with the current inquiry. The costs of
responding to, and the publicity surrounding investigations or
enforcement actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission or
the Department of Justice, even if ultimately resolved favorably
for us, could have a material adverse impact on our business,
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
|
|
Item 1B
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
None.
47
As of August 31, 2009, we utilized 448 facilities, the
majority of which were leased. As of August 31, 2009, we
were obligated to lease approximately 7.6 million square
feet and owned approximately 1.2 million square feet, as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leased
|
|
|
Owned
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Reportable Segment
|
|
Location
|
|
Type
|
|
Sq. Ft.
|
|
|
# of Properties
|
|
|
Sq. Ft.
|
|
|
# of Properties
|
|
|
Sq. Ft.
|
|
|
# of Properties
|
|
|
University of Phoenix
|
|
United States
|
|
Office
|
|
|
769,898
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
769,898
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dual Purpose
|
|
|
5,308,562
|
|
|
|
260
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,308,562
|
|
|
|
260
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,078,460
|
|
|
|
268
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,078,460
|
|
|
|
268
|
|
|
|
International
|
|
Office
|
|
|
3,455
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,455
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dual Purpose
|
|
|
121,487
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
121,487
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
124,942
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
124,942
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Apollo Global:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BPP
|
|
International
|
|
Office
|
|
|
1,068
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,068
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dual Purpose
|
|
|
335,918
|
|
|
|
38
|
|
|
|
178,525
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
514,443
|
|
|
|
43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
336,986
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
178,525
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
|
515,511
|
|
|
|
45
|
|
Other
|
|
International
|
|
Office
|
|
|
3,557
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,557
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dual Purpose
|
|
|
65,778
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
381,167
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
446,945
|
|
|
|
34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69,335
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
|
381,167
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
450,502
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
Insight Schools
|
|
United States
|
|
Office
|
|
|
31,322
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,322
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dual Purpose
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,322
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,322
|
|
|
|
9
|
|
Other Schools
|
|
United States
|
|
Office
|
|
|
35,192
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,192
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dual Purpose
|
|
|
273,496
|
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
273,496
|
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
308,688
|
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
308,688
|
|
|
|
66
|
|
Corporate
|
|
United States
|
|
Office
|
|
|
605,757
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
599,664
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
1,205,421
|
|
|
|
19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
7,555,490
|
|
|
|
417
|
|
|
|
1,159,356
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
8,714,846
|
|
|
|
448
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dual purpose space includes office and classroom facilities. In
some cases, classes are held in the facilities of the
students employers at no charge to us. Leases generally
range from five to ten years with one to two renewal options for
extended terms. We also lease space from time to time on a
short-term basis in order to provide specific courses or
programs.
We evaluate current utilization of the educational facilities
and projected enrollment growth to determine facility needs. We
anticipate that an additional 0.7 million square feet will
be leased in 2010.
|
|
Item 3
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
We are subject to various claims and contingencies which are in
the scope of ordinary and routine litigation incidental to our
business, including those related to regulation, business
transactions, employee-related matters and taxes, among others.
While the outcomes of these matters are uncertain, management
does not expect that the ultimate costs to resolve these matters
will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
When we become aware of a claim or potential claim, the
likelihood of any loss or exposure is assessed. If it is
probable that a loss will result and the amount of the loss can
be reasonably estimated, we record a liability for the loss. The
liability recorded includes probable and estimable legal costs
associated with the claim or potential claim. If the loss is not
probable or the amount of the loss cannot be reasonably
estimated, we disclose the claim if the likelihood of a
potential loss is reasonably possible and the amount is
material. For matters where no loss contingency is recorded, our
policy is to expense legal fees as incurred.
48
A description of pending litigation, settlements, and other
proceedings that are outside the scope of ordinary and routine
litigation incidental to our business is provided under
Note 18, Commitments and Contingencies, Pending
Litigation and Settlements and Regulatory and Other Legal
Matters, in Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, which is incorporated herein by
reference.
|
|
Item 4
|
Submission
of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
|
None.
PART II
|
|
Item 5
|
Market
for Registrants Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters
and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
|
Market
Information
Our Apollo Group Class A common stock trades on the NASDAQ
Global Select Market under the symbol APOL. The
holders of our Apollo Group Class A common stock are not
entitled to any voting rights.
There is no established public trading market for our Apollo
Group Class B common stock and all shares of our Apollo
Group Class B common stock are beneficially owned by
affiliates.
The table below sets forth the high and low bid share prices for
our Apollo Group Class A common stock as reported by the
NASDAQ Global Select Market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High
|
|
|
Low
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
80.75
|
|
|
$
|
53.71
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
81.68
|
|
|
|
60.77
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
62.19
|
|
|
|
37.92
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
|
65.89
|
|
|
|
43.54
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
$
|
76.95
|
|
|
$
|
48.30
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
90.00
|
|
|
|
70.17
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
81.20
|
|
|
|
55.35
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
|
72.50
|
|
|
|
59.49
|
|
Holders
As of August 31, 2009, there were approximately 266
registered holders of record of Apollo Group Class A common
stock and four registered holders of record of Apollo Group
Class B common stock. A substantially greater number of
holders of Apollo Group Class A common stock are
street name or beneficial holders, whose shares are
held of record by banks, brokers and other financial
institutions.
Dividends
Although we are permitted to pay dividends on our Apollo Group
Class A and Apollo Group Class B common stock, subject
to the satisfaction of applicable financial covenants in our
principal credit facility, we have never paid cash dividends on
our common stock. Dividends are payable at the discretion of the
Board of Directors, and the Articles of Incorporation treat the
declaration of dividends on the Apollo Group Class A and
Apollo Group Class B common stock in an identical manner as
follows: holders of our Apollo Group Class A common stock
and Apollo Group Class B common stock are entitled to
receive cash dividends, if and to the extent declared by the
Board of Directors, payable to the holders of either class or
both classes of common stock in equal or unequal per share
amounts, at the discretion of the Board of Directors. We have no
current plan to pay dividends in the foreseeable future. The
decision of our Board of Directors to pay future dividends will
depend on general business conditions, the effect of a dividend
payment on our financial condition and other factors the Board
of Directors may consider relevant.
49
Recent
Sales of Unregistered Securities
None.
Securities
Authorized for Issuance under Equity Compensation
Plans
The information required by Item 201(d) of
Regulation S-K
is provided under Item 12, Security Ownership of Certain
Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder
Matters, Equity Compensation Plan Information,
which is incorporated herein by reference.
Purchases
of Equity Securities
Our Board of Directors has authorized programs to repurchase
shares of Apollo Group Class A common stock, from time to
time depending on market conditions and other considerations.
The share repurchases under these programs for the three months
ended August 31, 2009 have been as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchased as
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part of
|
|
|
Maximum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Publicly
|
|
|
Value of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number of
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Announced
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Price Paid
|
|
|
Plans or
|
|
|
Available for
|
|
|
|
|
(numbers in thousands, except per share data)
|
|
Repurchased(1)
|
|
|
per Share
|
|
|
Programs
|
|
|
Repurchase
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treasury stock as of May 31, 2009
|
|
|
34,809
|
|
|
$
|
59.94
|
|
|
|
34,809
|
|
|
$
|
55,618
|
|
|
|
|
|
New authorizations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
444,382
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares repurchased under repurchase program
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares reissued
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
59.94
|
|
|
|
(26
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treasury stock as of June 30, 2009
|
|
|
34,783
|
|
|
$
|
59.94
|
|
|
|
34,783
|
|
|
$
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
New authorizations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares repurchased under repurchase program
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares reissued
|
|
|
(1,004
|
)
|
|
|
59.94
|
|
|
|
(1,004
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treasury stock as of July 31, 2009
|
|
|
33,779
|
|
|
$
|
59.94
|
|
|
|
33,779
|
|
|
$
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
New authorizations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares repurchased under repurchase program
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares reissued
|
|
|
(33
|
)
|
|
|
59.94
|
|
|
|
(33
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treasury stock as of August 31, 2009
|
|
|
33,746
|
|
|
$
|
59.94
|
|
|
|
33,746
|
|
|
$
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Shares repurchased in the above table excludes approximately
73,000 shares repurchased for $4.9 million during the
three months ended August 31, 2009 related to tax
withholding requirements on restricted stock units. These
repurchase transactions do not fall under the repurchase program
described below, and therefore do not reduce the amount that is
available for repurchase under that program. Please refer to
Note 14, Stockholders Equity, in Item 8,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, for
additional information. |
On June 25, 2009, our Board of Directors authorized an
increase in the amount available under our stock repurchase
program of up to an aggregate amount of $500 million of
Apollo Group Class A common stock. There is no expiration
date on the repurchase authorizations and repurchases occur at
our discretion. The amount and timing of future share
repurchases, if any, will be made as market and business
conditions warrant. Repurchases may be made on the open market
or in privately negotiated transactions, pursuant to the
applicable Securities and Exchange Commission rules, and may
include repurchases pursuant to Securities and Exchange
Commission
Rule 10b5-1
nondiscretionary trading programs.
50
Company
Stock Performance
The following graph compares the cumulative
5-year total
return attained by shareholders on Apollo Group Class A
common stock relative to the cumulative total returns of the
S&P 500 index and a customized peer group of five companies
that includes: Career Education Corp., Corinthian Colleges Inc.,
DeVry Inc., ITT Educational Services Inc., and Strayer Education
Inc. An investment of $100 (with reinvestment of all dividends)
is assumed to have been made in our common stock, in the index,
and in the peer group on August 31, 2004, and its relative
performance is tracked through August 31, 2009.
COMPARISON
OF 5 YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN*
Among
Apollo Group, Inc.,
The S&P 500 Index and a Peer Group
*$100 invested on
8/31/04 in
stock and index-including reinvestment of dividends.
Fiscal year ending August 31.
Source: Standard & Poors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8/04
|
|
|
8/05
|
|
|
8/06
|
|
|
8/07
|
|
|
8/08
|
|
|
8/09
|
Apollo Group, Inc.
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
101
|
|
|
|
|
64
|
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
|
|
|
82
|
|
|
|
|
83
|
|
S&P 500
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
|
123
|
|
|
|
|
141
|
|
|
|
|
125
|
|
|
|
|
103
|
|
Peer Group
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
|
107
|
|
|
|
|
164
|
|
|
|
|
165
|
|
|
|
|
185
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The information contained in the performance graph shall not be
deemed soliciting material or to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
nor shall such information be deemed incorporated by reference
into any future filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange
Act, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by
reference into such filing.
The stock price performance included in this graph is not
necessarily indicative of future stock price performance.
51
|
|
Item 6
|
Selected
Consolidated Financial Data
|
The following selected consolidated financial data and operating
statistics are qualified by reference to and should be read in
conjunction with Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, and Item 7, Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations, to fully understand factors that may affect the
comparability of the information presented below. The statement
of income data for fiscal years 2009, 2008, and 2007, and the
balance sheet data as of August 31, 2009 and 2008, were
derived from the audited consolidated financial statements,
included herein. Diluted income per share and diluted weighted
average shares outstanding have been retroactively restated for
stock splits. We restated the financial results of prior periods
in our Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for 2006. Our annual report on
Form 10-K
for 2006 included a restated Consolidated Balance Sheet as of
August 31, 2005 and related Consolidated Statement of
Income for fiscal year 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of August 31,
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Balance Sheet Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities
|
|
$
|
987,825
|
|
|
$
|
511,459
|
|
|
$
|
392,681
|
|
|
$
|
408,728
|
|
|
$
|
458,646
|
|
Restricted cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
432,304
|
|
|
|
384,155
|
|
|
|
296,469
|
|
|
|
238,267
|
|
|
|
227,102
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
3,263,377
|
|
|
$
|
1,860,412
|
|
|
$
|
1,449,863
|
|
|
$
|
1,283,005
|
|
|
$
|
1,281,548
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
$
|
1,755,278
|
|
|
$
|
865,609
|
|
|
$
|
743,835
|
|
|
$
|
595,756
|
|
|
$
|
566,745
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
127,701
|
|
|
|
15,428
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term liabilities
|
|
|
155,785
|
|
|
|
133,210
|
|
|
|
72,188
|
|
|
|
82,876
|
|
|
|
80,583
|
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
67,003
|
|
|
|
11,956
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
1,157,610
|
|
|
|
834,209
|
|
|
|
633,840
|
|
|
|
604,373
|
|
|
|
634,220
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity
|
|
$
|
3,263,377
|
|
|
$
|
1,860,412
|
|
|
$
|
1,449,863
|
|
|
$
|
1,283,005
|
|
|
$
|
1,281,548
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
($ in thousands, except per share data)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
Statements of Income Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net revenue
|
|
$
|
3,974,202
|
|
|
$
|
3,140,931
|
|
|
$
|
2,723,793
|
|
|
$
|
2,477,533
|
|
|
$
|
2,251,114
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instructional costs and services
|
|
|
1,603,701
|
|
|
|
1,370,878
|
|
|
|
1,237,491
|
|
|
|
1,109,584
|
|
|
|
952,474
|
|
Selling and promotional
|
|
|
960,437
|
|
|
|
805,395
|
|
|
|
659,059
|
|
|
|
544,706
|
|
|
|
485,451
|
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
290,104
|
|
|
|
215,192
|
|
|
|
201,546
|
|
|
|
153,004
|
|
|
|
98,642
|
|
Estimated litigation loss
|
|
|
80,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill impairment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,205
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share-based compensation(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,895
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
2,934,742
|
|
|
|
2,391,465
|
|
|
|
2,098,096
|
|
|
|
1,827,499
|
|
|
|
1,553,462
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from operations
|
|
|
1,039,460
|
|
|
|
749,466
|
|
|
|
625,697
|
|
|
|
650,034
|
|
|
|
697,652
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
12,591
|
|
|
|
30,079
|
|
|
|
31,172
|
|
|
|
18,465
|
|
|
|
17,109
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(4,460
|
)
|
|
|
(3,450
|
)
|
|
|
(232
|
)
|
|
|
(326
|
)
|
|
|
(298
|
)
|
Other, net
|
|
|
(7,776
|
)
|
|
|
6,759
|
|
|
|
660
|
|
|
|
(85
|
)
|
|
|
(24
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes and minority interest
|
|
|
1,039,815
|
|
|
|
782,854
|
|
|
|
657,297
|
|
|
|
668,088
|
|
|
|
714,439
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(445,985
|
)
|
|
|
(306,927
|
)
|
|
|
(248,487
|
)
|
|
|
(253,255
|
)
|
|
|
(286,506
|
)
|
Minority interest, net of tax
|
|
|
4,489
|
|
|
|
598
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
598,319
|
|
|
$
|
476,525
|
|
|
$
|
408,810
|
|
|
$
|
414,833
|
|
|
$
|
427,933
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted income per share
|
|
$
|
3.75
|
|
|
$
|
2.87
|
|
|
$
|
2.35
|
|
|
$
|
2.35
|
|
|
$
|
2.30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted average shares outstanding
|
|
|
159,514
|
|
|
|
165,870
|
|
|
|
173,603
|
|
|
|
176,205
|
|
|
|
186,066
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Share-based compensation in fiscal year 2005 is related to the
fiscal year 2004 conversion of the University of Phoenix Online
stock options into Apollo Group Class A stock options. |
52
|
|
Item 7.
|
Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations
|
This Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A) is
intended to help investors understand our results of operations,
financial condition and present business environment. The
MD&A is provided as a supplement to, and should be read in
conjunction with, our consolidated financial statements and
related notes included in Item 8, Financial Statements
and Supplementary Data. The MD&A is organized as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Overview: From managements point of view, we
discuss the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
An overview of our business and the sectors of the education
industry in which we operate;
|
|
|
Key trends, developments and challenges; and
|
|
|
Key highlights from the current period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates: A discussion
of our accounting policies that require critical judgments and
estimates.
|
|
|
|
Recent Accounting Pronouncements: A discussion of
recently issued accounting pronouncements.
|
|
|
|
Results of Operations: An analysis of our results of
operations as reflected in our consolidated financial statements.
|
|
|
|
Liquidity, Capital Resources, and Financial Position: An
analysis of cash flows, contractual obligations and other
commercial commitments, and discussion of federal and private
student loans.
|
Overview
Apollo is one of the worlds largest private education
providers and has been a provider of education services for more
than 35 years. We offer innovative and distinctive
educational programs and services at the undergraduate, graduate
and doctoral levels at our various campuses and learning
centers, and online throughout the world. Our wholly and
majority-owned subsidiaries include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
University of Phoenix,
|
|
|
Apollo Global:
|
|
|
|
|
|
BPP Holdings, plc (BPP),
|
|
|
Universidad de Artes, Ciencias y Comunicación
(UNIACC),
|
|
|
Universidad Latinoamericana (ULA),
|
|
|
|
|
|
Western International University,
|
|
|
Institute for Professional Development (IPD),
|
|
|
College for Financial Planning Institutes
(CFFP), and
|
|
|
Meritus University, Inc. (Meritus).
|
We also operate online high school programs through our Insight
Schools, Inc. (Insight Schools) wholly-owned
subsidiary, which is included in our Insight Schools reportable
segment. Subsequent to our 2009 fiscal year end, we decided to
explore the sale of Insight Schools.
Substantially all of our net revenue is composed of tuition and
fees for educational services. In fiscal year 2009, University
of Phoenix, which is focused principally on working learners,
accounted for approximately 95% of our total consolidated net
revenue. University of Phoenix generated 86% of its cash basis
revenue for eligible tuition and fees during fiscal year 2009
from receipt of Title IV financial aid program funds, as
calculated under the 90/10 Rule, excluding the benefit from the
temporary relief for loan limit increases.
We believe that a critical element of generating successful
long-term growth and attractive returns for our stakeholders is
to provide high quality educational products and services for
our students in order for them to maximize the benefits of their
educational experience. Accordingly, we are intensely focused on
student success. We are continuously enhancing and expanding our
current service offerings and investing in academic quality. We
have developed customized computer programs for academic quality
management, faculty recruitment and training, student tracking,
and marketing to help us more effectively manage toward this
objective. We believe we utilize one of the most comprehensive
learning assessment programs in the U.S. We
53
are also focused on improving student retention by enhancing
student services, promoting instructional innovation and
improving academic support. All of these efforts are designed to
help our students stay in school and succeed. In 2008,
University of Phoenix published its first Academic Annual Report
which contains a transparent look at a variety of comparative
performance measures related to student outcomes and university
initiatives related to quality and accountability.
Key
Trends, Developments and Challenges
Our management team is focused on the following circumstances
and trends that present opportunities, challenges and risks as
we work toward our goal of providing attractive returns for all
of our stakeholders:
|
|
|
|
|
Evolving Domestic Postsecondary Education
Market. We believe domestic postsecondary
education continues to experience a profound shift from
traditional undergraduate students (those students living on
campus and attending classes full-time) to non-traditional
students who work, are raising a family, or are doing both while
trying to earn a college degree. This trend continues to provide
an opportunity for education providers such as University of
Phoenix to provide quality academic programs and services that
appeal to non-traditional students. We believe we are well
positioned to capitalize on this trend.
|
|
|
|
Economic Downturn. The U.S. and much of
the world economy have been in the midst of an economic
downturn. Although not quantifiable, we believe these conditions
have contributed to a portion of our recent enrollment growth as
an increased number of working learners seek to advance their
education to improve their job security or reemployment
prospects. One of our primary challenges will be to adequately
and effectively service our increased student population without
over-building our infrastructure and delivery platform in a
manner that might result in excess capacity when the portion of
our growth related to the economic downturn subsides. Also, the
economic downturn has negatively impacted our bad debt expense
and allowance for doubtful accounts, as discussed below under
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates.
|
|
|
|
Regulatory Environment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compliance. Our domestic business is highly
regulated by the U.S. Department of Education, the
applicable academic accreditation agencies and state education
regulatory authorities. Compliance with these regulatory
requirements is a significant part of our administrative effort.
In August 2008, the U.S. Congress reauthorized the Higher
Education Act through 2013 by enacting the Higher Education
Opportunity Act, which resulted in a large number of new and
modified requirements that ultimately will be implemented
through the U.S. Department of Education rulemaking. Little
formal or informal guidance is available for many of these
requirements, and we are evaluating their implications and
developing appropriate compliance procedures. Because our
student body is large and we rely heavily on our computer
systems, compliance with new or changed regulations can require
significant time and effort on our part.
|
One requirement of the Higher Education Act, commonly referred
to as the 90/10 Rule, applies to proprietary
institutions such as the University of Phoenix and Western
International University. Under this rule, a proprietary
institution will be ineligible to participate in Title IV
programs if for any two consecutive fiscal years it derives more
than 90% of its cash basis revenue, as defined in the rule, from
Title IV programs. An institution that exceeds this limit
for any single fiscal year will be placed on provisional
certification for two fiscal years and will be subject to
additional sanctions. In recent years, the 90/10 Rule
percentages for the University of Phoenix have trended closer to
90% and the percentage was 86%, excluding the benefit from the
temporary relief for loan limit increases, for fiscal year 2009.
We expect the trend will continue in fiscal year 2010.
University of Phoenix is focused on implementing various
measures to reduce the percentage of its cash basis revenue
attributable to Title IV funds, including emphasizing
employer-paid and other direct-pay education programs,
encouraging students to carefully evaluate the amount of
necessary Title IV borrowing, and increasing the emphasis
on professional development and continuing education. Although
we expect that these measures will favorably impact the 90/10
Rule calculation in the future, there is no
54
assurance that these initiatives will be effective or will be
adequate to prevent the 90/10 Rule calculation from exceeding
90%. If this calculation exceeds 90% in fiscal 2010 or future
fiscal years, we will need to increase our efforts to reduce the
percentage of our cash-basis revenue that is composed of
Title IV funding. These efforts, and our other long-term
initiatives to impact this calculation, may involve taking
measures which increase our operating expenses
and/or
reduce our revenue. Title IV eligibility is critical to the
continued operation of our business. See Risk
Factors Risks Related to the Highly Regulated
Industry in Which We Operate -U.S. Operations -Our schools
and programs would lose their eligibility to participate in
federal student financial aid programs if the percentage of our
revenues derived from those programs is too high.
|
|
|
|
|
Certification. The Higher Education Act, as
reauthorized, specifies the manner in which the
U.S. Department of Education reviews institutions for
eligibility and certification to participate in Title IV
programs. Every educational institution involved in
Title IV programs must be certified to participate and is
required to periodically renew this certification. University of
Phoenix was recertified in June 2003 and its current
certification for the Title IV programs expired in June
2007. In March 2007, University of Phoenix submitted its
Title IV recertification application to the
U.S. Department of Education. We have been collaborating
with the U.S. Department of Education since that date and
continue to supply additional
follow-up
information based on requests from the U.S. Department of
Education. Our eligibility continues on a
month-to-month
basis until the U.S. Department of Education issues its
decision on the application. We have no reason to believe that
our application will not be renewed in due course.
|
In February 2009, unrelated to our recertification application,
the U.S. Department of Education performed an ordinary
course, focused program review of University of Phoenixs
policies and procedures involving Title IV programs. We
have not yet received the program review report.
Western International University was recertified in October 2003
and its current certification for participation in Title IV
programs expired on June 30, 2009. In March 2009, Western
International University submitted its Title IV
recertification application to the U.S. Department of
Education and Western International Universitys
eligibility continues on a
month-to-month
basis until the U.S. Department of Education completes its
review of the application and issues its decision. As with
University of Phoenix, we have no reason to believe that the
application will not be renewed in due course.
Title IV eligibility is critical to the continued operation
of our business. See Risk Factors Risks
Related to the Highly Regulated Industry in Which We
Operate U.S. Operations If we are
not recertified to participate in Title IV programs by the
U.S. Department of Education, we would lose eligibility to
participate in Title IV programs.
|
|
|
|
|
Federal Direct Loan Program. In President
Barack Obamas 2010 budget request delivered to Congress on
February 26, 2009, the U.S. Department of Education
proposed to eliminate the Federal Family Education Loan Program
(FFELP) and instead require all Title IV student loans to
be administered through the Federal Direct Loan Program (FDLP)
commencing July 1, 2010. We expect to be able to fully
transition from the FFELP program to the FDLP by the proposed
July 1, 2010 phase-out date, if necessary. If this proposal
is adopted, the transition would require us to develop and
implement administrative capabilities and procedures for volume
processing of loans under the FDLP. If we experience a
disruption in our ability to process student loans through the
FDLP, either because of administrative challenges on our part or
the inability of the U.S. Department of Education to
process the increased volume of direct loans on a timely basis,
our results of operations and cash flows could be adversely and
materially affected. During fiscal year 2009, we began
participating in the FDLP for a small portion of our
Title IV eligible students.
|
|
|
|
Opportunities to Expand into New Markets. We
believe that there is a growing demand for high quality
education outside the U.S. and that we have capabilities
and expertise that can be useful in providing these services
beyond our current reach. We believe we can deploy our key
capabilities in student services, technology and marketing to
expand into new markets to further our mission of
|
55
|
|
|
|
|
providing high quality, accessible education. We intend to
actively pursue quality opportunities to partner with
and/or
acquire existing institutions of higher learning where we
believe we can achieve long-term attractive growth and value
creation. See discussion of BPP acquisition below in Fiscal
Year 2009 Highlights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Focus on Integration. We expect to
strategically add value by integrating our acquisitions and
leveraging our experience to enhance the quality, delivery and
student outcomes associated with the respective curricula.
|
For a more detailed discussion of our business, industry and
risks, refer to Item 1, Business, and Item 1A,
Risk Factors.
Fiscal
Year 2009 Highlights
During the fiscal year 2009, we experienced the following
significant events:
|
|
|
|
1.
|
Degreed Enrollment and New Degreed Enrollment
Growth. We achieved 20.8% growth in average
University of Phoenix Degreed Enrollment in fiscal year 2009
compared to fiscal year 2008. University of Phoenix aggregate
New Degreed Enrollment increased 23.5% in fiscal year 2009
compared to 2008. We believe the enrollment growth is primarily
attributable to continued investments in enhancing and expanding
University of Phoenix service offerings and academic quality,
which has attracted new students and increased student
retention, and to enhancements in our marketing capabilities. We
also believe that a portion of the increase in University of
Phoenix Degreed Enrollment and New Degreed Enrollment is due to
the current economic downturn, as working learners seek to
advance their education to improve their job security or
reemployment prospects, and that this element of our growth will
diminish as the economy and the employment outlook improve in
the U.S.
|
|
|
2.
|
Net Revenue Growth. Our net revenue increased
26.5% in fiscal year 2009 compared to fiscal year 2008 primarily
as a result of University of Phoenix Degreed Enrollment growth
and selective tuition price increases.
|
|
|
3.
|
Income from Operations Growth. Our income from
operations increased 38.7%, or $290.0 million in fiscal
year 2009 compared to fiscal year 2008 primarily as a result of
University of Phoenix net revenue growth described above and
associated economies of scale from certain costs that remain
relatively fixed.
|
|
|
4.
|
Changes in Management and Addition of
Directors. The following changes in management
and addition of directors occurred during our fiscal year 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
On April 24, 2009, our Board of Directors promoted Gregory
W. Cappelli to the position of Co-Chief Executive Officer.
Mr. Cappelli had previously been serving as the Executive
Vice President of Global Strategy and Assistant to the Executive
Chairman. Mr. Cappelli continues to serve as Chairman of
Apollo Global and Director of Apollo Group.
|
|
|
|
On March 26, 2009, our Board of Directors promoted Joseph
L. DAmico to President and Chief Operating Officer, Brian
L. Swartz to Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer, and Gregory J. Iverson to Vice President, Chief
Accounting Officer and Controller. Mr. DAmico had
previously been serving as President and Chief Financial
Officer, Mr. Swartz had previously been serving as Senior
Vice President of Finance and Chief Accounting Officer, and
Mr. Iverson had previously been serving as Vice President
and Corporate Controller.
|
|
|
|
On March 25, 2009, Frederick J. Newton commenced employment
as Senior Vice President of Human Resources.
|
|
|
|
On March 11, 2009, our Class B Shareholders reelected
our existing ten incumbent directors to the Board of Directors
and elected three additional directors: Terri C. Bishop, our
Executive
|
56
|
|
|
|
|
Vice President of External Affairs, and independent directors,
Stephen J. Giusto and Manuel F. Rivelo.
|
|
|
|
|
5.
|
BPP. On July 30, 2009, our majority-owned
subsidiary, Apollo Global, acquired all of the outstanding
shares of BPP, a United Kingdom-headquartered provider of
education and training to professionals in the legal and finance
industries, for a purchase price of $601.6 million. Refer
to Note 3, Acquisitions, in Item 8, Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data, for additional
information.
|
|
|
6.
|
Incentive Compensation False Claims Act Lawsuit
Settlement Discussions. In September
2009, the parties to the action, along with the
U.S. Department of Justice, participated in a private
mediation in which the parties reached an agreement in principle
regarding the financial terms of a potential settlement.
Significant other terms remain to be negotiated, and there is no
certainty that a final agreement will be reached. During the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009, based on the settlement
discussions to resolve this matter, we recorded a pre-tax charge
of $80.5 million which represents our best estimate of the
loss related to this matter. The actual amount of this loss will
not be known until a final settlement agreement, if any, is
reached. Refer to Note 18, Commitments and Contingencies,
in Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data, for additional information.
|
Critical
Accounting Policies and Estimates
Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States. The preparation of these consolidated financial
statements requires the use of estimates, judgments, and
assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and
liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements
and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the
periods presented. Our critical accounting policies involve a
higher degree of judgments, estimates and complexity, and are as
follows:
Revenue
Recognition
Our educational programs, primarily composed of University of
Phoenix programs, range in length from
one-day
seminars to degree programs lasting up to four years. Students
in University of Phoenix degree programs generally enroll in a
program of study encompassing a series of five- to nine-week
courses taken consecutively over the length of the program.
Generally, students are billed on a
course-by-course
basis when the student first attends a session, resulting in the
recording of a receivable from the student and deferred revenue
in the amount of the billing. University of Phoenix students
generally fund their education through grants
and/or loans
under various Title IV programs, tuition assistance from
their employers, or personal funds.
Net revenue consists largely of tuition and fees associated with
different educational programs as well as related educational
resources such as access to online materials, books, and study
texts. Net revenue is shown net of discounts. Tuition benefits
for our employees and their eligible dependants are included in
net revenue and instructional costs and services. Total employee
tuition benefits were $90.5 million, $77.9 million and
$63.8 million for fiscal years 2009, 2008 and 2007,
respectively.
57
The following table presents the most significant components of
net revenue, and each component as a percentage of total net
revenue, for the fiscal years 2009, 2008 and 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuition and educational services revenue
|
|
$
|
3,835.7
|
|
|
|
96
|
%
|
|
$
|
2,996.1
|
|
|
|
95
|
%
|
|
$
|
2,553.1
|
|
|
|
94
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Educational materials revenue
|
|
|
226.4
|
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
184.4
|
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
161.0
|
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Services revenue
|
|
|
83.2
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
77.7
|
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
73.6
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Other revenue
|
|
|
28.3
|
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
43.9
|
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
48.5
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Revenue
|
|
|
4,173.6
|
|
|
|
105
|
%
|
|
|
3,302.1
|
|
|
|
105
|
%
|
|
|
2,836.2
|
|
|
|
104
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Less: Discounts
|
|
|
(199.4
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)%
|
|
|
(161.2
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)%
|
|
|
(112.4
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net revenue
|
|
$
|
3,974.2
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
$
|
3,140.9
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
$
|
2,723.8
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuition and educational services revenue encompasses both
online and classroom-based learning. For our University of
Phoenix and Western International University operations, tuition
revenue is recognized pro rata over the period of instruction as
services are delivered to students.
BPP recognizes tuition revenue as services are provided over the
course of the program, which varies depending on the program
structure. For our remaining Apollo Global operations, tuition
revenue is recognized over the length of the course, which is
typically over a period of a semester.
For Insight Schools, we generate the majority of our tuition and
educational services revenue through long-term contracts with
school districts or
not-for-profit
organizations. The term for these contracts ranges from 5 to
10 years with provisions for renewal thereafter. We
recognize revenue under these contracts over the period during
which educational services are provided to students, which
generally commences in August or September and ends in May or
June.
Educational materials revenue relates to online course
materials delivered to students over the period of instruction.
Revenue associated with these materials is recognized pro rata
over the period of the related course to correspond with
delivery of the materials to students. Educational materials
also includes the sale of various books, study texts, course
notes, and CDs for which we recognize revenue when the materials
have been delivered to and accepted by students or other
customers.
Services revenue consists principally of the contractual
share of tuition revenue from students enrolled in IPD programs
at private colleges and universities (Client
Institutions). IPD provides program development,
administration and management consulting services to Client
Institutions to establish or expand their programs for working
learners. These services typically include degree program
design, curriculum development, market research, student
recruitment, accounting, and administrative services. IPD
typically is paid a portion of the tuition revenue generated
from these programs. IPDs contracts with its Client
Institutions generally range in length from five to ten years,
with provisions for renewal. The portion of service revenue to
which we are entitled under the terms of the contracts is
recognized as the services are provided.
Other revenue consists of the fees students pay when
submitting an enrollment application, which, along with the
related application costs associated with processing the
applications, are deferred and recognized over the average
length of time it takes for a student to complete a program of
study. Other revenue also includes non-tuition generating
revenues, such as renting classroom space and other student
support services. Revenue from these sources is recognized as
the services are provided.
Discounts reflect reductions in tuition or other revenue
including military, corporate, and other employer discounts,
grants, institutional scholarships and promotions.
Effective March 1, 2008, University of Phoenix changed its
refund policy whereby students who attend 60% or less of a
course are eligible for a refund for the portion of the course
they did not attend. Under the prior refund policy, if a student
dropped or withdrew after attending one class of a course,
University of Phoenix earned 25% of the tuition for the course,
and if they dropped or withdrew after attending two classes of a
course, University of Phoenix earned 100% of the tuition for the
course. Refunds are recorded as a
58
reduction in deferred revenue during the period that a student
drops or withdraws from a class. This new refund policy applies
to students in most, but not all states, as some states require
different policies.
Generally, net revenue varies from period to period based on
several factors, including the aggregate number of students
attending classes, the number of classes held during the period
and the tuition price per credit hour.
Net revenue excludes applicable state and city sales taxes.
Sales tax collected from students is excluded from net revenue.
Collected but unremitted sales tax is included as a liability in
our Consolidated Balance Sheets and is not material to our
consolidated financial statements.
Allowance
for Doubtful Accounts
We reduce accounts receivable by an allowance for amounts that
may become uncollectible in the future. Estimates are used in
determining the allowance for doubtful accounts and are based on
historical collection experience and current trends. In
determining these amounts, we consider and evaluate the
historical write-offs of our receivables. We monitor our
collections and write-off experience to assess whether
adjustments are necessary. When a student with Title IV
loans withdraws from University of Phoenix or Western
International University, Title IV rules determine if we
are required to return a portion of Title IV funds to the
lenders. We are then entitled to collect these funds from the
students, but collection rates for these types of receivables is
significantly lower than our collection rates for receivables
for students who remain in our educational programs. Management
periodically evaluates the standard allowance estimation
methodology for propriety and modifies as necessary. In doing
so, we believe our allowance for doubtful accounts reflects the
most recent collections experience and is responsive to changes
in trends. Our accounts receivable are written off once the
account is deemed to be uncollectible. This typically occurs
once we have exhausted all efforts to collect the account, which
include collection attempts by our employees and outside
collection agencies.
For the purpose of sensitivity, a one percent change in our
allowance for doubtful accounts as a percentage of gross student
receivables as of August 31, 2009 would have resulted in a
pre-tax change in income of $3.8 million. Additionally, if
our bad debt expense were to change by one percent of total net
revenue for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2009, we would
have recorded a pre-tax change in income of approximately
$39.7 million.
Goodwill
and Intangible Assets
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill Goodwill represents the excess of
the purchase price of an acquired business over the amount
assigned to the net assets acquired and assumed liabilities. At
the time of an acquisition, we allocate the goodwill and related
assets to our respective reporting units. Please refer to
Note 19, Segment Reporting, in Item 8, Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data, for further discussion.
Our goodwill by reportable segment is summarized in the table
below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual
|
|
August 31, 2009
|
|
|
August 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
Impairment
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
Reportable Segment Goodwill Balance is Recorded in
|
|
Test Date
|
|
Balance
|
|
|
Balance
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University of Phoenix
|
|
May 31
|
|
$
|
37,018
|
|
|
$
|
37,018
|
|
Apollo Global BPP(1)
|
|
July 1
|
|
|
421,836
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apollo Global Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UNIACC
|
|
May 31
|
|
|
11,197
|
|
|
|
1,635
|
|
ULA
|
|
May 31
|
|
|
22,674
|
|
|
|
17,682
|
|
Insight Schools
|
|
May 31
|
|
|
12,742
|
|
|
|
12,742
|
|
Other Schools
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CFFP
|
|
August 31
|
|
|
15,310
|
|
|
|
15,310
|
|
Western International University
|
|
May 31
|
|
|
1,581
|
|
|
|
1,581
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
522,358
|
|
|
$
|
85,968
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
As BPP was recently acquired on July 30, 2009, we did not
perform an annual goodwill impairment test for BPP during fiscal
year 2009.
|
59
Goodwill is tested annually for impairment unless events occur
or circumstances change between annual tests that would more
likely than not reduce the fair value of the respective asset
below its carrying amount. We test for goodwill impairment by
applying a two-step test. In the first step, the fair value of
the reporting unit is compared to the carrying value of its net
assets. If the fair value of the reporting unit exceeds the
carrying value of the net assets of the reporting unit, goodwill
is not impaired and no further testing is required. If the
carrying value of the net assets of the reporting unit exceeds
the fair value of the reporting unit, then a second step must be
performed in order to determine the implied fair value of the
goodwill and compare it to the carrying value of the goodwill.
An impairment loss is recognized to the extent the implied fair
value of the goodwill is less than the carrying amount of the
goodwill.
During fiscal year 2009, we completed our annual goodwill
impairment tests for each of our reporting units, with the
exception of BPP which was recently acquired on July 30,
2009. To determine the fair value of our reporting units, we
rely primarily on using discounted cash flow valuation methods
which requires management to make subjective judgments relating
to future cash flows based on our knowledge of the business and
current plans to operate the business, growth rates, economic
and market conditions, and applicable discount rates. Changes in
these estimates could materially affect the determination of
fair value or goodwill impairment, or both. Generally, our
goodwill impairment tests used discount rates ranging from 15.0%
to 15.5%, perpetuity growth rates ranging from 1% to 3% and if
applicable, terminal values that were calculated based on
discounted cash flows. The discount rates were determined based
on Apollo Groups weighted average cost of capital,
adjusted for company specific and macro-economic risks inherent
in the specific reporting unit. An increase of 100 basis
points in the discount rates used in these analyses, with the
exception of BPP, would result in an approximate
$20 million decrease in the estimated aggregate fair value
of those reporting units. We consider the use of this level of
sensitivity in the discount rate reasonable considering the
strength of Apollo Groups sustained operations and the
probability weighting methodology used in our impairment tests.
For certain of our goodwill impairment tests, we used a
combination of the discounted cash flow analysis and
market-based approach, and applied a 75%/25% weighting factor to
the respective approaches. To assess the reasonableness of our
fair value analysis, when appropriate, we may evaluate our
results against other measurement indicators such as comparable
company public trading values, analyst estimates and values
observed in private market transactions.
At the time of the respective reporting units annual
impairment test date, the fair value of each of these reporting
units exceeded the carrying value of their respective net assets
resulting in no goodwill impairment charges recorded.
Additionally, for all of our reporting units, the fair value
exceeded the carrying value by a sufficient margin, with the
exception of CFFP as discussed below. The results of the annual
impairment tests indicate that the current economic downturn has
not had a significant long-term adverse impact on the fair value
of these reporting units, although we observed a narrowing of
the margin between fair value and carrying value for certain of
our reporting units.
Insight Schools has encountered a number of administrative
challenges in its compliance activities in the course of
expanding its business. These challenges and
start-up
expenses have limited its growth rate and resulted in decreased
revenue and increased operating expenses. We considered this
factor in our annual goodwill impairment test of Insight Schools
and determined that the goodwill balance is not impaired.
Subsequent to our 2009 fiscal year end, we decided to explore
the sale of Insight Schools.
With the exception of CFFP, Apollo Group was not required to
perform interim goodwill impairment tests for its other
reporting units, including BPP, during fiscal year 2009. We
consider certain triggering events when evaluating whether an
interim impairment analysis is warranted, including, among
others, a significant decrease in the market capitalization of
Apollo Group based on events specific to Apollo Groups
operations; adverse changes in the accreditation, regulatory or
legal environments and overall business climate; unexpected
competition; loss of key management personnel and changes in the
market acceptance of our educational programs.
60
At August 31, 2009, our CFFP reporting unit had goodwill of
approximately $15.3 million. The economic downturn has
caused the demand for CFFPs financial planning education
programs and materials to diminish throughout fiscal year 2009
because CFFPs primary customers come from the financial
services industry. Accordingly, we performed interim goodwill
impairment tests as of November 30, 2008, February 28,
2009 and May 31, 2009 and evaluated and determined that the
CFFP goodwill balance was not impaired. As of August 31,
2009, we performed our annual goodwill impairment test of CFFP
using a consistent methodology as our previous interim tests and
determined that the fair value of the CFFP reporting unit
continued to exceed the carrying value of its net assets by a
narrow margin.
|
|
|
|
|
Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets
Indefinite-lived intangible assets are recorded
at fair market value on their acquisition date and primarily
include trademarks and foreign regulatory accreditations and
designations as a result of the BPP, UNIACC and ULA
acquisitions. At August 31, 2009 and 2008, our
indefinite-lived intangible asset balances were
$145.5 million and $6.6 million, respectively.
|
We assign indefinite lives to acquired trademarks,
accreditations and designations that we believe have the
continued ability to generate cash flows indefinitely; have no
legal, regulatory, contractual, economic or other factors
limiting the useful life of the respective intangible asset; and
when we intend to renew the respective trademark, accreditation
or designation and renewal can be accomplished at little cost.
Indefinite-lived intangible assets are not amortized, but rather
are tested for impairment at least annually, unless events occur
or circumstances change between annual tests that would more
likely than not reduce the fair value of the respective asset
below its carrying amount. The impairment test for
indefinite-lived intangible assets involves a comparison of the
estimated fair value of the intangible asset with its carrying
value. If the carrying value of the intangible asset exceeds its
fair value, an impairment loss is recognized in an amount equal
to that excess. To determine the fair value of these intangible
assets, we use various valuation models, such as discounted cash
flow analysis or the relief-from-royalty method. We perform our
annual indefinite-lived intangible asset impairment tests for
each reporting unit on the same dates that we perform our annual
goodwill impairment tests for the respective reporting units.
During fiscal year 2009, we completed our annual impairment
tests for our indefinite-lived intangible assets at ULA and
UNIACC totaling $13.3 million and determined there was no
impairment. Apollo did not perform an annual impairment test of
the indefinite-lived intangible assets recently acquired in the
BPP acquisition on July 30, 2009 nor were we required to
perform interim impairment tests for any of our indefinite-lived
intangible assets during fiscal year 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
Finite-Lived Intangible Assets Finite-lived
intangible assets that are acquired in business combinations are
recorded at fair market value on their acquisition date and are
amortized on either a straight-line basis or using an
accelerated method to reflect the economic useful life of the
asset. The weighted average useful lives range from 2 to
15 years.
|
At August 31, 2009 and 2008, our finite-lived intangible
asset balances were $58.2 million and $16.5 million,
respectively. As further discussed in Note 2, Significant
Accounting Policies, in Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, we will adopt SFAS No. 157,
Fair Value Measurements (SFAS 157),
with respect to using fair value measurements in the valuation
techniques associated with our annual goodwill and
indefinite-lived intangible assets impairment tests effective
September 1, 2009.
Other
Long-Lived Asset Impairments
We evaluate the carrying amount of our major long-lived assets,
including property and equipment and finite-lived intangible
assets, whenever changes in circumstances or events indicate
that the value of such assets may not be fully recoverable. At
August 31, 2009, we believe the carrying amounts of our
long-lived assets are fully recoverable and no impairment exists.
61
Loss
Contingencies
We are subject to various claims and contingencies which are in
the scope of ordinary and routine litigation incidental to our
business, including those related to regulation, litigation,
business transactions, employee-related matters and taxes, among
others. When we become aware of a claim or potential claim, the
likelihood of any loss or exposure is assessed. If it is
probable that a loss will result and the amount of the loss can
be reasonably estimated, we record a liability for the loss. The
liability recorded includes probable and estimable legal costs
incurred to date and future legal costs to the point in the
legal matter where we believe a conclusion to the matter will be
reached. If the loss is not probable or the amount of the loss
cannot be reasonably estimated, we disclose the claim if the
likelihood of a potential loss is reasonably possible and the
amount of the potential loss could be material. For matters
where no loss contingency is recorded, our policy is to expense
legal fees as incurred.
Accounting
for Income Taxes
The objectives of accounting for income taxes are to recognize
the amount of taxes payable or refundable for the current year
and deferred tax liabilities and assets for the future tax
consequences of events that have been recognized in an
entitys financial statements or tax returns. Deferred tax
assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates in
effect for the year in which those temporary differences are
expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax
assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in
earnings in the period when the new rate is enacted.
We evaluate and account for uncertain tax positions using a
two-step approach. Recognition (step one) occurs when we
conclude that a tax position, based solely on its technical
merits, is more-likely-than-not to be sustained upon
examination. Measurement (step two) determines the amount of
benefit that is greater than 50% likely to be realized upon
ultimate settlement with a taxing authority that has full
knowledge of all relevant information. Derecognition of a tax
position that was previously recognized would occur when we
subsequently determine that a tax position no longer meets the
more-likely-than-not threshold of being sustained. We do not use
a valuation allowance as a substitute for derecognition of tax
positions.
Share-Based
Compensation
We measure and recognize compensation expense for all
share-based awards issued to faculty, employees and directors
based on estimated fair values of the share awards on the date
of grant. We record compensation expense for all share-based
awards over the vesting period.
We calculate the fair value of share-based awards on the date of
grant. For stock options, we typically use the
Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model to estimate fair
value. The Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model requires us
to estimate key assumptions such as expected term, volatility,
risk-free interest rates and dividend yield to determine the
fair value of stock options, based on both historical
information and management judgment regarding market factors and
trends. We generally use the simplified mid-point method to
estimate expected term of stock options. The simplified method
uses the mid-point between the vesting term and the contractual
term of the share option. We have analyzed the circumstances in
which the use of the simplified method is allowed, and we have
opted to use this method for stock options granted to management
in fiscal years 2009 and 2008 because the options granted in
prior fiscal years had different terms, such as contractual
lives and acceleration provisions. Thus, historical data is not
comparable in order to determine the expected term of awards. We
expect to continue to use this method until sufficient reliable
historical data is available that will enable us to estimate
expected term by a more precise method
We amortize the share-based compensation expense over the period
that the awards are expected to vest, net of estimated
forfeiture rates. We estimate expected forfeitures of
share-based awards at the grant date and recognize compensation
cost only for those awards expected to vest. We estimate our
forfeiture rate based on several factors including historical
forfeiture activity, expected future employee turnover, and
other qualitative factors. We ultimately adjust this forfeiture
assumption to actual forfeitures. Therefore, changes in the
forfeiture assumptions do not impact the total amount of expense
ultimately recognized over the vesting period. Rather, different
forfeiture assumptions only impact the timing of expense
recognition over the vesting
62
period. If the actual forfeitures differ from management
estimates, additional adjustments to compensation expense are
recorded.
We used the following weighted average assumptions in the
Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model for stock options
granted in each fiscal year:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
47.7
|
%
|
|
|
44.2
|
%
|
|
|
32.7
|
%
|
Expected life (years)
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
2.2
|
%
|
|
|
2.9
|
%
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
The assumptions that have the most significant affect on the
fair value of the grants and therefore, share-based compensation
expense, are the expected life and expected volatility. The
following table illustrates how changes to the
Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model assumptions would
affect the weighted average per option fair values as of the
grant date for grants made during fiscal year 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expected Volatility
|
Expected Life (Years)
|
|
42.9%
|
|
47.7%
|
|
52.5%
|
|
3.7
|
|
$
|
23.57
|
|
|
$
|
25.72
|
|
|
$
|
27.83
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
25.07
|
|
|
|
27.32
|
|
|
|
29.52
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
26.48
|
|
|
|
28.81
|
|
|
|
31.09
|
|
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
Please refer to Note 2, Significant Accounting Policies, in
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,
for recent accounting pronouncements.
Results
of Operations
We have included below a discussion of our operating results and
significant items which explain the material changes in our
operating results during the fiscal years ended August 31,
2009, 2008 and 2007. Our operations are generally subject to
seasonal trends. We experience, and expect to continue to
experience, seasonal fluctuations in our results of operations
as a result of changes in the level of student enrollments.
While University of Phoenix enrolls students throughout the
year, our net revenue generally is lower in the second quarter
(December through February) than the other quarters due to
holiday breaks in December and January. Most of our other
subsidiaries experience more significant seasonality, as they
have limited enrollment during their respective summer breaks.
We categorize our operating expenses as instructional costs and
services, selling and promotional, and general and
administrative.
|
|
|
|
|
Instructional costs and services consist
primarily of costs related to the delivery and administration of
our educational programs and include costs related to faculty
and administrative compensation, classroom and faculty
administration lease expenses and depreciation, bad debt
expense, financial aid processing costs and other related costs.
Tuition costs for all employees and their eligible family
members are recorded as an expense within instructional costs
and services.
|
|
|
|
Selling and promotional costs consist
primarily of compensation for enrollment counselors, management
and support staff and corporate marketing, advertising expenses,
production of marketing materials, and other costs directly
related to selling and promotional functions. Selling and
promotional costs are expensed when incurred.
|
|
|
|
General and administrative costs consist
primarily of corporate compensation, occupancy costs,
depreciation and amortization of property and equipment, legal
and professional fees, and other related costs.
|
63
For the
fiscal year ended August 31, 2009 compared to the fiscal
year ended August 31, 2008
Analysis
of Consolidated Statements of Income
The table below details our consolidated results of operations.
For a more detailed discussion by reportable segment, refer to
our Analysis of Operating Results by Segment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Net Revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
|
%
|
|
(in millions, except per share data)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Net revenue
|
|
$
|
3,974.2
|
|
|
$
|
3,140.9
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
26.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instructional costs and services
|
|
|
1,603.7
|
|
|
|
1,370.9
|
|
|
|
40.3
|
%
|
|
|
43.6
|
%
|
|
|
17.0
|
%
|
Selling and promotional
|
|
|
960.4
|
|
|
|
805.4
|
|
|
|
24.2
|
%
|
|
|
25.6
|
%
|
|
|
19.2
|
%
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
290.1
|
|
|
|
215.2
|
|
|
|
7.3
|
%
|
|
|
6.9
|
%
|
|
|
34.8
|
%
|
Estimated litigation loss
|
|
|
80.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
2,934.7
|
|
|
|
2,391.5
|
|
|
|
73.8
|
%
|
|
|
76.1
|
%
|
|
|
22.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from operations
|
|
|
1,039.5
|
|
|
|
749.4
|
|
|
|
26.2
|
%
|
|
|
23.9
|
%
|
|
|
38.7
|
%
|
Interest income
|
|
|
12.6
|
|
|
|
30.1
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
%
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
|
|
(58.1
|
)%
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(4.5
|
)
|
|
|
(3.5
|
)
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)%
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)%
|
|
|
28.6
|
%
|
Other, net
|
|
|
(7.8
|
)
|
|
|
6.8
|
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)%
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes and minority interest
|
|
|
1,039.8
|
|
|
|
782.8
|
|
|
|
26.2
|
%
|
|
|
25.0
|
%
|
|
|
32.8
|
%
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(446.0
|
)
|
|
|
(306.9
|
)
|
|
|
(11.2
|
)%
|
|
|
(9.8
|
)%
|
|
|
45.3
|
%
|
Minority interest, net of tax
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
598.3
|
|
|
$
|
476.5
|
|
|
|
15.1
|
%
|
|
|
15.2
|
%
|
|
|
25.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted income per share
|
|
$
|
3.75
|
|
|
$
|
2.87
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
30.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
Revenue
Our net revenue increased $833.3 million, or 26.5%, in
fiscal year 2009 compared to fiscal year 2008. University of
Phoenix represented approximately 95% of our net revenue during
this period, and contributed the majority of the increase
primarily due to growth in Degreed Enrollment and selective
tuition price and other fee changes. Net revenue also increased
$54.0 million primarily from Apollo Global earning a full
year of revenue from acquisitions completed in fiscal year 2008.
For a more detailed discussion, refer to our Analysis of
Operating Results by Segment.
Instructional
Costs and Services
Instructional costs and services increased $232.8 million,
or 17.0%, in fiscal year 2009 compared to fiscal year 2008, but
represents a 330 basis point decrease as a percentage of
net revenue. The decrease as a percentage of net revenue is
primarily due to University of Phoenix continuing to leverage
its fixed costs, such as certain employee wages, classroom space
and depreciation expense, and a decrease in financial aid
processing costs from the favorable renegotiation, effective
September 2008, of our contract with our outsourced financial
aid processing vendor. This was partially offset by increases in
expense as a percentage of net revenue at Apollo Global
associated with its
start-up,
development and other infrastructure and support costs, as well
as an increase as a percentage of net revenue in bad debt
expense. Our bad debt expense was 3.8% of net revenue in fiscal
year 2009 compared to 3.3% of net revenue in fiscal year 2008.
Selling
and Promotional
Selling and promotional expenses increased $155.0 million,
or 19.2%, in fiscal year 2009 compared to fiscal year 2008, but
represents a 140 basis point decrease as a percentage of
net revenue. The decrease as a
64
percentage of net revenue is primarily due to University of
Phoenix improved enrollment counselor effectiveness.
Additionally, investments we have made in our corporate
marketing function have resulted in more effective advertising.
General
and Administrative
General and administrative expenses increased
$74.9 million, or 34.8%, in fiscal year 2009 compared to
fiscal year 2008 representing a 40 basis point increase as
a percentage of net revenue. The increase as a percentage of net
revenue is primarily due to (a) administrative expenses to
support our strategic growth initiatives and enhance our
corporate governance, (b) increased legal costs in
connection with defending ourselves in legal matters described
elsewhere in this report, and (c) the write-off of
$9.4 million of information technology fixed assets that
resulted primarily from our rationalization of software.
Estimated
Litigation Loss
In connection with the Incentive Compensation False Claims Act
Lawsuit, we recorded an accrual of $80.5 million in fiscal
year 2009 based on settlement discussions to resolve this
matter. See Note 18, Commitments and Contingencies, in
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,
for further discussion.
Interest
Income
Interest income decreased $17.5 million in fiscal year 2009
compared to fiscal year 2008. The decrease is primarily due to
lower interest rate yields, which was partially offset by
increases in average cash and cash equivalents balances
(including restricted cash) during the respective periods. When
the Federal Reserve Bank lowers the Federal Funds Rate, it
generally results in a reduction in our interest rates. The
reduction of the Federal Funds Rate in December 2008 to the
range of 0.0% 0.25% has lowered our average interest
rate yield for fiscal year 2009 below 1%.
Interest
Expense
Interest expense increased $1.0 million in fiscal year 2009
compared to fiscal year 2008 due to an increase in average
borrowings during the respective periods, principally due to
debt incurred by subsidiaries of Apollo Global and borrowings on
our syndicated $500 million credit agreement (the
Bank Facility). Subsequent to August 31, 2009,
we repaid the U.S. dollar denominated debt on our Bank
Facility of $393 million that was outstanding at
August 31, 2009. Refer to Liquidity, Capital Resources,
and Financial Position for further discussion.
Other
Expense, Net
The loss in fiscal year 2009 was primarily attributable to
$6.9 million of expense incurred for the purchase of a call
option to hedge against foreign currency fluctuations related to
the BPP acquisition. The remaining loss primarily relates to net
foreign currency losses related to our international operations.
The income in fiscal year 2008 was primarily attributable to
other income of $9.5 million from the forfeiture of an
escrow deposit provided in connection with a now cancelled
agreement to sell and leaseback our headquarters, which was
partially offset by net foreign currency losses related to our
international operations
Provision
for Income Taxes
Our effective income tax rate for the fiscal year ended
August 31, 2009 was 42.9% compared to 39.2% for the fiscal
year ended August 31, 2008. The increase was primarily
attributable to the following items:
|
|
|
|
|
The estimated tax impact on the estimated litigation loss;
|
|
|
An increase in state taxes due to the allocation of our online
operations income amongst various U.S. state and local
jurisdictions;
|
|
|
A reduction in our tax exempt interest income;
|
65
|
|
|
|
|
An increase in net operating losses for which we cannot
currently take a tax benefit; and
|
|
|
Certain compensation that may not meet the requirements for
deductibility under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m).
|
Minority
Interest, net of tax
The minority interest increased in fiscal year 2009 compared to
fiscal year 2008 due to an increase in Apollo Globals net
losses in fiscal year 2009. For a more detailed discussion,
refer to our Analysis of Operating Results by Segment.
Analysis
of Operating Results by Segment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
%
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Net revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University of Phoenix
|
|
$
|
3,766.6
|
|
|
$
|
2,987.7
|
|
|
$
|
778.9
|
|
|
|
26.1
|
%
|
Apollo Global:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BPP
|
|
|
13.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13.1
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
Other
|
|
|
54.3
|
|
|
|
13.4
|
|
|
|
40.9
|
|
|
|
305.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Apollo Global
|
|
|
67.4
|
|
|
|
13.4
|
|
|
|
54.0
|
|
|
|
403.0
|
%
|
Insight Schools
|
|
|
20.6
|
|
|
|
7.5
|
|
|
|
13.1
|
|
|
|
174.7
|
%
|
Other Schools
|
|
|
116.8
|
|
|
|
122.5
|
|
|
|
(5.7
|
)
|
|
|
(4.7
|
)%
|
Corporate(1)
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
(7.0
|
)
|
|
|
(71.4
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net revenue
|
|
$
|
3,974.2
|
|
|
$
|
3,140.9
|
|
|
$
|
833.3
|
|
|
|
26.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University of Phoenix
|
|
$
|
1,131.3
|
|
|
$
|
817.6
|
|
|
$
|
313.7
|
|
|
|
38.4
|
%
|
Apollo Global:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BPP
|
|
|
(6.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
*
|
Other
|
|
|
(11.5
|
)
|
|
|
(1.9
|
)
|
|
|
(9.6
|
)
|
|
|
(505.3
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Apollo Global
|
|
|
(18.1
|
)
|
|
|
(1.9
|
)
|
|
|
(16.2
|
)
|
|
|
(852.6
|
)%
|
Insight Schools
|
|
|
(28.6
|
)
|
|
|
(18.9
|
)
|
|
|
(9.7
|
)
|
|
|
(51.3
|
)%
|
Other Schools
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
20.3
|
|
|
|
(13.3
|
)
|
|
|
(65.5
|
)%
|
Corporate(1)
|
|
|
(52.1
|
)
|
|
|
(67.7
|
)
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
|
|
23.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income from operations
|
|
$
|
1,039.5
|
|
|
$
|
749.4
|
|
|
$
|
290.1
|
|
|
|
38.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The Corporate caption in our segment reporting includes
adjustments to reconcile segment results to consolidated
results, which primarily consist of net revenue and corporate
charges that are not allocated to our segments. |
|
* |
|
not meaningful |
66
University
of Phoenix
The $778.9 million, or 26.1%, increase in net revenue in
our University of Phoenix segment was primarily due to
enrollment growth as detailed below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Degreed Enrollment
|
|
|
|
Combined New Degreed Enrollment(1)
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended August 31,
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
|
%
|
|
(rounded to the nearest hundred)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Change
|
|
Associates
|
|
|
201,200
|
|
|
|
146,500
|
|
|
|
37.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
191,700
|
|
|
|
143,400
|
|
|
|
33.7
|
%
|
Bachelors
|
|
|
163,600
|
|
|
|
141,800
|
|
|
|
15.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
108,900
|
|
|
|
92,400
|
|
|
|
17.9
|
%
|
Masters
|
|
|
71,200
|
|
|
|
67,700
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
51,900
|
|
|
|
49,400
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
%
|
Doctoral
|
|
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
6,100
|
|
|
|
14.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
3,300
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
443,000
|
|
|
|
362,100
|
|
|
|
22.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
355,800
|
|
|
|
288,200
|
|
|
|
23.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Calculated as the sum of each quarters New Degreed
Enrollment during the fiscal year. |
Enrollment growth in Degreed Enrollment and New Degreed
Enrollment is in part the result of investments in enhancing and
expanding University of Phoenix academic quality and service
offerings, which has attracted new students and increased
student retention. Enhancements in our marketing effectiveness
have also contributed to the increases. Also, we believe that a
portion of the increase is due to the current economic downturn,
as working learners seek to advance their education to improve
their job security or reemployment prospects, and that this
element of our growth may diminish as the economy and the
employment outlook improve in the U.S.
In addition to the growth in Degreed Enrollment, net revenue
increased due to selective tuition price and other fee changes
implemented in July 2009 and July 2008, depending on geographic
area, program, and degree level. In the aggregate, the July 2009
selective price and other fee changes, including increases in
discounts for military and veteran students, averaged
approximately 4%. The July 2008 selective tuition price and
other fee changes included an approximate 10% increase in
associates degree tuition price and increases averaging 4%
to 5% for bachelors and masters degree programs. The
impact of these price and other fee changes on future net
revenue and operating income will continue to be impacted by
changes in enrollment, changes in student mix within programs
and degree levels, and changes in discounts. The increase in net
revenue was partially offset by a continued shift in our student
body mix to a higher percentage of students enrolled in
associates degree programs, which have tuition prices
generally lower than other degree programs. Associates
Degreed Enrollment represented 45.4% of Degreed Enrollment
during the quarter ended August 31, 2009, compared to 40.5%
during the quarter ended August 31, 2008. In addition,
associates Degreed Enrollment increased 37.3% in the
quarter ended August 31, 2009 compared to the quarter ended
August 31, 2008.
Income from operations in our University of Phoenix segment
increased $313.7 million, or 38.4%, during fiscal year 2009
compared to fiscal year 2008. The increase in income from
operations was positively impacted by the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Economies of scale associated with the 26.1% increase in
University of Phoenix net revenue as many costs remain
relatively fixed such as certain employee wages, classroom space
and depreciation when University of Phoenix grows its net
revenue. Additionally, variable employee headcount has grown at
a lower rate than the increase in net revenue;
|
|
|
|
A decrease in financial aid processing costs from the favorable
renegotiation, effective September 2008, of our contract with
our outsourced financial aid processing vendor;
|
|
|
|
Investments in our corporate marketing function that have
produced more effective and efficient advertising resulting in a
decrease in advertising expense as a percentage of net
revenue; and
|
|
|
|
An increase in enrollment counselor effectiveness as a result of
internal initiatives to assist enrollment counselors in their
jobs, as well as an increase in the average tenure of enrollment
counselors.
|
67
Income from operations was negatively impacted by the
$80.5 million estimated litigation loss recorded in
connection with the Incentive Compensation False Claims Act
Lawsuit. See Note 18, Commitments and Contingencies, in
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,
for further discussion. Income from operations was also
negatively impacted by increased bad debt expense as a
percentage of net revenue resulting from the continued economic
downturn, the continuing increase in enrollment in our
associates degree programs and lower collection rates on
aged accounts receivable.
Apollo
Global
Apollo Global net revenue increased $54.0 million during
fiscal year 2009 compared to fiscal year 2008. The net revenue
was generated by BPP, which was acquired on July 30, 2009
and UNIACC and ULA, which was acquired in the third and fourth
quarters of fiscal year 2008, respectively.
The $18.1 million loss from operations for Apollo Global
during fiscal year 2009 was primarily due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses associated with the pursuit
of opportunities to partner with
and/or
acquire existing institutions of higher learning where we
believe we can achieve long-term attractive growth and value
creation;
|
|
|
Investment in BPP, UNIACC and ULA including, but not limited to,
initiatives to expand offerings and enhance academic quality and
marketing.
|
Insight
Schools
The $13.1 million increase in net revenue in our Insight
Schools segment during fiscal year 2009 compared to fiscal year
2008 was primarily due to an increase in the number of schools
served in fiscal year 2009 and an aggregate increase in
enrollment in the schools that were in operation during fiscal
years 2009 and 2008.
The increase in the loss from operations was primarily due to
increased regulatory compliance costs and additional
start-up
costs for items such as faculty, office space and depreciation,
and other infrastructure and support costs to grow this business.
Insight Schools has encountered a number of administrative
challenges in its compliance activities in the course of
expanding its business. These challenges resulted in a decrease
in the number of states in which Insight Schools serves students
during fiscal year 2009. These challenges have limited the
growth rate of the Insight Schools business and increased its
operating expenses. We believe Insight Schools will continue to
generate operating losses in the near term.
Subsequent to our 2009 fiscal year end, we decided to explore
the sale of Insight Schools. There is no assurance that we will
be able to sell these operations on terms acceptable to us or at
all. In addition to the costs incurred in connection with such a
disposition, we may realize a loss on sale. As of
August 31, 2009, the goodwill balance of Insight Schools
was $12.7 million. If we are unable to dispose of these
operations on terms acceptable to us, we may decide to continue
providing some or all of the services now provided by Insight
Schools under its service contracts for the remainder of the
terms of such contracts, which have remaining terms of 1 to
9 years.
Other
Schools
The $5.7 million decrease in net revenue in our Other
Schools segment was primarily due to Western International
University associates degree program students graduating
or withdrawing from the program. In April 2006, we began
offering associates degree programs at University of
Phoenix instead of Western International University; however, we
have continued to service the existing associates degree
students at Western International University until graduation,
withdrawal or transfer to University of Phoenix. Additionally,
CFFPs net revenue declined due to a decrease in demand for
CFFPs financial planning education programs and materials
as a result of the current economic downturn.
68
The decrease in income from operations in our Other Schools
segment was primarily due to our investments in developing
Meritus University and the decrease in net revenue discussed
above.
For the
fiscal year ended August 31, 2008 compared to the fiscal
year ended August 31, 2007
Analysis
of Consolidated Statements of Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Net Revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
|
%
|
|
(in millions, except per share data)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Net revenue
|
|
$
|
3,140.9
|
|
|
$
|
2,723.8
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.0
|
%
|
|
|
15.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instructional costs and services
|
|
|
1,370.9
|
|
|
|
1,237.5
|
|
|
|
43.6
|
%
|
|
|
45.4
|
%
|
|
|
10.8
|
%
|
Selling and promotional
|
|
|
805.4
|
|
|
|
659.1
|
|
|
|
25.6
|
%
|
|
|
24.2
|
%
|
|
|
22.2
|
%
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
215.2
|
|
|
|
201.5
|
|
|
|
6.9
|
%
|
|
|
7.4
|
%
|
|
|
6.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
2,391.5
|
|
|
|
2,098.1
|
|
|
|
76.1
|
%
|
|
|
77.0
|
%
|
|
|
14.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from operations
|
|
|
749.4
|
|
|
|
625.7
|
|
|
|
23.9
|
%
|
|
|
23.0
|
%
|
|
|
19.8
|
%
|
Interest income
|
|
|
30.1
|
|
|
|
31.2
|
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
|
|
1.1
|
%
|
|
|
(3.5
|
)%
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(3.5
|
)
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
Other, net
|
|
|
6.8
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes and minority interest
|
|
|
782.8
|
|
|
|
657.3
|
|
|
|
25.0
|
%
|
|
|
24.1
|
%
|
|
|
19.1
|
%
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(306.9
|
)
|
|
|
(248.5
|
)
|
|
|
(9.8
|
)%
|
|
|
(9.1
|
)%
|
|
|
23.5
|
%
|
Minority interest, net of tax
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
476.5
|
|
|
$
|
408.8
|
|
|
|
15.2
|
%
|
|
|
15.0
|
%
|
|
|
16.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted income per share
|
|
$
|
2.87
|
|
|
$
|
2.35
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
22.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
Revenue
Our net revenue increased $417.1 million, or 15.3% in
fiscal year 2008 compared to fiscal year 2007. University of
Phoenix represented approximately 95% of our net revenue during
this period, and contributed the majority of the increase
primarily due to growth in Degreed Enrollment and selective
tuition price increases. Net revenue also increased due to
acquisitions by Apollo Global completed during the third and
fourth quarters of fiscal year 2008, which contributed
$13.4 million in net revenue in fiscal year 2008. For a
more detailed discussion, refer to our Analysis of Operating
Results by Segment.
Instructional
Costs and Services
Instructional costs and services increased $133.4 million,
or 10.8%, in fiscal year 2008 compared to fiscal year 2007, but
represents a 180 basis point decrease as a percentage of
net revenue. The decrease as a percentage of net revenue is
primarily due to University of Phoenix leveraging its fixed
costs, such as certain employee wages, classroom space and
depreciation expense. Additionally, bad debt decreased to 3.3%
of net revenue in fiscal year 2008 compared to 4.4% of net
revenue in fiscal year 2007 due to increased focus on
collections.
69
Selling
and Promotional
Selling and promotional expenses increased $146.3 million,
or 22.2%, in fiscal year 2008 compared to fiscal year 2007
representing a 140 basis point increase as a percentage of
net revenue. The increase as a percentage of net revenue is
primarily due to increases as a percentage of net revenue in
enrollment counselors compensation, advertising expenses
and additional marketing costs.
General
and Administrative
General and administrative expenses increased
$13.7 million, or 6.8%, in fiscal year 2008 compared to
fiscal year 2007, but represents a 50 basis point decrease
as a percentage of net revenue. Additionally, general and
administrative expenses in fiscal year 2007 included
$33.8 million of expense related to the following items
that were unusual in nature: costs associated with the
restatement of our financial statements, stock option
modifications, and a fair value adjustment for former employee
stock options. Excluding these unusual items, general and
administrative expenses increased 70 basis points as a
percentage of net revenue primarily due to increased costs to
support our strategic growth initiatives and enhance our
corporate governance, as well as increased legal costs in
connection with defending ourselves in legal matters described
elsewhere in this report.
Interest
Income
Interest income decreased $1.1 million in fiscal year 2008
compared to fiscal year 2007 due to lower average balances and
lower yields on our cash and cash equivalents (including
restricted cash) and marketable securities.
Interest
Expense
Interest expense increased $3.3 million in fiscal year 2008
compared to fiscal year 2007 due to an increase in average
borrowings, including capital leases, during the respective
periods.
Other
Income, Net
The income in fiscal year 2008 was primarily attributable to
other income of $9.5 million from the forfeiture of an
escrow deposit provided in connection with a now cancelled
agreement to sell and leaseback our headquarters, which was
partially offset by net foreign currency losses related to our
international operations.
Provision
for Income Taxes
Our effective income tax rate for fiscal year 2008 was 39.2%
compared to 37.8% for fiscal year 2007. This increase was
primarily the result of a decrease in tax exempt interest and an
increase in non-deductible foreign losses.
Minority
Interest, net of tax
The minority interest during fiscal year 2008 was due to Apollo
Globals net losses. For a more detailed discussion, refer
to our Analysis of Operating Results by Segment.
70
Analysis
of Operating Results by Segment
The table below details our operating results by segment for the
periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
%
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Net revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University of Phoenix
|
|
$
|
2,987.7
|
|
|
$
|
2,537.8
|
|
|
$
|
449.9
|
|
|
|
17.7
|
%
|
Apollo Global
|
|
|
13.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13.4
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
Insight Schools
|
|
|
7.5
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
5.5
|
|
|
|
275.0
|
%
|
Other Schools
|
|
|
122.5
|
|
|
|
182.6
|
|
|
|
(60.1
|
)
|
|
|
(32.9
|
)%
|
Corporate(1)
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
600.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net revenue
|
|
$
|
3,140.9
|
|
|
$
|
2,723.8
|
|
|
$
|
417.1
|
|
|
|
15.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University of Phoenix
|
|
$
|
817.6
|
|
|
$
|
656.3
|
|
|
$
|
161.3
|
|
|
|
24.6
|
%
|
Apollo Global
|
|
|
(1.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
*
|
Insight Schools
|
|
|
(18.9
|
)
|
|
|
(6.3
|
)
|
|
|
(12.6
|
)
|
|
|
(200.0
|
)%
|
Other Schools
|
|
|
20.3
|
|
|
|
42.7
|
|
|
|
(22.4
|
)
|
|
|
(52.5
|
)%
|
Corporate(1)
|
|
|
(67.7
|
)
|
|
|
(67.0
|
)
|
|
|
(0.7
|
)
|
|
|
(1.0
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income from operations
|
|
$
|
749.4
|
|
|
$
|
625.7
|
|
|
$
|
123.7
|
|
|
|
19.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The Corporate caption in our segment reporting includes
adjustments to reconcile segment results to consolidated
results, which primarily consist of net revenue and corporate
charges that are not allocated to our segments. |
University
of Phoenix
The $449.9 million, or 17.7%, increase in net revenue in
our University of Phoenix segment was primarily due to
enrollment growth as detailed below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Degreed Enrollment
|
|
|
|
Combined New Degreed Enrollment(1)
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended August 31,
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
|
%
|
|
(rounded to the nearest hundred)
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Change
|
|
Associates
|
|
|
146,500
|
|
|
|
104,500
|
|
|
|
40.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
143,400
|
|
|
|
116,000
|
|
|
|
23.6
|
%
|
Bachelors
|
|
|
141,800
|
|
|
|
138,700
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
92,400
|
|
|
|
90,900
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
%
|
Masters
|
|
|
67,700
|
|
|
|
65,300
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
49,400
|
|
|
|
48,800
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
Doctoral
|
|
|
6,100
|
|
|
|
5,200
|
|
|
|
17.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
3,000
|
|
|
|
2,800
|
|
|
|
7.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
362,100
|
|
|
|
313,700
|
|
|
|
15.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
288,200
|
|
|
|
258,500
|
|
|
|
11.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Calculated as the sum of each quarters New Degreed
Enrollment during the fiscal year. |
The increase in net revenue is also a result of selective
tuition price increases implemented in July 2008, depending on
geographic area, program, and degree level. The selective
tuition price increases included an approximate 10% increase in
associates degree tuition price and increases averaging 4%
to 5% for bachelors and masters degree programs. The
increase in net revenue was partially offset by a continued
shift in student body mix to a higher percentage of students
enrolled in associates degree programs, which have tuition
prices generally lower than other degree programs.
Associates Degreed Enrollment represented 40.5% of Degreed
Enrollment during the quarter ended August 31, 2008,
compared to 33.3% during the quarter ended August 31,
71
2007. In addition, associates Degreed Enrollment increased
40.2% during the quarter ended August 31, 2008 compared to
the quarter ended August 31, 2007.
Income from operations in our University of Phoenix segment
increased $161.3 million, or 24.6%, during fiscal year 2008
compared to fiscal year 2007. This increase in income from
operations was positively impacted by the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Economies of scale associated with the 17.7% increase in
University of Phoenix net revenue as several costs remain
relatively fixed such as certain employee wages, classroom space
and depreciation when University of Phoenix grows its net
revenue; and
|
|
|
A decrease as a percent of net revenue in bad debt
expense; and
|
Income from operations was negatively impacted by increases as a
percent of net revenue in enrollment counselors
compensation and related expenses, and additional marketing
costs.
Apollo
Global
The $13.4 million in net revenue for Apollo Global during
fiscal year 2008 was due to net revenue generated by UNIACC,
which was acquired by Apollo Global in the third quarter of
fiscal year 2008.
The $1.9 million loss from operations for Apollo Global
during fiscal year 2008 was primarily due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
General and administrative expenses associated with the pursuit
of opportunities to partner with
and/or
acquire existing institutions of higher learning where we
believe we can achieve long-term attractive growth and value
creation; and
|
|
|
Investment in UNIACC including, but not limited to, initiatives
to enhance academic quality and marketing.
|
Insight
Schools
The $5.5 million increase in net revenue in our Insight
Schools segment during fiscal year 2008 compared to fiscal year
2007 was due to a full year of operating results following the
acquisition of Insight Schools and an increase in the number of
schools served by Insight Schools.
The increase in the loss from operations was primarily due to
additional
start-up
costs for items such as faculty, office space and depreciation,
and other infrastructure and support costs to grow this business.
Other
Schools
The $60.1 million decrease in net revenue in our Other
Schools segment during fiscal year 2008 compared to fiscal year
2007 was primarily due to Western International University
associates degree program students graduating or
withdrawing from the program. In April 2006, we began offering
associates degree programs at University of Phoenix
instead of Western International University; however, we have
continued to service the existing associates degree
students at Western International University until graduation,
withdrawal or transfer to University of Phoenix.
The decrease in income from operations in our Other Schools
segment was primarily due to the decrease in net revenue
discussed above.
Liquidity,
Capital Resources, and Financial Position
We believe that our cash and cash equivalents and available
liquidity will be adequate to satisfy our working capital and
other liquidity requirements associated with our existing
operations through at least the next 12 months. We believe
that the most strategic uses of our cash resources include
investments in the continued enhancement and expansion of our
student offerings, acquisition opportunities including our
commitment to Apollo Global, investments in marketing and
information technology initiatives, and share repurchases.
72
Cash
and Cash Equivalents and Restricted Cash and Cash
Equivalents
The following table provides a summary of our cash and cash
equivalents and restricted cash and cash equivalents at
August 31, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% of Total Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
%
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Change
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
968.2
|
|
|
$
|
483.2
|
|
|
|
29.7
|
%
|
|
|
26.0
|
%
|
|
|
100.4
|
%
|
Restricted cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
432.3
|
|
|
|
384.1
|
|
|
|
13.2
|
%
|
|
|
20.6
|
%
|
|
|
12.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,400.5
|
|
|
$
|
867.3
|
|
|
|
42.9
|
%
|
|
|
46.6
|
%
|
|
|
61.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents (excluding restricted cash) increased
$485.0 million primarily due to $960.2 million of cash
generated from operations, $475.8 million of net proceeds
from borrowings, $117.1 million from stock option exercises
and $59.0 million from minority interest contributions,
which was partially offset by $523.8 million used for
acquisitions, $452.5 million used for the repurchase of
shares of our Class A common stock, $127.3 million
used for capital expenditures, and an increase of
$48.2 million in restricted cash.
We measure our money market funds included in cash and
restricted cash equivalents at fair value. Our money market
funds totaling $1,400.5 million were valued primarily using
real-time quotes for transactions in active exchange markets
involving identical assets. As of August 31, 2009, we did
not record any material adjustments to reflect these instruments
at fair value.
Debt
On January 4, 2008, we entered into a syndicated
$500 million credit agreement (the Bank
Facility). The Bank Facility is an unsecured revolving
credit facility used for general corporate purposes including
acquisitions and stock buybacks. The Bank Facility has an
expansion feature for an aggregate principal amount of up to
$250 million. The term is five years and will expire on
January 4, 2013. The Bank Facility provides a
multi-currency
sub-limit
facility for borrowings in certain specified foreign currencies
up to $300 million.
We borrowed our entire credit line under the Bank Facility as of
August 31, 2009, which included £63.0 million
denominated in British Pounds related to the BPP acquisition,
and, accordingly, we did not have any availability under the
Bank Facility as of August 31, 2009. We have classified the
U.S. dollar denominated debt on our Bank Facility of
$393 million within short-term borrowings and current
portion of long-term debt on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as
it has been repaid subsequent to August 31, 2009.
The Bank Facility fees are determined based on a pricing grid
that varies according to our leverage ratio. The Bank Facility
fee ranges from 12.5 to 17.5 basis points and the
incremental fees for borrowings under the facility range from
LIBOR + 50.0 to 82.5 basis points. The weighted average
interest rate on outstanding borrowings under the Bank Facility
at August 31, 2009 was 1.0%.
The Bank Facility contains affirmative and negative covenants,
including the following financial covenants: maximum leverage
ratio, minimum coverage interest and rent expense ratio, and a
U.S. Department of Education financial responsibility
composite score. In addition, there are covenants restricting
indebtedness, liens, investments, asset transfers and
distributions.
We also have an additional $72.1 million of variable rate
debt and $13.6 million of fixed rate debt at the
subsidiaries of Apollo Global. The weighted average interest
rate of these debt instruments at August 31, 2009 was 2.8%.
73
Cash
Flows
Operating
Activities
The following table provides a summary of our operating cash
flows during the respective fiscal years:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
598.3
|
|
|
$
|
476.5
|
|
|
$
|
408.8
|
|
Non-cash items
|
|
|
372.4
|
|
|
|
212.8
|
|
|
|
194.2
|
|
Changes in certain operating assets and liabilities
|
|
|
(10.5
|
)
|
|
|
36.7
|
|
|
|
(14.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
$
|
960.2
|
|
|
$
|
726.0
|
|
|
$
|
588.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal year 2009 Our non-cash items primarily
consisted of a $152.5 million provision for uncollectible
accounts receivable, $100.5 million for depreciation and
amortization, $80.5 million for an estimated litigation
loss, and $68.0 million for share-based compensation, which
was partially offset by $18.5 million of excess tax
benefits from share-based compensation. The changes in certain
operating assets and liabilities primarily consisted of a
$192.3 million increase in accounts receivable, primarily
due to increased enrollment, as well as a delay in disbursements
of certain Title IV funds prior to year end (see further
discussion below). This was partially offset by an
$80.3 million increase in deferred revenue and a
$59.5 million increase in student deposits, both of which
were primarily due to increased enrollment, and an increase of
$45.4 million in accounts payable and accrued liabilities.
Fiscal year 2008 Our non-cash items primarily
consisted of a $104.2 million provision for uncollectible
accounts receivable, $79.8 million for depreciation and
amortization, and $53.6 million for share-based
compensation, which was partially offset by $18.6 million
of excess tax benefits from share-based compensation. The
changes in certain operating assets and liabilities primarily
consisted of an $85.3 million increase in student deposits
and a $35.3 million increase in deferred revenue, both of
which were primarily due to increased enrollment. This was
partially offset by a $105.7 million increase in accounts
receivable, also primarily due to increased enrollment.
Fiscal year 2007 Our non-cash items primarily
consisted of a $120.6 million provision for uncollectible
accounts receivable, $71.4 million for depreciation and
amortization, and $54.0 million for share-based
compensation, which was partially offset by $46.0 million
of deferred income taxes. The changes in certain operating
assets and liabilities primarily consisted of a
$150.9 million increase in accounts receivable, primarily
due to increased enrollment, which was partially offset by a
$73.9 million increase in student deposits and a
$31.0 million increase in deferred revenue, also primarily
due to increased enrollment, and a $31.2 million increase
in accounts payable and accrued liabilities.
We monitor our accounts receivable through a variety of metrics,
including days sales outstanding. We calculate our days sales
outstanding by determining average daily student revenue based
on a rolling twelve month analysis and divide it into the gross
student accounts receivable balance as of the end of the period.
As of August 31, 2009, excluding accounts receivable and
the related net revenue for Apollo Global, our days sales
outstanding was 32 days as compared to 29 days as of
August 31, 2008. The increase in days sales outstanding is
due to our accounts receivable balance increasing at a greater
rate than revenue. The increase was due to both temporary as
well as structural changes to our operations. Temporary items
include the timing of the billing cycle relative to year-end and
a more pronounced seasonal increase due to the University of
Phoenix annual student financial aid system enhancements and
upgrades, which temporarily postpones the processing of student
financial aid requests resulting in a delay of the corresponding
disbursements of Title IV loan proceeds. Additionally,
University of Phoenix has implemented certain operational
changes that cause an increase in our accounts receivable
balance and days sales outstanding calculation.
74
Investing
Activities
The following table provides a summary of our investing cash
flows during the respective periods:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Acquisitions, net of cash acquired
|
|
$
|
(523.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(93.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(15.1
|
)
|
Capital expenditures
|
|
|
(127.3
|
)
|
|
|
(104.9
|
)
|
|
|
(104.6
|
)
|
Increase in restricted cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
(48.2
|
)
|
|
|
(87.7
|
)
|
|
|
(58.2
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
25.6
|
|
|
|
46.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
$
|
(691.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
(260.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(131.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal year 2009 Cash used for investing
activities primarily consisted of $523.8 million for Apollo
Globals acquisitions (including $510.1 related to the
acquisition of BPP), $127.3 million for capital
expenditures, and a $48.2 million increase in restricted
cash and cash equivalents. This was partially offset by
$8.0 million provided by net maturities of marketable
securities.
Fiscal year 2008 Cash used for investing
activities primarily consisted of $104.9 million for
capital expenditures (including $12.4 million for our
corporate headquarters), $93.8 million for acquisitions,
including Aptimus and Apollo Globals purchases of UNIACC
and ULA, and an $87.7 million increase in restricted cash
and cash equivalents. This was partially offset by
$25.5 million provided by net maturities of marketable
securities.
Fiscal year 2007 Cash used for investing
activities primarily consisted of $104.6 million used for
capital expenditures (including $43.4 million for our
corporate headquarters), a $58.2 million increase in
restricted cash and cash equivalents, and $15.1 million
used for the purchase of Insight Schools. This was partially
offset by $46.0 million provided by net maturities of
marketable securities.
Financing
Activities
The following table provides a summary of our financing cash
flows during the respective periods:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Proceeds (payments) related to borrowings, net
|
|
$
|
475.8
|
|
|
$
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
Issuance of Apollo Group Class A common stock
|
|
|
117.1
|
|
|
|
103.0
|
|
|
|
7.7
|
|
Minority interest contributions
|
|
|
59.0
|
|
|
|
12.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of Apollo Group Class A common stock
|
|
|
(452.5
|
)
|
|
|
(454.4
|
)
|
|
|
(437.7
|
)
|
Other
|
|
|
18.5
|
|
|
|
18.7
|
|
|
|
4.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
$
|
217.9
|
|
|
$
|
(321.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(426.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal year 2009 Cash provided by financing
activities primarily consisted of $475.8 million of net
proceeds from borrowings, $117.1 million of cash received
for stock option exercises and $59.0 million related to
minority interest contributions. This was partially offset by
$452.5 million of cash used for the repurchase of
7.2 million shares of our Class A common stock.
Fiscal year 2008 Cash used for financing
activities primarily consisted of $454.4 million of cash
used for the repurchase of 9.8 million shares of our
Class A common stock. This was partially offset by
$103.0 million of cash received for stock option exercises.
Fiscal year 2007 Cash used for financing
activities primarily consisted of $437.7 million of cash
used for the repurchase of 7.2 million shares of our
Class A common stock.
75
Shares of Apollo Group Class A common stock newly
authorized for repurchase, repurchased and reissued, and the
related total cost, for the last three fiscal years are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum Value of
|
|
|
|
of Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Price Paid
|
|
|
Shares Available
|
|
|
|
Repurchased
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
per Share
|
|
|
for Repurchase
|
|
(numbers in millions, except per share data)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treasury stock as of August 31, 2006
|
|
|
15.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,054.0
|
|
|
$
|
68.23
|
|
|
$
|
136.1
|
|
New authorizations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
363.9
|
|
Shares repurchased under repurchase program
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
437.7
|
|
|
|
61.08
|
|
|
|
(437.7
|
)
|
Shares reissued
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)
|
|
|
(30.3
|
)
|
|
|
67.31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treasury stock as of August 31, 2007
|
|
|
22.2
|
|
|
$
|
1,461.4
|
|
|
$
|
65.94
|
|
|
$
|
62.3
|
|
New authorizations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
892.1
|
|
Shares repurchased under repurchase program
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
454.4
|
|
|
|
46.25
|
|
|
|
(454.4
|
)
|
Shares reissued
|
|
|
(2.5
|
)
|
|
|
(158.5
|
)
|
|
|
64.65
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treasury stock as of August 31, 2008
|
|
|
29.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,757.3
|
|
|
$
|
59.50
|
|
|
$
|
500.0
|
|
New authorizations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
444.4
|
|
Shares repurchased under repurchase program
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
444.4
|
|
|
|
61.62
|
|
|
|
(444.4
|
)
|
Other share repurchases(1)
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
8.1
|
|
|
|
68.11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares reissued
|
|
|
(3.1
|
)
|
|
|
(187.2
|
)
|
|
|
59.96
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treasury stock as of August 31, 2009
|
|
|
33.7
|
|
|
$
|
2,022.6
|
|
|
$
|
59.94
|
|
|
$
|
500.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
In connection with the release of vested shares of restricted
stock, we repurchased approximately 119,000 shares for
$8.1 million related to tax withholding requirements on
these restricted stock units during the fiscal year 2009. We did
not have any such repurchases during fiscal years 2008 and 2007.
These repurchase transactions do not fall under the repurchase
program described below, and therefore do not reduce the amount
that is available for repurchase under that program. |
Our Board of Directors has authorized us to repurchase
outstanding shares of Apollo Group Class A common stock,
from time to time, depending on market conditions and other
considerations. There is no expiration date on the repurchase
authorizations and repurchases occur at our discretion.
Repurchases may be made on the open market or in privately
negotiated transactions, pursuant to the applicable Securities
and Exchange Commission rules, and may include repurchases
pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 10b5-1
nondiscretionary trading programs. The amount and timing of
future share repurchases, if any, will be made as market and
business conditions warrant.
Contractual
Obligations and Other Commercial Commitments
The following table lists our contractual cash obligations as of
August 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments Due by Fiscal Year
|
|
Contractual Obligations
|
|
2010
|
|
|
2011-2012
|
|
|
2013-2014
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Total
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt(1)
|
|
$
|
461.4
|
|
|
$
|
15.7
|
|
|
$
|
106.4
|
|
|
$
|
6.4
|
|
|
$
|
589.9
|
|
Operating lease obligations
|
|
|
147.3
|
|
|
|
264.2
|
|
|
|
167.8
|
|
|
|
177.6
|
|
|
|
756.9
|
|
Capital lease obligations(2)
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
|
|
|
22.0
|
|
|
|
113.7
|
|
|
|
148.4
|
|
Stadium naming rights(3)
|
|
|
6.3
|
|
|
|
13.2
|
|
|
|
14.1
|
|
|
|
101.6
|
|
|
|
135.2
|
|
Uncertain tax positions(4)
|
|
|
85.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
|
|
97.6
|
|
Other obligations(5)
|
|
|
5.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
8.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
708.8
|
|
|
$
|
303.1
|
|
|
$
|
312.0
|
|
|
$
|
412.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,736.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amounts include expected future interest payments. Please refer
to Note 11, Debt, in Item 8, Financial Statements
and Supplementary Data, for additional information on our
Debt. |
|
(2) |
|
The total future minimum lease obligation associated with
capital leases includes lease payments for a lease agreement
executed in fiscal year 2009 for a building to be constructed
and for which we do not have the right to control the use of the
property under the lease at August 31, 2009. The future
minimum lease payments associated with this lease are
$139.5 million, which includes $36.2 million of
imputed interest. |
|
(3) |
|
Amounts consist of an agreement for
20-year
naming rights to the Glendale, Arizona Sports Complex. |
|
(4) |
|
Amounts consist of unrecognized tax benefits, including interest
and penalties, that are included in other current and other
long-term liabilities in our August 31, 2009 Consolidated
Balance Sheets. We are uncertain as to if or when such amounts
may be settled. |
|
(5) |
|
Amount consists of an earn-out obligation associated with Apollo
Globals acquisition of UNIACC and undiscounted deferred
compensation payments due to Dr. John G. Sperling, our
founder. |
We have no other material commercial commitments not included in
the above table.
Federal
and Private Student Loans
See the discussion of federal and private student loans in
Item 1, Business, Financial Aid Programs
Domestic Postsecondary.
|
|
Item 7A
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk
|
Impact of
Inflation
Inflation has not had a significant impact on our historical
operations.
Foreign
Currency Exchange Risk
We use the U.S. dollar as our reporting currency. The
functional currencies of our foreign subsidiaries are generally
the local currencies. Accordingly, our foreign currency exchange
risk is related to the following exposure areas:
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustments resulting from the translation of assets and
liabilities of the foreign subsidiaries into U.S. dollars
using exchange rates in effect at the balance sheet dates. These
translation adjustments are recorded in accumulated other
comprehensive income (loss);
|
|
|
|
Earnings volatility from the translation of income and expense
items of the foreign subsidiaries using an average monthly
exchange rate for the respective periods; and
|
|
|
|
Gains and losses resulting from foreign currency exchange rate
changes related to intercompany receivables and payables that
are not of a long-term investment nature, as well as gains and
losses from foreign currency transactions. These items are
recorded in Other, net in our Consolidated Statements of Income.
|
In fiscal year 2009, we recorded $11.7 million in foreign
currency translation losses, net of tax, that are included in
other comprehensive income. These losses are the result of
general strengthening of the U.S. dollar relative to
foreign currencies during fiscal year 2009.
As we expand our international operations, we will conduct more
transactions in currencies other than the U.S. Dollar.
Additionally, we expect the volume of transactions in the
various foreign currencies will continue to increase, thus
increasing our exposure to foreign currency exchange rate
fluctuations. The following table
77
outlines our net asset exposure by foreign currency (defined as
foreign currency assets less foreign currency liabilities and
excluding intercompany balances) denominated in
U.S. dollars as of August 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
British Pound Sterling
|
|
$
|
405.6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Mexican Peso
|
|
|
29.2
|
|
|
|
25.3
|
|
Chilean Peso
|
|
|
18.4
|
|
|
|
22.3
|
|
Other foreign currencies
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
Apollo has not historically used derivative contracts to hedge
foreign currency price changes.
In connection with the BPP acquisition, Apollo Global entered
into a derivative arrangement to hedge against the variability
of foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations between the
U.S. Dollar and British Pound. The derivative arrangement,
a call option on the British Pound, limited Apollo Globals
foreign currency exposure on the notional value of
£235 million (or $390.1 million) at a 1.66
U.S. Dollar to British Pound exchange rate. This
arrangement expired on July 30, 2009. To enter into this
option, Apollo Global paid a non-refundable option premium of
$6.9 million, which was recorded within other, net in our
Consolidated Statements of Income.
Interest
Rate Risk
Interest
Income
As of August 31, 2009, we held $1,420.1 million in
cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash and cash equivalents,
and marketable securities. During fiscal year 2009, we earned
interest income of $12.6 million. When the Federal Reserve
Bank lowers the Federal Funds Rate, it generally results in a
reduction in our interest rates. The reduction of the Federal
Funds Rate in December 2008 to the range of 0.0%
0.25% has lowered our interest rate yields in fiscal year 2009.
Based on the current Federal Funds Rate, we do not believe any
further reduction would have a material impact on us.
Interest
Expense
We have exposure to changing interest rates primarily associated
with our variable rate debt. At August 31, 2009, we had a
total outstanding debt balance of $589.1 million. The
following table presents the weighted-average interest rates for
our scheduled maturities by fiscal year of principal for our
outstanding debt at August 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
2011
|
|
2012
|
|
2013
|
|
2014
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
Total
|
($ in millions, except percentages)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-rate debt
|
|
$
|
4.7
|
|
|
$
|
3.3
|
|
|
$
|
2.4
|
|
|
$
|
2.3
|
|
|
$
|
1.4
|
|
|
$
|
7.2
|
|
|
$
|
21.3
|
|
Average interest rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
%
|
Variable-rate debt
|
|
$
|
456.7
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
8.5
|
|
|
$
|
102.6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
567.8
|
|
Average interest rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
%
|
For the purpose of sensitivity, based on our outstanding
variable rate debt as of August 31, 2009, including the
$393 million repaid in September 2009, an increase of
100 basis points in our weighted average interest rate
would increase interest expense by approximately
$5.7 million on an annual basis.
Substantially all of our debt is variable interest rate and the
carrying amount approximates fair value. Please refer to
Note 9, Fair Value Measurements, in Item 8,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, for further
discussion of our valuation methods.
We have not historically entered into financial arrangements to
hedge our interest rate exposure. However, in connection with
the BPP acquisition, we acquired an interest rate swap with a
notional amount of £30.0 million ($48.9 million)
used to minimize the interest rate exposure on a portion of
BPPs variable rate debt. The interest rate swap is used to
fix the variable interest rate on the associated debt. As of
August 31,
78
2009, the fair value of the swap is a liability of
$3.5 million and is included in other current liabilities
in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Auction-Rate
Securities Risk
At August 31, 2009, for our auction-rate securities
totaling $19.6 million, we used a discounted cash flow
model to determine fair value which reflects illiquidity of the
market at it encompassed significant unobservable inputs. Our
auction-rate securities are insignificant to our total assets
that require fair value measurements and thus, the use and
possible changes in the use of these unobservable inputs would
not have a material impact on our liquidity and capital
resources. Please refer to Note 4, Marketable Securities,
and Note 9, Fair Value Measurements, in Item 8,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, for
additional information.
We will continue to monitor our investment portfolio. We will
also continue to evaluate any changes in the market value of the
failed auction-rate securities that have not been liquidated and
depending upon existing market conditions, we may be required to
record
other-than-temporary
impairment charges in the future.
79
|
|
Item 8
|
Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page
|
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
|
82
|
|
|
|
|
83
|
|
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
|
|
85
|
|
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
|
|
87
|
|
80
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Apollo Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Phoenix, Arizona
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of
Apollo Group, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as
of August 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated
statements of income, comprehensive income, shareholders
equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended August 31, 2009. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Companys management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are
free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in
the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of
Apollo Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of August 31, 2009
and 2008, and the results of their operations and their cash
flows for each of the three years in the period ended
August 31, 2009, in conformity with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
Companys internal control over financial reporting as of
August 31, 2009, based on the criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
and our report dated October 27, 2009 expressed an
unqualified opinion on the Companys internal control over
financial reporting.
/s/ DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
October 27, 2009
81
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of August 31,
|
|
($ in thousands, except share data)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
ASSETS:
|
Current assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
968,246
|
|
|
$
|
483,195
|
|
Restricted cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
432,304
|
|
|
|
384,155
|
|
Marketable securities, current portion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,060
|
|
Accounts receivable, net
|
|
|
298,270
|
|
|
|
221,919
|
|
Deferred tax assets, current portion
|
|
|
88,022
|
|
|
|
55,434
|
|
Prepaid taxes
|
|
|
57,658
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
35,517
|
|
|
|
21,780
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
1,880,017
|
|
|
|
1,169,543
|
|
Property and equipment, net
|
|
|
557,507
|
|
|
|
439,135
|
|
Marketable securities, less current portion
|
|
|
19,579
|
|
|
|
25,204
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
522,358
|
|
|
|
85,968
|
|
Intangible assets, net
|
|
|
203,671
|
|
|
|
23,096
|
|
Deferred tax assets, less current portion
|
|
|
66,254
|
|
|
|
89,499
|
|
Other assets (2008 includes receivable from related party of
$17,762)
|
|
|
13,991
|
|
|
|
27,967
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
3,263,377
|
|
|
$
|
1,860,412
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY:
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term borrowings and current portion of long-term debt
|
|
$
|
461,365
|
|
|
$
|
15,488
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
66,928
|
|
|
|
46,589
|
|
Accrued liabilities
|
|
|
268,418
|
|
|
|
121,200
|
|
Income taxes payable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,111
|
|
Student deposits
|
|
|
491,639
|
|
|
|
413,302
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
333,041
|
|
|
|
231,179
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
133,887
|
|
|
|
31,740
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
1,755,278
|
|
|
|
865,609
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
127,701
|
|
|
|
15,428
|
|
Deferred tax liabilities
|
|
|
55,636
|
|
|
|
2,743
|
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
100,149
|
|
|
|
130,467
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
2,038,764
|
|
|
|
1,014,247
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies (Note 18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
67,003
|
|
|
|
11,956
|
|
Shareholders equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock, no par value, 1,000,000 shares authorized;
none issued
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apollo Group Class A nonvoting common stock, no par value,
400,000,000 shares authorized; 188,007,000 issued as of
August 31, 2009 and 2008 and 154,260,000 and 158,471,000
outstanding as of August 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively
|
|
|
103
|
|
|
|
103
|
|
Apollo Group Class B voting common stock, no par value,
3,000,000 shares authorized; 475,000 issued and outstanding
as of August 31, 2009 and 2008
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
1,139
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apollo Group Class A treasury stock, at cost, 33,746,000
and 29,536,000 shares as of August 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively
|
|
|
(2,022,623
|
)
|
|
|
(1,757,277
|
)
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
3,195,043
|
|
|
|
2,595,340
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
(16,053
|
)
|
|
|
(3,958
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity
|
|
|
1,157,610
|
|
|
|
834,209
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity
|
|
$
|
3,263,377
|
|
|
$
|
1,860,412
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
82
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
($ in thousands, except per share data)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Net revenue
|
|
$
|
3,974,202
|
|
|
$
|
3,140,931
|
|
|
$
|
2,723,793
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instructional costs and services
|
|
|
1,603,701
|
|
|
|
1,370,878
|
|
|
|
1,237,491
|
|
Selling and promotional
|
|
|
960,437
|
|
|
|
805,395
|
|
|
|
659,059
|
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
290,104
|
|
|
|
215,192
|
|
|
|
201,546
|
|
Estimated litigation loss (Note 18)
|
|
|
80,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
2,934,742
|
|
|
|
2,391,465
|
|
|
|
2,098,096
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from operations
|
|
|
1,039,460
|
|
|
|
749,466
|
|
|
|
625,697
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
12,591
|
|
|
|
30,079
|
|
|
|
31,172
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(4,460
|
)
|
|
|
(3,450
|
)
|
|
|
(232
|
)
|
Other, net
|
|
|
(7,776
|
)
|
|
|
6,759
|
|
|
|
660
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes and minority interest
|
|
|
1,039,815
|
|
|
|
782,854
|
|
|
|
657,297
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(445,985
|
)
|
|
|
(306,927
|
)
|
|
|
(248,487
|
)
|
Minority interest, net of tax
|
|
|
4,489
|
|
|
|
598
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
598,319
|
|
|
$
|
476,525
|
|
|
$
|
408,810
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic income per share
|
|
$
|
3.79
|
|
|
$
|
2.90
|
|
|
$
|
2.37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted income per share
|
|
$
|
3.75
|
|
|
$
|
2.87
|
|
|
$
|
2.35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic weighted average shares outstanding
|
|
|
157,760
|
|
|
|
164,109
|
|
|
|
172,309
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted average shares outstanding
|
|
|
159,514
|
|
|
|
165,870
|
|
|
|
173,603
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
83
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
598,319
|
|
|
$
|
476,525
|
|
|
$
|
408,810
|
|
Other comprehensive loss (net of tax):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currency translation loss
|
|
|
(11,705
|
)
|
|
|
(1,704
|
)
|
|
|
(247
|
)
|
Unrealized loss on auction-rate securities
|
|
|
(390
|
)
|
|
|
(973
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income
|
|
$
|
586,224
|
|
|
$
|
473,848
|
|
|
$
|
408,563
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
84
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apollo Group
|
|
|
Treasury Stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class A
|
|
|
Class B
|
|
|
Apollo Group
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvoting
|
|
|
Voting
|
|
|
Class A
|
|
|
Additional
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stated
|
|
|
Paid-in
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
Shareholders
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
Loss
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
Balance as of August 31, 2006
|
|
|
188,007
|
|
|
$
|
103
|
|
|
|
475
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
|
15,449
|
|
|
$
|
(1,054,046
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,659,349
|
|
|
$
|
(1,034
|
)
|
|
$
|
604,373
|
|
Treasury stock purchases
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,167
|
|
|
|
(437,735
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(437,735
|
)
|
Treasury stock issued under stock purchase plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(31
|
)
|
|
|
2,137
|
|
|
|
(605
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,532
|
|
Treasury stock issued under stock option plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(352
|
)
|
|
|
23,605
|
|
|
|
(45,625
|
)
|
|
|
28,226
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,206
|
|
Tax benefits of stock options exercised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,021
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,021
|
|
Settlement of liability-classified awards through the issuance
of treasury stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(70
|
)
|
|
|
4,671
|
|
|
|
2,340
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,011
|
|
Cash settlement of stock options through tender offer repricing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(358
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(358
|
)
|
Share-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54,027
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54,027
|
|
Reclassification of equity awards to a liability
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11,800
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11,800
|
)
|
Currency translation adjustment, net of tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(247
|
)
|
|
|
(247
|
)
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
408,810
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
408,810
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of August 31, 2007
|
|
|
188,007
|
|
|
$
|
103
|
|
|
|
475
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
|
22,163
|
|
|
$
|
(1,461,368
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,096,385
|
|
|
$
|
(1,281
|
)
|
|
$
|
633,840
|
|
Treasury stock purchases
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,824
|
|
|
|
(454,362
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(454,362
|
)
|
Treasury stock issued under stock purchase plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(103
|
)
|
|
|
6,339
|
|
|
|
(773
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,566
|
|
Treasury stock issued under stock option plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,348
|
)
|
|
|
152,114
|
|
|
|
(77,141
|
)
|
|
|
22,430
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97,403
|
|
Tax benefits of stock options exercised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,907
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,907
|
|
Reclassification of liability awards to equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,655
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,655
|
|
Share-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53,570
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53,570
|
|
Options assumed through acquisition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,782
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,782
|
|
Currency translation adjustment, net of tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,704
|
)
|
|
|
(1,704
|
)
|
Unrealized loss on auction-rate securities, net of tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(973
|
)
|
|
|
(973
|
)
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
476,525
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
476,525
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of August 31, 2008
|
|
|
188,007
|
|
|
$
|
103
|
|
|
|
475
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
|
29,536
|
|
|
$
|
(1,757,277
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,595,340
|
|
|
$
|
(3,958
|
)
|
|
$
|
834,209
|
|
Treasury stock purchases
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,331
|
|
|
|
(452,487
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(452,487
|
)
|
Treasury stock issued under stock purchase plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(90
|
)
|
|
|
5,384
|
|
|
|
77
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,461
|
|
Treasury stock issued under stock option plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,031
|
)
|
|
|
181,757
|
|
|
|
(71,526
|
)
|
|
|
1,384
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
111,615
|
|
Tax benefits of stock options exercised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,550
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,550
|
|
Share-based compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68,038
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68,038
|
|
Currency translation adjustment, net of tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11,705
|
)
|
|
|
(11,705
|
)
|
Unrealized loss on auction-rate securities, net of tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(390
|
)
|
|
|
(390
|
)
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
598,319
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
598,319
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of August 31, 2009
|
|
|
188,007
|
|
|
$
|
103
|
|
|
|
475
|
|
|
$
|
1
|
|
|
|
33,746
|
|
|
$
|
(2,022,623
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,139
|
|
|
$
|
3,195,043
|
|
|
$
|
(16,053
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,157,610
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
85
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Cash flows provided by (used in) operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
598,319
|
|
|
$
|
476,525
|
|
|
$
|
408,810
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by
operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share-based compensation
|
|
|
68,038
|
|
|
|
53,570
|
|
|
|
54,027
|
|
Excess tax benefits from share-based compensation
|
|
|
(18,543
|
)
|
|
|
(18,648
|
)
|
|
|
(4,022
|
)
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
100,543
|
|
|
|
79,816
|
|
|
|
71,383
|
|
Loss on fixed assets write-off
|
|
|
9,416
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of deferred gain on sale-leaseback
|
|
|
(1,715
|
)
|
|
|
(1,786
|
)
|
|
|
(1,763
|
)
|
Non-cash foreign currency (gain) loss, net
|
|
|
(62
|
)
|
|
|
2,825
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for uncollectible accounts receivable
|
|
|
152,490
|
|
|
|
104,201
|
|
|
|
120,614
|
|
Estimated litigation loss (Note 18)
|
|
|
80,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest, net of tax
|
|
|
(4,489
|
)
|
|
|
(598
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
(13,799
|
)
|
|
|
(6,624
|
)
|
|
|
(46,040
|
)
|
Changes in assets and liabilities, excluding the impact of
acquisitions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
(192,289
|
)
|
|
|
(105,726
|
)
|
|
|
(150,943
|
)
|
Other assets
|
|
|
9,945
|
|
|
|
(7,285
|
)
|
|
|
(1,912
|
)
|
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
|
|
45,406
|
|
|
|
(14,155
|
)
|
|
|
31,174
|
|
Income taxes payable
|
|
|
(30,848
|
)
|
|
|
21,667
|
|
|
|
(2,440
|
)
|
Student deposits
|
|
|
59,458
|
|
|
|
85,294
|
|
|
|
73,878
|
|
Deferred revenue
|
|
|
80,315
|
|
|
|
35,281
|
|
|
|
31,003
|
|
Other liabilities
|
|
|
17,542
|
|
|
|
21,649
|
|
|
|
4,853
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
960,227
|
|
|
|
726,006
|
|
|
|
588,622
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows provided by (used in) investing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to property and equipment
|
|
|
(127,356
|
)
|
|
|
(104,879
|
)
|
|
|
(104,551
|
)
|
Acquisitions, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
(523,795
|
)
|
|
|
(93,763
|
)
|
|
|
(15,079
|
)
|
Purchase of marketable securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(875,205
|
)
|
|
|
(1,575,635
|
)
|
Maturities of marketable securities
|
|
|
8,035
|
|
|
|
900,715
|
|
|
|
1,621,636
|
|
Increase in restricted cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
(48,149
|
)
|
|
|
(87,686
|
)
|
|
|
(58,163
|
)
|
Purchase of other assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(143
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(691,265
|
)
|
|
|
(260,818
|
)
|
|
|
(131,935
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows provided by (used in) financing activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments on borrowings
|
|
|
(37,341
|
)
|
|
|
(251,435
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from borrowings
|
|
|
513,170
|
|
|
|
250,991
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class A common stock purchased for treasury
|
|
|
(452,487
|
)
|
|
|
(454,362
|
)
|
|
|
(437,735
|
)
|
Issuance of Apollo Group Class A common stock
|
|
|
117,076
|
|
|
|
102,969
|
|
|
|
7,738
|
|
Minority interest contributions
|
|
|
58,980
|
|
|
|
12,149
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excess tax benefits from share-based compensation
|
|
|
18,543
|
|
|
|
18,648
|
|
|
|
4,022
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
217,941
|
|
|
|
(321,040
|
)
|
|
|
(425,975
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exchange rate effect on cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
(1,852
|
)
|
|
|
(272
|
)
|
|
|
(451
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
485,051
|
|
|
|
143,876
|
|
|
|
30,261
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year
|
|
|
483,195
|
|
|
|
339,319
|
|
|
|
309,058
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year
|
|
$
|
968,246
|
|
|
$
|
483,195
|
|
|
$
|
339,319
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid during the year for income taxes
|
|
$
|
472,241
|
|
|
$
|
289,630
|
|
|
$
|
293,089
|
|
Cash paid during the year for interest
|
|
$
|
3,683
|
|
|
$
|
2,874
|
|
|
$
|
231
|
|
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash investing and financing
activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted stock units vested and released
|
|
$
|
22,617
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Credits received for tenant improvements
|
|
$
|
12,674
|
|
|
$
|
9,604
|
|
|
$
|
5,378
|
|
Purchases of property and equipment included in accounts payable
|
|
$
|
5,081
|
|
|
$
|
4,072
|
|
|
$
|
6,169
|
|
UNIACC earn-out consideration (Note 3)
|
|
$
|
4,406
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Unrealized loss on auction-rate securities
|
|
$
|
650
|
|
|
$
|
1,621
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Settlement and reclassification of liability awards
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
16,655
|
|
|
$
|
7,011
|
|
Fair value adjustment for liability-classified awards
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
6,952
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
consolidated financial statements.
86
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
|
|
Note 1.
|
Nature of
Operations
|
Apollo Group, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries and
majority-owned subsidiaries, collectively referred to herein as
the Company, Apollo Group,
Apollo, APOL, we,
us or our, has been an education
provider for more than 35 years. We offer innovative and
distinctive educational programs and services both online and
on-campus at the undergraduate, graduate and doctoral levels
through our wholly-owned subsidiaries:
|
|
|
|
|
The University of Phoenix, Inc. (University of
Phoenix);
|
|
|
Western International University, Inc. (Western
International University);
|
|
|
Institute for Professional Development (IPD);
|
|
|
The College for Financial Planning Institutes Corporation
(CFFP); and
|
|
|
Meritus University, Inc. (Meritus).
|
In addition to these wholly-owned subsidiaries, in October 2007,
we formed a joint venture with The Carlyle Group
(Carlyle), called Apollo Global, Inc. (Apollo
Global), to pursue investments primarily in the
international education services industry. Apollo Group
currently owns 86.1% of Apollo Global, with Carlyle owning the
remaining 13.9%. As of August 31, 2009, total cash
contributions made to Apollo Global were approximately
$511.8 million, of which $440.5 million was funded by
us. Apollo Global is consolidated in our financial statements.
Apollo Global has completed the following acquisitions:
|
|
|
|
|
BPP Holdings plc (BPP) in the United Kingdom,
|
|
|
Universidad de Artes, Ciencias y Comunicación
(UNIACC) in Chile, and
|
|
|
Universidad Latinoamericana (ULA) in Mexico.
|
We also operate online high school programs through our Insight
Schools, Inc. (Insight Schools) wholly-owned
subsidiary, which is included in our Insight Schools reportable
segment. Subsequent to our 2009 fiscal year end, we decided to
explore the sale of Insight Schools.
In October 2007, we acquired Aptimus, Inc., an online
advertising company, which has been successfully integrated into
our marketing organization. Our main purpose in acquiring
Aptimus was to help us more effectively monitor, manage, and
control our marketing investments and brands by leveraging its
industry-specific knowledge and technology platform.
Our fiscal year is from September 1 to August 31. Unless
otherwise stated, references to the years 2009, 2008 and 2007
relate to fiscal years 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
|
|
Note 2.
|
Significant
Accounting Policies
|
Basis
of Presentation
These financial statements have been prepared pursuant to the
rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission and, in the opinion of management, contain all
adjustments necessary to fairly present the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented.
Information and note disclosures included in these consolidated
financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America
(GAAP). We believe that the disclosures made are
adequate to make the information presented not misleading.
Principles
of Consolidation
The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
Apollo Group, Inc., its wholly-owned subsidiaries, and
subsidiaries that we control. Interests in our subsidiaries that
we control are reported using the full-consolidation method. We
fully consolidate the results of operations and the assets and
liabilities of
87
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
these subsidiaries in our consolidated financial statements. All
material intercompany transactions and balances have been
eliminated in consolidation.
Use of
Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP
requires management to make certain estimates and assumptions
that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and
the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date
of the financial statements and the reported amount of revenues
and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could
differ from these estimates.
Revenue
Recognition
Our educational programs, primarily composed of University of
Phoenix programs, range in length from
one-day
seminars to degree programs lasting up to four years. Students
in University of Phoenix degree programs generally enroll in a
program of study encompassing a series of five- to nine-week
courses taken consecutively over the length of the program.
Generally, students are billed on a
course-by-course
basis when the student first attends a session, resulting in the
recording of a receivable from the student and deferred revenue
in the amount of the billing. University of Phoenix students
generally fund their education through grants
and/or loans
under various Title IV programs, tuition assistance from
their employers, or personal funds.
Net revenue consists largely of tuition and fees associated with
different educational programs as well as related educational
resources such as access to online materials, books, and study
texts. Net revenue is shown net of discounts. Tuition benefits
for our employees and their eligible dependants are included in
net revenue and instructional costs and services. Total employee
tuition benefits were $90.5 million, $77.9 million and
$63.8 million for fiscal years 2009, 2008 and 2007,
respectively.
The following table presents the most significant components of
net revenue, and each component as a percentage of total net
revenue, for the fiscal years 2009, 2008 and 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Tuition and educational services revenue
|
|
$
|
3,835,681
|
|
|
|
96
|
%
|
|
$
|
2,996,072
|
|
|
|
95
|
%
|
|
$
|
2,553,075
|
|
|
|
94
|
%
|
Educational materials revenue
|
|
|
226,388
|
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
184,430
|
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
160,973
|
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
Services revenue
|
|
|
83,238
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
77,707
|
|
|
|
3
|
%
|
|
|
73,577
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
Other revenue
|
|
|
28,299
|
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
43,881
|
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
48,614
|
|
|
|
2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross revenue
|
|
|
4,173,606
|
|
|
|
105
|
%
|
|
|
3,302,090
|
|
|
|
105
|
%
|
|
|
2,836,239
|
|
|
|
104
|
%
|
Less: discounts
|
|
|
(199,404
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)%
|
|
|
(161,159
|
)
|
|
|
(5
|
)%
|
|
|
(112,446
|
)
|
|
|
(4
|
)%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net revenue
|
|
$
|
3,974,202
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
$
|
3,140,931
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
$
|
2,723,793
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuition and educational services revenue encompasses both
online and classroom-based learning. For our University of
Phoenix and Western International University operations, tuition
revenue is recognized pro rata over the period of instruction as
services are delivered to students.
BPP recognizes tuition revenue as services are provided over the
course of the program, which varies depending on the program
structure. For our remaining Apollo Global operations, tuition
revenue is recognized over the length of the course, which is
typically over a period of a semester.
For Insight Schools, we generate the majority of our tuition and
educational services revenue through long-term contracts with
school districts or
not-for-profit
organizations. The term for these contracts ranges from 5 to
10 years with provisions for renewal thereafter. We
recognize revenue under these contracts over the
88
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
period during which educational services are provided to
students, which generally commences in August or September and
ends in May or June.
Educational materials revenue relates to online course
materials delivered to students over the period of instruction.
Revenue associated with these materials is recognized pro rata
over the period of the related course to correspond with
delivery of the materials to students. Educational materials
also includes the sale of various books, study texts, course
notes, and CDs for which we recognize revenue when the materials
have been delivered to and accepted by students or other
customers.
Services revenue consists principally of the contractual
share of tuition revenue from students enrolled in IPD programs
at private colleges and universities (Client
Institutions). IPD provides program development,
administration and management consulting services to Client
Institutions to establish or expand their programs for working
learners. These services typically include degree program
design, curriculum development, market research, student
recruitment, accounting, and administrative services. IPD
typically is paid a portion of the tuition revenue generated
from these programs. IPDs contracts with its Client
Institutions generally range in length from five to ten years,
with provisions for renewal. The portion of service revenue to
which we are entitled under the terms of the contracts is
recognized as the services are provided.
Other revenue consists of the fees students pay when
submitting an enrollment application, which, along with the
related application costs associated with processing the
applications, are deferred and recognized over the average
length of time it takes for a student to complete a program of
study. Other revenue also includes non-tuition generating
revenues, such as renting classroom space and other student
support services. Revenue from these sources is recognized as
the services are provided.
Discounts reflect reductions in tuition or other revenue
including military, corporate, and other employer discounts,
grants, institutional scholarships and promotions.
Effective March 1, 2008, University of Phoenix changed its
refund policy whereby students who attend 60% or less of a
course are eligible for a refund for the portion of the course
they did not attend. Under the prior refund policy, if a student
dropped or withdrew after attending one class of a course,
University of Phoenix earned 25% of the tuition for the course,
and if they dropped or withdrew after attending two classes of a
course, University of Phoenix earned 100% of the tuition for the
course. Refunds are recorded as a reduction in deferred revenue
during the period that a student drops or withdraws from a
class. This new refund policy applies to students in most, but
not all states, as some states require different policies.
Generally, net revenue varies from period to period based on
several factors, including the aggregate number of students
attending classes, the number of classes held during the period
and the tuition price per credit hour.
Net revenue excludes applicable state and city sales taxes.
Sales tax collected from students is excluded from net revenue.
Collected but unremitted sales tax is included as a liability in
our Consolidated Balance Sheets and is not material to our
consolidated financial statements.
Concentration
of Risk
The majority of credit extended to University of Phoenix
students is paid through the students participation in
various U.S. federal financial aid programs authorized by
Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
reauthorized by the Higher Education Opportunity Act, which we
refer to as Title IV.
University of Phoenix represented approximately 95% of our
fiscal year 2009 total consolidated net revenue. A requirement
of the Higher Education Act, as reauthorized by the Higher
Education Opportunity Act, commonly referred to as the
90/10 Rule, applies only to proprietary institutions
of higher education, which includes University of Phoenix. Under
this rule, the University of Phoenix will be ineligible to
participate in Title IV programs if for any two consecutive
fiscal years it derives more than 90% of its cash
89
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
basis revenue, as defined in the rule, from Title IV
programs. An institution that derives more than 90% of its
revenue from Title IV programs for any single fiscal year
will be placed on provisional certification for two fiscal years
and will be subject to possible additional sanctions determined
to be appropriate under the circumstances by the
U.S. Department of Education in the exercise of its broad
discretion. An institution that derives more than 90% of its
revenue from Title IV programs for two consecutive fiscal
years will be ineligible to participate in Title IV
programs. University of Phoenix generated 86% of its cash basis
revenue for eligible tuition and fees during fiscal year 2009
from receipt of Title IV financial aid program funds, as
calculated under the 90/10 Rule, excluding the benefit from the
temporary relief for loan limit increases. In recent years, the
90/10 Rule percentages for the University of Phoenix have
trended closer to 90%. We expect that without changes to aspects
of our operations, the trend will continue in fiscal year 2010.
University of Phoenix is focused on implementing various
measures to reduce the percentage of its cash basis revenue
attributable to Title IV funds, including emphasizing
employer-paid and other direct-pay education programs,
encouraging students to carefully evaluate the amount of
necessary Title IV borrowing, and increasing the emphasis
on professional development and continuing education.
We maintain our cash and cash equivalents accounts in financial
institutions. Accounts at these institutions are insured by the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation up to $250,000.
The Higher Education Act, as reauthorized, specifies the manner
in which the U.S. Department of Education reviews
institutions for eligibility and certification to participate in
Title IV programs. Every educational institution involved
in Title IV programs must be certified to participate and
is required to periodically renew this certification. Please
refer to Note 18, Commitments and Contingencies, for
further discussion.
Our student receivables are not collateralized; however, credit
risk is reduced as the amount owed by any individual student is
small relative to the total student receivables and the customer
base is geographically diverse.
Allowance
for Doubtful Accounts
We reduce accounts receivable by an allowance for amounts that
may become uncollectible in the future. Estimates are used in
determining the allowance for doubtful accounts and are based on
historical collection experience and current trends. In
determining these amounts, we consider and evaluate the
historical write-offs of our receivables. We monitor our
collections and write-off experience to assess whether
adjustments are necessary. When a student with Title IV
loans withdraws from University of Phoenix or Western
International University, Title IV rules determine if we
are required to return a portion of Title IV funds to the
lenders. We are then entitled to collect these funds from the
students, but collection rates for these types of receivables is
significantly lower than our collection rates for receivables
for students who remain in our educational programs. Management
periodically evaluates the standard allowance estimation
methodology for propriety and modifies as necessary. In doing
so, we believe our allowance for doubtful accounts reflects the
most recent collections experience and is responsive to changes
in trends. Our accounts receivable are written off once the
account is deemed to be uncollectible. This typically occurs
once we have exhausted all efforts to collect the account, which
include collection attempts by our employees and outside
collection agencies. Please refer to Note 5, Accounts
Receivable, net, for further discussion.
Cash
and Cash Equivalents
We consider all highly liquid investments purchased with an
original maturity of three months or less to be cash
equivalents. Cash and cash equivalents include money market
funds, bank overnight deposits, and tax-exempt commercial paper,
which are all placed with high-credit-quality institutions in
the U.S. and internationally. We have not experienced any
losses on our cash and cash equivalents.
90
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Restricted
Cash and Cash Equivalents
The majority of our revenue is received from students who
participate in U.S. government financial aid and assistance
programs. Restricted cash and cash equivalents primarily
represents amounts received from federal and state governments
under various student aid grant and loan programs, such as
Title IV program funds, that we are required to maintain
pursuant to U.S. Department of Education and other
regulations. We also classify as restricted cash and cash
equivalents certain additional funds that we may be required to
return if a student who receives Title IV program funds
withdraws from a program. Restricted cash and cash equivalents
are not legally restricted or otherwise segregated from our
other assets. Restricted cash and cash equivalents are excluded
from cash and cash equivalents in the Consolidated Balance
Sheets and Statements of Cash Flows. Our restricted cash and
cash equivalents are primarily held in money market funds that
are invested in municipal bonds, securities issued by or
guaranteed by the U.S. government, and repurchase
agreements.
Marketable
Securities
Marketable securities consist of auction-rate securities and
municipal bonds. Auction-rate securities are investments with
interest rates that reset periodically through an auction
process. Auction-rate securities are classified as
available-for-sale
and are stated at fair value, which had historically been
consistent with amortized cost or par value due to interest
rates which reset periodically, typically between 7 and
35 days. However, beginning in mid-February 2008 and
continuing through fiscal year 2009, due to uncertainty in the
global credit and capital markets and other factors,
auction-rate securities began experiencing failed auctions
resulting in a lack of liquidity for these instruments that has
reduced the estimated fair market value for these securities
below par value. Marketable securities which we have the ability
and intent to hold until maturity are classified as
held-to-maturity
and reported at amortized cost. Marketable securities with a
maturity date greater than one year and our auction-rate
securities instruments, due to the lack of liquidity, are
classified as non-current. Interest, including the amortization
of any premium or discount, is included in interest income in
our Consolidated Statements of Income. Please refer to
Note 4, Marketable Securities, for further discussion.
Property
and Equipment, net
Property and equipment is recorded at cost less accumulated
depreciation. Property and equipment under capital leases, and
the related obligation, is recorded at an amount equal to the
present value of future minimum lease payments. Buildings,
furniture, equipment, and software, including internally
developed software, are depreciated using the straight-line
method over the estimated useful lives of the related assets,
which range from three to 40 years. Capital leases,
leasehold improvements and tenant improvement allowances are
amortized using the straight-line method over the shorter of the
lease term or the estimated useful lives of the related assets.
Construction in progress, excluding software, is recorded at
cost until the corresponding asset is placed into service and
depreciation begins. Software is recorded at cost and is
amortized once the related asset is ready for its intended use.
Maintenance and repairs are expensed as incurred.
We capitalize certain internal software development costs
consisting primarily of the direct labor associated with
creating the internally developed software. Capitalized costs
are amortized using the straight-line method over the estimated
lives of the software, not to exceed five years. Software
development projects generally include three stages: the
preliminary project stage (all costs expensed as incurred), the
application development stage (certain costs capitalized,
certain costs expensed as incurred), and the
post-implementation/operation stage (all costs expensed as
incurred). The costs capitalized in the application development
stage include the costs of designing the application, coding,
installation of hardware, and testing. We capitalize costs
incurred during the application development phase of the project
as permitted. Please refer to Note 7, Property and
Equipment, net, for further discussion.
91
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Goodwill
and Intangible Assets
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill Goodwill represents the excess of
the purchase price of an acquired business over the amount
assigned to the net assets acquired and assumed liabilities. At
the time of an acquisition, we allocate the goodwill and related
assets to our respective reporting units.
|
Goodwill is tested annually for impairment unless events occur
or circumstances change between annual tests that would more
likely than not reduce the fair value of the respective asset
below its carrying amount. We test for goodwill impairment by
applying a two-step test. In the first step, the fair value of
the reporting unit is compared to the carrying value of its net
assets. If the fair value of the reporting unit exceeds the
carrying value of the net assets of the reporting unit, goodwill
is not impaired and no further testing is required. If the
carrying value of the net assets of the reporting unit exceeds
the fair value of the reporting unit, then a second step must be
performed in order to determine the implied fair value of the
goodwill and compare it to the carrying value of the goodwill.
To determine the fair value of our reporting units, we rely
primarily on using discounted cash flow valuation methods which
requires management to make subjective judgments relating to
future cash flows based on our knowledge of the business and
current plans to operate the business, growth rates, economic
and market conditions, and applicable discount rates. An
impairment loss is recognized to the extent the implied fair
value of the goodwill is less than the carrying amount of the
goodwill.
|
|
|
|
|
Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets
Indefinite-lived intangible assets are recorded at fair
market value on their acquisition date and primarily include
trademarks and foreign regulatory accreditations and
designations as a result of the BPP, UNIACC and ULA acquisitions.
|
We assign indefinite lives to acquired trademarks,
accreditations and designations that we believe have the
continued ability to generate cash flows indefinitely; have no
legal, regulatory, contractual, economic or other factors
limiting the useful life of the respective intangible asset; and
when we intend to renew the respective trademark, accreditation
or designation and renewal can be accomplished at little cost.
Indefinite-lived intangible assets are not amortized, but rather
are tested for impairment at least annually, unless events occur
or circumstances change between annual tests that would more
likely than not reduce the fair value of the respective asset
below its carrying amount. The impairment test for
indefinite-lived intangible assets involves a comparison of the
estimated fair value of the intangible asset with its carrying
value. If the carrying value of the intangible asset exceeds its
fair value, an impairment loss is recognized in an amount equal
to that excess. To determine the fair value of these intangible
assets, we use various valuation models, such as discounted cash
flow analysis or the relief-from-royalty method. We perform our
annual indefinite-lived intangible asset impairment tests for
each reporting unit on the same dates that we perform our annual
goodwill impairment tests for the respective reporting units.
|
|
|
|
|
Finite-Lived Intangible Assets Finite-lived
intangible assets that are acquired in business combinations are
recorded at fair market value on their acquisition date and are
amortized on either a straight-line basis or using an
accelerated method to reflect the economic useful life of the
asset. The weighted average useful lives range from 2 to
15 years.
|
As further discussed below in Recent Accounting
Pronouncements, we adopted Financial Accounting Standards
Board (FASB) Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards (SFAS) No. 157, Fair Value
Measurements (SFAS 157) with respect to
using fair value measurements in the valuation techniques
associated with our annual goodwill and indefinite-lived
intangible assets impairment tests on September 1, 2009.
92
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Other
Long-Lived Asset Impairments
We evaluate the carrying amount of our major long-lived assets,
including property and equipment and finite-lived intangible
assets, whenever changes in circumstances or events indicate
that the value of such assets may not be fully recoverable. At
August 31, 2009, we believe the carrying amounts of our
long-lived assets are fully recoverable and no impairment exists.
Share-Based
Compensation
We measure and recognize compensation expense for all
share-based awards issued to faculty, employees and directors
based on estimated fair values of the share awards on the date
of grant. We record compensation expense for all share-based
awards over the vesting period.
We calculate the fair value of share-based awards on the date of
grant. For stock options, we typically use the
Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model to estimate fair
value. The Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model requires us
to estimate key assumptions such as expected term, volatility,
risk-free interest rates and dividend yield to determine the
fair value of stock options, based on both historical
information and management judgment regarding market factors and
trends. We generally use the simplified mid-point method to
estimate expected term of stock options. The simplified method
uses the mid-point between the vesting term and the contractual
term of the share option. We have analyzed the circumstances in
which the use of the simplified method is allowed, and we have
opted to use this method for stock options granted to management
in fiscal years 2009 and 2008 because the options granted in
prior fiscal years had different terms, such as contractual
lives and acceleration provisions. Thus, historical data is not
comparable in order to determine the expected term of awards. We
expect to continue to use this method until sufficient reliable
historical data is available that will enable us to estimate
expected term by a more precise method.
We amortize the share-based compensation expense over the period
that the awards are expected to vest, net of estimated
forfeiture rates. We estimate expected forfeitures of
share-based awards at the grant date and recognize compensation
cost only for those awards expected to vest. We estimate our
forfeiture rate based on several factors including historical
forfeiture activity, expected future employee turnover, and
other qualitative factors. We ultimately adjust this forfeiture
assumption to actual forfeitures. Therefore, changes in the
forfeiture assumptions do not impact the total amount of expense
ultimately recognized over the vesting period. Rather, different
forfeiture assumptions only impact the timing of expense
recognition over the vesting period. If the actual forfeitures
differ from management estimates, additional adjustments to
compensation expense are recorded. Please refer to Note 16,
Stock and Savings Plans, for further discussion.
Income
Taxes
The objectives of accounting for income taxes are to recognize
the amount of taxes payable or refundable for the current year
and deferred tax liabilities and assets for the future tax
consequences of events that have been recognized in an
entitys financial statements or tax returns. Deferred tax
assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates in
effect for the year in which those temporary differences are
expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred tax
assets and liabilities of a change in tax rates is recognized in
earnings in the period when the new rate is enacted.
We evaluate and account for uncertain tax positions using a
two-step approach. Recognition (step one) occurs when we
conclude that a tax position, based solely on its technical
merits, is more-likely-than-not to be sustained upon
examination. Measurement (step two) determines the amount of
benefit that is greater than 50% likely to be realized upon
ultimate settlement with a taxing authority that has full
knowledge of all relevant information. Derecognition of a tax
position that was previously recognized would occur when we
subsequently determine that a tax position no longer meets the
more-likely-than-not threshold of being
93
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
sustained. We do not use a valuation allowance as a substitute
for derecognition of tax positions. Please refer to
Note 13, Income Taxes, for further discussion.
Earnings
per Share
Basic income per share is calculated using the weighted average
number of Apollo Group Class A and Class B common
shares outstanding during the period. Diluted income per share
is calculated similarly except that it includes the dilutive
effect of the assumed exercise of stock options and release of
restricted stock units issuable under our stock option plans.
The amount of any tax benefit to be credited to additional
paid-in capital related to the exercise of stock options or
release of restricted stock units and unrecognized share-based
compensation expense is included when applying the treasury
stock method in the computation of diluted earnings per share.
Please refer to Note 15, Earnings Per Share, for further
discussion.
Leases
We lease substantially all of our administrative and educational
facilities, with the exception of our corporate headquarters and
several Apollo Global facilities, and we enter into various
other lease agreements in conducting our business. At the
inception of each lease, we evaluate the lease agreement to
determine whether the lease is an operating or capital lease.
Additionally, most of our lease agreements contain renewal
options, tenant improvement allowances, rent holidays,
and/or rent
escalation clauses. When such items are included in a lease
agreement, we record a deferred rent asset or liability on the
Consolidated Balance Sheets and record the rent expense evenly
over the term of the lease. Leasehold improvements are reflected
under investing activities as additions to property and
equipment on the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. Credits
received against rent for tenant improvement allowances are
reflected as a component of non-cash investing activities on the
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. Lease terms generally
range from five to ten years with one to two renewal options for
extended terms. For leases with renewal options, we record rent
expense and amortize the leasehold improvements on a
straight-line basis over the initial non-cancelable lease term
(in instances where the lease term is shorter than the economic
life of the asset) unless we intend to exercise the renewal
option. Please refer to Note 18, Commitments and
Contingencies, for further discussion.
We are also required to make additional payments under operating
lease terms for taxes, insurance, and other operating expenses
incurred during the operating lease period, which are expensed
as incurred. Rental deposits are provided for lease agreements
that specify payments in advance or deposits held in security
that are refundable, less any damages at lease end.
Selling
and Promotional Costs
We generally expense selling and promotional costs as incurred.
We expense the naming and sponsorship rights we have on a
stadium in Glendale, Arizona, which is home to the Arizona
Cardinals team in the National Football League, on a
straight-line basis annually over term of the agreement. These
naming and sponsorship rights are in effect until 2026 with
options to extend. Please refer to Note 18, Commitments and
Contingencies, for further discussion.
Start-Up
Costs
We expense costs such as advertising, marketing, temporary
services, employee relocation, and supplies related to the
start-up of
new campuses and learning centers as incurred.
Foreign
Currency Translation
The U.S. dollar is the functional currency of our entities
operating in the United States. The functional currency of our
entities operating outside the United States is the currency of
the primary economic
94
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
environment in which the entity primarily generates and expends
cash, which is generally the local currency. The assets and
liabilities of these operations are translated to
U.S. dollars using exchange rates in effect at the balance
sheet dates. Income and expense items are translated monthly at
the average exchange rate for that period. The resulting
translation adjustments and the effect of exchange rate changes
on intercompany transactions of a long-term investment nature
are included in shareholders equity as a component of
accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). We report gains
and losses from foreign exchange rate changes related to
intercompany receivables and payables that are not of a
long-term investment nature, as well as gains and losses from
foreign currency transactions in other, net in our Consolidated
Statements of Income. These items amounted to a net
$0.1 million gain, a net $2.8 million loss and zero in
fiscal years 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Fair
Value
The carrying amount of cash and cash equivalents, restricted
cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable and accounts
payable reported in the Consolidated Balance Sheets approximate
fair value because of the short-term nature of these financial
instruments.
For fair value measurements of assets and liabilities that are
recognized or disclosed at fair value on a recurring basis, we
consider fair value to be an exit price, which represents the
amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to
transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market
participants at the measurement date. As such, fair value is a
market-based measurement that should be determined based on
assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an
asset or liability. We use valuation techniques to determine
fair value consistent with either the market approach, income
approach
and/or cost
approach, and we prioritize the inputs used in our valuation
techniques using the following three-tier fair value hierarchy:
|
|
|
|
|
Level 1 Observable inputs that reflect quoted
market prices (unadjusted) for identical assets and liabilities
in active markets;
|
|
|
|
Level 2 Observable inputs, other than quoted
market prices, that are either directly or indirectly observable
in the marketplace for identical or similar assets and
liabilities, quoted prices in markets that are not active, or
other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by
observable market data for substantially the full term of the
assets and liabilities; and
|
|
|
|
Level 3 Unobservable inputs that are supported
by little or no market activity that are significant to the fair
value of assets or liabilities.
|
In measuring fair value, our valuation techniques maximize the
use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable
inputs. We use prices and inputs that are current as of the
measurement date, including during periods of market volatility.
Therefore, classification of inputs within the hierarchy may
change from period to period depending upon the observability of
those prices and inputs. Our assessment of the significance of a
particular input to the fair value measurement requires
judgment, and may affect the valuation of fair value for certain
assets and liabilities and their placement within the fair value
hierarchy. Refer to Note 9, Fair Value Measurements, for
further discussion.
Loss
Contingencies
We are subject to various claims and contingencies which are in
the scope of ordinary and routine litigation incidental to our
business, including those related to regulation, litigation,
business transactions, employee-related matters and taxes, among
others. When we become aware of a claim or potential claim, the
likelihood of any loss or exposure is assessed. If it is
probable that a loss will result and the amount of the loss can
be reasonably estimated, we record a liability for the loss. The
liability recorded includes probable and estimable legal costs
incurred to date and future legal costs to the point in the
legal matter where we believe a conclusion to the matter will be
reached. If the loss is not probable or the amount of the loss
cannot be reasonably estimated, we disclose
95
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
the claim if the likelihood of a potential loss is reasonably
possible and the amount of the potential loss could be material.
For matters where no loss contingency is recorded, our policy is
to expense legal fees as incurred. Please refer to Note 18,
Commitments and Contingencies, for further discussion.
Certain
Reclassifications
We have separately presented short-term and long-term debt on
our Consolidated Balance Sheets. The effects of this
reclassification on our August 31, 2008 Consolidated
Balance Sheets were increases in short-term borrowings and
current portion of long-term debt, and long-term debt of
$15.5 million and $15.4 million, respectively, with
offsetting decreases in other current liabilities and other
long-term liabilities.
We have separately presented interest income, interest expense
and other, net on our Consolidated Statements of Income. The
effects of this reclassification on our fiscal year 2008
Consolidated Statements of Income were the separate presentation
of $30.1 million of interest income, $3.5 million of
interest expense and $6.8 million of other, net. The
effects of this reclassification on our fiscal year 2007
Consolidated Statements of Income were the separate presentation
of $31.2 million of interest income, $0.2 million of
interest expense and $0.7 million of other, net.
Subsequent
Events
As discussed below in Recent Accounting Pronouncements,
we adopted SFAS No. 165, Subsequent Events
(SFAS 165) effective June 1, 2009. We have
evaluated events after August 31, 2009, and through
October 27, 2009, which is the date the financial
statements were issued, and determined that any events or
transactions occurring during this period that would require
recognition or disclosure are appropriately addressed in these
financial statements.
Recent
Accounting Pronouncements
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS 157, which provides
enhanced guidance for using fair value to measure assets and
liabilities. On February 12, 2008, the FASB issued FASB
Staff Position (FSP)
No. FAS 157-2,
Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157, which
provides a one year deferral of the effective date of
SFAS 157 for non-financial assets or liabilities that are
not required or permitted to be measured at fair value on a
recurring basis. Effective September 1, 2008, we partially
adopted the provisions in SFAS 157 for fair valuing
financial assets and liabilities and non-financial assets and
liabilities that are recognized or disclosed at fair value on a
recurring basis. With respect to our partial adoption of
SFAS 157, we have also considered the guidance of FSP
FAS 157-3,
Determining the Fair Value of a Financial Asset When the
Market for That Asset Is Not Active in determining the
fair value of our financial assets and liabilities. The partial
adoption of SFAS 157 did not have a material impact on our
financial condition and results of operations. Effective
September 1, 2009, we completed our full adoption of the
provisions of SFAS 157 with respect to fair valuing
non-financial assets and liabilities not measured on a recurring
basis, and we do not believe the adoption will have a material
impact on our financial condition, results of operations, and
disclosures.
In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159,
Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial
Liabilities Including an amendment of FASB Statement
No. 115 (SFAS 159). Under
SFAS 159, companies have an opportunity to use fair value
measurements in financial reporting and may choose to measure
many financial instruments and certain other items at fair
value. Effective September 1, 2008, we chose not to elect
the fair value option for our financial assets and liabilities;
therefore, adoption of SFAS 159 did not have a material
impact on our financial condition, results of operations, and
disclosures.
96
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 141
(revised 2007), Business Combinations
(SFAS 141(R)), which is a revision of
SFAS 141, Business Combinations (SFAS
141). The primary requirements of SFAS 141(R) are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
upon initially obtaining control, the acquiring entity in a
business combination must recognize 100% of the fair values of
the acquired assets, including goodwill, and assumed
liabilities, with only limited exceptions even if the acquirer
has not acquired 100% of its target as a
consequence, the current step acquisition model will be
eliminated;
|
|
|
|
contingent consideration arrangements will be fair valued at the
acquisition date and included in the purchase price
consideration the concept of recognizing contingent
consideration at a later date when the amount of that
consideration is determinable beyond a reasonable doubt, will no
longer be applicable;
|
|
|
|
for prior business combinations, adjustments for recognized
changes in acquired tax uncertainties are to be recognized in
accordance with the provisions of FASB Interpretation
No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income
Taxes An Interpretation of FASB No. 109,
and adjustments for recognized changes in the valuation
allowance for acquired deferred tax assets are to be recognized
in income tax expense in accordance with the provisions of SFAS
No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes; and
|
|
|
|
all transaction costs will be expensed as incurred.
|
In April 2009, the FASB issued FSP No. FAS 141(R)-1,
Accounting for Assets Acquired and Liabilities Assumed in
a Business Combination That Arise from Contingencies
(FSP FAS 141(R)-1). FSP FAS 141(R)-1
amends and clarifies SFAS 141(R) to address application
issues raised about the initial recognition and measurement,
subsequent measurement and accounting, and disclosure of assets
and liabilities arising from contingencies in a business
combination. SFAS 141(R) and FSP FAS 141(R)-1 apply
prospectively to business combinations for which the acquisition
date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting
period beginning on or after December 15, 2008. We adopted
SFAS 141(R) and FSP FAS 141(R)-1 on September 1,
2009. We do not expect that the adoption of SFAS 141(R) and
FSP FAS 141(R)-1 will have a material impact on our
financial condition, results of operations, and disclosures.
Deferred acquisition costs as of the adoption of
SFAS 141(R) were not significant and were expensed as of
August 31, 2009.
In December 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 160,
Non-controlling Interests in Consolidated Financial
Statements An Amendment of ARB No. 51
(SFAS 160). SFAS 160 establishes new
accounting and reporting standards for the non-controlling
interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a
subsidiary. SFAS 160 requires non-controlling interests or
minority interests to be treated as a separate component of
equity and any changes in the parents ownership interest
(in which control is retained) are to be accounted for as equity
transactions. However, a change in ownership of a consolidated
subsidiary that results in deconsolidation triggers gain or loss
recognition, with the establishment of a new fair value basis in
any remaining non-controlling ownership interests. SFAS 160
also establishes disclosure requirements that clearly identify
and distinguish between the interests of the parent and the
non-controlling interests. SFAS 160 is effective for fiscal
years beginning on or after December 15, 2008. We adopted
SFAS 160 on September 1, 2009. The adoption of
SFAS 160 will result in the reclassification of our
minority interest balance, which is $67.0 million at
August 31, 2009, to a separate component of equity. We do
not believe that the adoption of SFAS 160 will have a
further material impact on our financial condition, results of
operations, and disclosures.
In April 2008, the FASB issued FSP
No. FAS 142-3,
Determination of the Useful Life of Intangible
Assets (FSP
FAS 142-3).
FSP
FAS 142-3
amends the factors that should be considered in developing
renewal or extension assumptions used to determine the useful
life of a recognized intangible asset under
SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets (SFAS 142). The intent of the
position is to improve the consistency between the useful life
of a recognized intangible asset under SFAS 142 and the
period of expected cash flows used to measure the fair value of
the asset under SFAS No. 141(R), and other GAAP. FSP
FAS 142-3
is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15,
2008. We adopted FSP
FAS 142-3
on
97
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
September 1, 2009. We do not believe that the adoption of
FSP
FAS 142-3
will have a material impact on our financial condition, results
of operations, and disclosures.
In May 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 162, The
Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(SFAS 162). SFAS 162 identifies the
sources of accounting principles and the framework for selecting
the principles used in the preparation of financial statements
of nongovernmental entities that are presented in conformity
with GAAP. This statement was not intended to change existing
practices but rather reduce the complexity of financial
reporting. This statement was effective 60 days following
the Securities and Exchange Commissions approval of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board amendments to AU
Section 411, The Meaning of Present Fairly in
Conformity With Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Effective November 15, 2008, we adopted the provisions in
SFAS 162, which did not have an impact on our financial
condition, results of operations, or disclosures.
In June 2008, the FASB issued FSP No. Emerging Issues Task
Force (EITF)
03-6-1,
Determining Whether Instruments Granted in Share-Based
Payment Transactions Are Participating Securities
(FSP
EITF 03-6-1).
FSP
EITF 03-6-1
clarifies whether unvested share-based payment awards that
entitle holders to receive nonforfeitable dividends or dividend
equivalents (whether paid or unpaid) are considered
participating securities and should be included in the
computation of earnings per share pursuant to the two-class
method. The two-class method of computing earnings per share is
an earnings allocation formula that determines earnings per
share for each class of common stock and participating security
according to dividends declared (or accumulated) and
participation rights in undistributed earnings. FSP
EITF 03-6-1
requires retrospective application and is effective for fiscal
years beginning after December 15, 2008, and interim
periods within those years. We adopted FSP
EITF 03-6-1
on September 1, 2009. We do not expect the adoption of FSP
EITF 03-6-1
will have a material impact on our calculation of earnings per
share and related disclosures.
In April 2009, in response to the current credit crisis, the
FASB issued three new FSPs to address fair value measurement
concerns as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
FSP
No. FAS 157-4,
Determining Fair Value When the Volume and Level of
Activity for the Asset or Liability Have Significantly Decreased
and Identifying Transactions That Are Not Orderly
(FSP
FAS 157-4),
provides additional guidance on measuring the fair value of
financial instruments when market activity has decreased and
quoted prices may reflect distressed transactions;
|
|
|
|
FSP
No. FAS 115-2
and
FAS 124-2,
Recognition and Presentation of
Other-Than-Temporary
Impairments (FSP
FAS 115-2
and
124-2),
amends the
other-than-temporary
impairment guidance for debt securities. Under FSP
FAS 115-2
and 124-2,
an
other-than-temporary
impairment is now triggered when there is intent to sell the
security, it is more likely than not that the security will be
required to be sold before recovery in value, or the security is
not expected to recover the entire amortized cost basis of the
security. If an entity does not intend to sell the security,
credit related losses on debt securities that exist will be
considered an
other-than-temporary
impairment recognized in earnings, and any other losses due to a
decline in fair value relative to the amortized cost deemed not
to be
other-than-temporary
will be recorded in other comprehensive income; and
|
|
|
|
FSP
No. FAS 107-1
and APB
No. 28-1,
Interim Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial
Instruments (FSP
FAS 107-1
and APB
28-1),
expands the fair value disclosures required for financial
instruments to interim reporting periods for publicly traded
companies, including disclosure of the significant assumptions
used to estimate the fair value of those financial instruments.
|
On June 1, 2009, we adopted the provisions of
FSP 157-4
and FSP
FAS 115-2
and 124-2,
which did not have a material impact on our financial condition
and results of operations. FSP
FAS 107-1
and APB 28-1
is effective for interim financial statements on
Form 10-Q
for periods ending after June 15, 2009 and is effective for
us during our interim period ending November 30, 2009. We
do not believe that the adoption of FSP
FAS 107-1
and APB 28-1
will have a material impact on our disclosures.
98
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In May 2009, the FASB issued SFAS 165, which provides
guidance to establish general standards of accounting for and
disclosures of events that occur after the balance sheet date
but before financial statements are issued or are available to
be issued. SFAS 165 also requires entities to disclose the
date through which subsequent events were evaluated as well as
the rationale for why that date was selected. Effective
June 1, 2009, we adopted the provisions of SFAS 165.
In June 2009, the FASB issued SFAS No. 167,
Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R)
(SFAS 167), which modifies how a company
determines when an entity that is insufficiently capitalized or
is not controlled through voting (or similar rights) should be
consolidated. SFAS 167 clarifies that the determination of
whether a company is required to consolidate an entity is based
on, among other things, an entitys purpose and design and
a companys ability to direct the activities of the entity
that most significantly impact the entitys economic
performance. SFAS 167 requires an ongoing reassessment of
whether a company is the primary beneficiary of a variable
interest entity. SFAS 167 also requires additional
disclosures about a companys involvement in variable
interest entities and any significant changes in risk exposure
due to that involvement. SFAS 167 is effective for fiscal
years beginning after November 15, 2009 and is effective
for us on September 1, 2010. We are currently evaluating
the impact that the adoption of SFAS 167 will have on our
financial condition, results of operations, and disclosures.
In June 2009, the FASB issued SFAS No. 168, The
FASB Accounting Standards Codification and the Hierarchy of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles a
replacement of FASB Statement No. 162, which
establishes the FASB Accounting Standards Codification
(Codification) as the single source of authoritative
nongovernmental GAAP. The Codification does not change current
GAAP, but is intended to simplify user access to all
authoritative GAAP by providing all the authoritative literature
related to a particular topic in one place. All existing
accounting standard documents will be superseded and all other
accounting literature not included in the Codification will be
considered nonauthoritative. The Codification is effective for
interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009.
The Codification is effective for us during our interim period
ending November 30, 2009 and will not have an impact on our
financial condition or results of operations.
In October 2009, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update
(ASU)
No. 2009-13,
Revenue Recognition (Topic 605): Multiple-Deliverable
Revenue Arrangements a consensus of the FASB
Emerging Issues Task Force (ASU
2009-13),
which provides guidance on whether multiple deliverables exist,
how the arrangement should be separated, and the consideration
allocated. ASU
2009-13
requires an entity to allocate revenue in an arrangement using
estimated selling prices of deliverables if a vendor does not
have vendor-specific objective evidence or third-party evidence
of selling price. ASU
2009-13 is
effective for the first annual reporting period beginning on or
after June 15, 2010 and may be applied retrospectively for
all periods presented or prospectively to arrangements entered
into or materially modified after the adoption date. Early
adoption is permitted provided that the revised guidance is
retroactively applied to the beginning to the year of adoption.
ASU 2009-13
is effective for us on September 1, 2011. We do not believe
that the adoption of ASU
2009-13 will
have a material impact on our financial condition, results of
operations, or disclosures.
Fiscal
2009 Acquisitions
BPP
On July 30, 2009, Apollo Global, through a wholly-owned
United Kingdom subsidiary, acquired the entire issued and to be
issued ordinary share capital of BPP, a company registered in
England and Wales, for a cash purchase price of 620 pence per
share. At exchange rates on the date of the acquisition, the
purchase price for BPP, including assumed debt and transaction
related expenses, was $601.6 million. In connection with
the purchase, Apollo Global entered into a derivative
arrangement to hedge against the variability of foreign currency
exchange rate fluctuations between the U.S. Dollar and
British Pound. The derivative
99
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
arrangement, a call option on the British Pound, limited Apollo
Globals foreign currency exposure on the notional value of
£235 million (or $390.1 million) at a 1.66
U.S. Dollar to British Pound exchange rate. This
arrangement expired on July 30, 2009. To enter into this
option, Apollo Global paid a non-refundable option premium of
$6.9 million, which was recorded within other, net in our
Consolidated Statements of Income.
BPP is a provider of education and training to professionals in
the legal and finance industries and the BPP College of
Professional Studies is the first proprietary institution to
have been granted degree awarding powers in the United Kingdom.
BPP is organized into the following three divisions:
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Education, which provides exam training and sells
published products for external certification training in
accounting, tax, financial services, and actuarial
qualifications and post qualification professional development;
|
|
|
College of Professional Studies, which operates four law
schools, human resource training and a business school; and
|
|
|
Mander Portman Woodward, which operates independent fifth and
sixth form colleges (similar to preparatory schools in the U.S.).
|
BPP provides these services through schools located in the
United Kingdom, a European network of BPP offices, and the sale
of books and other publications in over 150 countries. The BPP
acquisition enables us to establish a European base where we can
leverage BPPs established brand name and education
offerings in order to service the large and growing United
Kingdom market which has strong student participation rates and
an increasing interest in online learning. The acquisition
supports our long-term strategy of capitalizing on the
significant global demand for education services.
We accounted for the BPP acquisition using the purchase method
of accounting pursuant to SFAS 141 prior to our adoption of
SFAS 141(R). To value the acquired assets and assumed
liabilities, we used the following valuation methodologies:
|
|
|
|
|
Land and buildings included in property and equipment were
valued using the market approach.
|
|
|
Trademarks were valued using the relief-from-royalty method,
which represents the benefit of owning this intangible asset
rather than paying royalties for its use.
|
|
|
All other intangible assets were valued using one of the
following methods; the income approach, specifically the cost
savings method and excess earnings method, or the replacement
cost approach.
|
|
|
Certain other long-term obligations were valued using the
discounted cash flow approach utilizing current discount rates,
cost estimates and assumptions.
|
|
|
All other net assets and liabilities carrying value approximated
fair value at the time of the acquisition.
|
In connection with the BPP acquisition, the excess of the
purchase price over the estimated fair value of the net assets
acquired resulted in recording $425.6 million of goodwill,
which is not expected to be deductible for tax purposes.
Goodwill is primarily attributable to potential strategic and
financial benefits expected to be realized associated with
future student growth and access to new markets. For goodwill
impairment testing purposes, we assigned the goodwill balance to
the Apollo Global BPP reportable segment.
A summary of the purchase price is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid
|
|
$
|
506,459
|
|
Debt assumed
|
|
|
84,306
|
|
Transaction-related costs
|
|
|
10,821
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total purchase price
|
|
$
|
601,586
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
A summary of the preliminary purchase price allocation is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
Net working capital (deficit)
|
|
$
|
(44,015
|
)
|
Property and equipment
|
|
|
90,428
|
|
Intangibles
|
|
|
191,294
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
425,638
|
|
Deferred taxes, net
|
|
|
(50,201
|
)
|
Other long-term liabilities
|
|
|
(10,553
|
)
|
Minority interest in BPP subsidiary
|
|
|
(1,005
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total allocated purchase price
|
|
|
601,586
|
|
Less: Debt assumed
|
|
|
(84,306
|
)
|
Less: Cash acquired
|
|
|
(7,214
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition, net of cash acquired
|
|
$
|
510,066
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The purchase price allocation for the BPP acquisition is
preliminary and subject to revision as we finalize the valuation
of intangible assets, property and equipment and as additional
information about the fair value of other assets and liabilities
becomes available.
A summary of the identifiable intangible assets acquired, based
on our preliminary purchase price allocation, is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
Average
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Useful Life
|
|
Finite-lived intangible assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyrights
|
|
$
|
20,891
|
|
|
5 years
|
Student relationships
|
|
|
20,049
|
|
|
3 years
|
Other
|
|
|
10,364
|
|
|
3 years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finite-lived intangible assets
|
|
|
51,304
|
|
|
|
Indefinite-lived intangible assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trademarks
|
|
|
134,068
|
|
|
indefinite
|
Accreditations and designations
|
|
|
5,922
|
|
|
indefinite
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indefinite-lived intangible assets
|
|
|
139,990
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total acquired intangible assets
|
|
$
|
191,294
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are amortizing the acquired finite-lived intangible assets on
either a straight-line basis or an accelerated basis that
reflects the economic useful life of the respective assets.
We assigned indefinite lives to the acquired trademarks and
certain accreditations and designations as we believe that each
of these intangible assets has the continued ability to generate
cash flows indefinitely. In addition, there are no legal,
regulatory, contractual, economic or other factors to limit the
useful life of these intangible assets and we intend to renew
trademarks and accreditations and designations, which can be
accomplished at little cost.
BPPs operating results are included in the consolidated
financial statements from the date of acquisition.
101
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Unaudited
Pro Forma Financial Results
The following unaudited pro forma financial results of
operations are presented as if the acquisition of BPP had been
completed at the beginning of the respective periods presented:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
($ in thousands, except per share data)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Pro forma net revenue
|
|
$
|
4,240,934
|
|
|
$
|
3,463,856
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma net income
|
|
|
616,323
|
|
|
|
479,593
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro form earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic income per share
|
|
$
|
3.91
|
|
|
$
|
2.92
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted income per share
|
|
|
3.86
|
|
|
|
2.89
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic weighted average shares outstanding
|
|
|
157,760
|
|
|
|
164,109
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted average shares outstanding
|
|
|
159,514
|
|
|
|
165,870
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The unaudited pro forma financial information is presented for
informational purposes and includes certain adjustments that are
factual and supportable, such as increased interest expense on
debt used to fund the acquisition, adjustments to depreciation
expense related to the fair value adjustment for property and
equipment, and amortization related to acquired intangible
assets, as well as the related tax effect of these adjustments.
The unaudited pro forma information is not indicative of the
results of operations that would have been achieved if the
acquisition and related borrowings had taken place at the
beginning of each of the periods presented, or of future results
of the consolidated entities.
Fiscal
2008 Acquisitions
The following table summarizes acquisitions during the fiscal
year 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
Aptimus
|
|
|
UNIACC
|
|
|
ULA
|
|
|
Tangible assets (net of acquired liabilities)
|
|
$
|
3,459
|
|
|
$
|
27,718
|
|
|
$
|
14,130
|
|
Intangible assets
|
|
|
7,600
|
|
|
|
14,607
|
|
|
|
3,937
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
37,018
|
|
|
|
2,135
|
|
|
|
17,683
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allocated purchase price
|
|
$
|
48,077
|
|
|
$
|
44,460
|
|
|
$
|
35,750
|
|
Less: Debt assumed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19,910
|
)
|
|
|
(11,000
|
)
|
Less: Cash acquired
|
|
|
(1,022
|
)
|
|
|
(1,303
|
)
|
|
|
(1,289
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition, net of cash acquired
|
|
$
|
47,055
|
|
|
$
|
23,247
|
|
|
$
|
23,461
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UNIACC
In March 2008, Apollo Global purchased 100% of UNIACC for
$44.5 million composed of cash and assumed debt, plus a
future payment based on a multiple of earnings. UNIACC is an
arts and communications university which offers bachelors
and masters programs on campuses in Chile and online. In
connection with the UNIACC acquisition, we recorded
$2.1 million of goodwill.
As noted above, the purchase of UNIACC included a future payment
based on a multiple of earnings. In January 2009, we executed an
amendment to the purchase agreement with the former owner of
UNIACC, which modified both the timing of the future payment and
the period of earnings on which the future payment calculation
is based. In the second quarter of fiscal year 2009, we recorded
the estimated obligation as an
102
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
additional purchase price adjustment increasing goodwill, as the
amount became determinable during that period. This obligation
is denominated in Chilean Pesos, which translated to
$7.1 million based on the exchange rate on the date we
recorded the obligation. During the fourth quarter of fiscal
year 2009, we paid $2.7 million of the obligation and the
remaining amount is due in June 2010.
ULA
In August 2008, Apollo Global acquired a 65% ownership interest
in ULA for $35.8 million, composed of cash and assumed
debt. ULA is an educational institution that offers degree
programs at its four campuses throughout Mexico. In connection
with the ULA acquisition, we recorded $17.7 million of
goodwill.
In July 2009, Apollo Global purchased the remaining 35% of ULA
for $11.0 million, plus a future payment based on a
multiple of earnings not to exceed $2.0 million. This
transaction was accounted for as a step acquisition in
accordance with the purchase method of accounting and resulted
in recording $7.0 million of goodwill.
Aptimus
In October 2007, we completed the acquisition of all the
outstanding common stock of online advertising company Aptimus
for $48.1 million. Prior to the acquisition, Aptimus
operated as a results-based advertising company that distributed
advertisements for direct marketing advertisers across a network
of third-party web sites. The acquisition enables us to more
effectively monitor, manage and control our marketing
investments and brands, with the goal of increasing awareness of
and access to affordable quality education. We have integrated
Aptimus as part of our corporate marketing function.
In connection with the Aptimus acquisition, we recorded
$37.0 million of goodwill. For goodwill impairment testing
purposes, we assigned the goodwill balance to our University of
Phoenix segment as Aptimus primary function is to monitor,
manage, and control University of Phoenixs marketing
investments.
Fiscal
2007 Acquisitions
Insight
Schools
In October 2006, we completed the acquisition of Insight Schools
by purchasing all of its outstanding common stock for
$15.5 million. In connection with the Insight Schools
acquisition, we recorded $12.7 million of goodwill that is
primarily attributable to potential future student growth.
|
|
Note 4.
|
Marketable
Securities
|
Marketable securities consist of the following as of August 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Current marketable securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Municipal bonds
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,060
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current marketable securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,060
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent marketable securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auction-rate securities
|
|
|
19,579
|
|
|
|
25,204
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total noncurrent marketable securities
|
|
|
19,579
|
|
|
|
25,204
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total marketable securities
|
|
$
|
19,579
|
|
|
$
|
28,264
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Auction-Rate
Securities
Auction-rate securities have historically traded on a shorter
term than the underlying debt based on an auction bid that
resets the interest rate of the security. Investments in
auction-rate securities were intended to provide liquidity in an
auction process that resets the applicable interest rate at
predetermined calendar intervals, generally between 7 and
35 days, allowing investors to either roll over their
holdings or gain immediate liquidity by selling such interests
at par value. Historically, the fair value of auction-rate
securities approximated par value due to the frequent resets
through the auction process and have rarely failed since the
investment banks and broker dealers have been willing to
purchase the security when investor demand was weak. However,
beginning in mid-February 2008 and continuing through fiscal
year 2009, due to uncertainty in the global credit and capital
markets and other factors, auction-rate securities began
experiencing failed auctions resulting in a lack of liquidity
for these instruments that has reduced the estimated fair market
value for these securities below par value.
The table below details our auction-rate securities classified
as
available-for-sale
as of August 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuous
|
|
|
Continuous
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
Unrealized Loss
|
|
|
Unrealized Loss
|
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Market
|
|
|
Position Less than
|
|
|
Position Greater
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
12 Months
|
|
|
than 12 Months
|
|
|
Available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auction-rate securities
|
|
$
|
21,850
|
|
|
$
|
(2,271
|
)
|
|
$
|
19,579
|
|
|
$
|
(650
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,621
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
21,850
|
|
|
$
|
(2,271
|
)
|
|
$
|
19,579
|
|
|
$
|
(650
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,621
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuous
|
|
|
Continuous
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
Unrealized Loss
|
|
|
Unrealized Loss
|
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Market
|
|
|
Position Less than
|
|
|
Position Greater
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
12 Months
|
|
|
than 12 Months
|
|
|
Available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auction-rate securities
|
|
$
|
26,825
|
|
|
$
|
(1,621
|
)
|
|
$
|
25,204
|
|
|
$
|
(1,621
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
26,825
|
|
|
$
|
(1,621
|
)
|
|
$
|
25,204
|
|
|
$
|
(1,621
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of August 31, 2009, we had $21.9 million of
principal invested in auction-rate securities that experienced
failed auctions. Approximately $11.9 million of our
auction-rate securities are invested in tax-exempt municipal
bond funds, which carry at least A-credit ratings for the
underlying issuer. The remaining $10.0 million are invested
in securities collateralized by federal student loans, which are
rated AAA and are guaranteed by the U.S. government. We
used a discounted cash flow model to determine the fair value of
our auction-rate securities. Please refer to Note 9, Fair
Value Measurements, for further discussion of the estimates and
unobservable inputs used in our valuation technique. Based on
our analysis, we determined that the fair value of our
auction-rate securities was $19.6 million as of
August 31, 2009.
On June 1, 2009, we adopted FSP
FAS 115-2
and 124-2,
which amended the
other-than-temporary
impairment model for debt securities. FSP
FAS 115-2
and 124-2
requires an entity to recognize an
other-than-temporary
impairment in earnings if an investor has the intent to sell the
debt security or if it is more likely than not that the investor
will be required to sell the debt security before recovery of
its amortized cost basis. Additionally, even if we do not expect
to sell a debt security, we must evaluate expected cash flows to
be received and determine if credit related losses on debt
securities exist, which are considered to be an
other-than-temporary
impairment recognized in earnings. Upon adoption of
FSP 115-2
and 124-2,
we determined that credit related losses with respect to our
auction-rate securities were insignificant. Therefore, upon
adoption, we did not recognize credit related losses in earnings
and no adjustments were made to the
104
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
cumulative net unrealized loss of $2.3 million
($1.4 million after-tax) included in accumulated other
comprehensive loss in our Consolidated Balance Sheets. We
consider several factors to differentiate between temporary
impairment and
other-than-temporary
impairment including the projected future cash flows, credit
quality of the issuers and of the underlying collateral, as well
as the other factors as further described in Note 9, Fair
Value Measurements.
As maturity dates for our auction rate securities range from
2018 to 2040, we have continued to classify the entire balance
of our auction-rate securities as non-current marketable
securities due to the lack of liquidity of these instruments and
our continuing inability to determine when these investments
will settle.
We will continue to monitor our investment portfolio. Given the
uncertainties in the global credit and capital markets, we are
no longer investing in auction-rate securities instruments at
this time, which may contribute to reduced investment income in
the future. We will also continue to evaluate any changes in the
market value of the failed auction-rate securities that have not
been liquidated and depending upon existing market conditions,
we may be required to recognize additional impairment charges in
the future.
The cost of liquidated securities is based on the specific
identification method. During fiscal years 2009, 2008 and 2007,
none of our auction-rate securities have been liquidated below
par value, and thus no realized gains or losses have been
recognized.
Municipal
Bonds
At August 31, 2009, we did not have any municipal bonds. At
August 31, 2008, municipal bonds classified as
held-to-maturity
securities represent debt obligations issued by states, cities,
counties, and other governmental entities, which earn federally
tax-exempt interest. We have the ability and intention to hold
municipal bonds until maturity and therefore classified these
investments as
held-to-maturity,
reported at amortized cost. During fiscal years 2009, 2008 and
2007, municipal bonds matured at par value and, thus, no
realized gains or losses have been recorded in connection with
liquidating these investments.
Marketable securities are exposed to various risks and rewards,
such as interest rate, market and credit risk. Due to the risks
and rewards associated with marketable security investments, it
is possible that changes in the values of these investments may
occur and that such changes could affect the amounts reported in
the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
|
|
Note 5.
|
Accounts
Receivable, net
|
Accounts receivable, net consist of the following as of August
31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Student accounts receivable
|
|
$
|
380,226
|
|
|
$
|
279,841
|
|
Less allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
(110,420
|
)
|
|
|
(78,362
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net student accounts receivable
|
|
|
269,806
|
|
|
|
201,479
|
|
Other receivables
|
|
|
28,464
|
|
|
|
20,440
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accounts receivable, net
|
|
$
|
298,270
|
|
|
$
|
221,919
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student accounts receivable is composed primarily of amounts due
related to tuition.
Bad debt expense is included in instructional costs and services
in our Consolidated Statements of Income. Please refer to
Note 2, Significant Accounting Policies, for further
discussion of our related accounting policy.
105
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table summarizes the activity in the related
allowance for doubtful accounts for the fiscal years 2009, 2008
and 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Beginning allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$
|
78,362
|
|
|
$
|
99,818
|
|
|
$
|
65,184
|
|
Provision for uncollectible accounts receivable
|
|
|
152,490
|
|
|
|
104,201
|
|
|
|
120,614
|
|
Write-offs, net of recoveries
|
|
|
(120,432
|
)
|
|
|
(125,657
|
)
|
|
|
(85,980
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$
|
110,420
|
|
|
$
|
78,362
|
|
|
$
|
99,818
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have experienced a decline in our collection rates for older
receivables, which we believe is principally due to the current
economic downturn. This has resulted in an increase in our
provision for uncollectible accounts receivable in fiscal year
2009 compared to fiscal year 2008.
Other assets consist of the following as of August 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Prepaid expenses
|
|
$
|
38,126
|
|
|
$
|
21,789
|
|
Related party receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,762
|
|
Textbook inventories, deposits and other
|
|
|
11,382
|
|
|
|
10,196
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other assets
|
|
|
49,508
|
|
|
|
49,747
|
|
Less current portion
|
|
|
(35,517
|
)
|
|
|
(21,780
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term other assets
|
|
$
|
13,991
|
|
|
$
|
27,967
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The related party receivable represents a promissory note due
from Dr. John G. Sperling that was repaid during fiscal
year 2009. Please refer to Note 17, Related Person
Transactions, for further discussion.
|
|
Note 7.
|
Property
and Equipment, net
|
Property and equipment, net consist of the following as of
August 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Furniture and equipment
|
|
$
|
303,872
|
|
|
$
|
330,481
|
|
Land
|
|
|
44,045
|
|
|
|
30,331
|
|
Buildings
|
|
|
198,152
|
|
|
|
157,010
|
|
Leasehold improvements
|
|
|
142,210
|
|
|
|
105,741
|
|
Tenant improvement allowances
|
|
|
114,140
|
|
|
|
104,901
|
|
Internally developed software
|
|
|
75,772
|
|
|
|
59,354
|
|
Software
|
|
|
67,532
|
|
|
|
71,103
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
(407,803
|
)
|
|
|
(434,805
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciable property and equipment, net
|
|
|
537,920
|
|
|
|
424,116
|
|
Construction in progress
|
|
|
19,587
|
|
|
|
15,019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property and equipment, net
|
|
$
|
557,507
|
|
|
$
|
439,135
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
106
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following amounts, which are included in the above table,
relate to property and equipment leased under capital leases as
of August 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Buildings
|
|
$
|
6,082
|
|
|
$
|
7,038
|
|
Furniture and equipment
|
|
|
4,459
|
|
|
|
2,090
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
(4,342
|
)
|
|
|
(2,546
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
6,199
|
|
|
$
|
6,582
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense, net of the amortization of tenant
improvement allowances, was $90.6 million,
$75.0 million and $68.4 million for fiscal years 2009,
2008 and 2007, respectively. Included in these amounts is
depreciation of capitalized internally developed software of
$12.5 million, $7.9 million and $4.3 million for
the fiscal years 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Additionally, we recorded a loss of $9.4 million in fiscal
year 2009 that is included in general and administrative
expenses on our Consolidated Statements of Income for the
write-off of information technology fixed assets resulting
primarily from our rationalization of software.
|
|
Note 8.
|
Goodwill
and Intangible Assets
|
Changes in the carrying amount of goodwill by reportable segment
during fiscal years 2009 and 2008 are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apollo Global
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insight
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Total
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
Phoenix
|
|
|
BPP
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Schools
|
|
|
Schools
|
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
Goodwill as of August 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
12,742
|
|
|
$
|
16,891
|
|
|
$
|
29,633
|
|
Goodwill acquired
|
|
|
37,018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,818
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56,836
|
|
Currency translation adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(501
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(501
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill as of August 31, 2008
|
|
|
37,018
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,317
|
|
|
|
12,742
|
|
|
|
16,891
|
|
|
|
85,968
|
|
Goodwill acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
425,638
|
|
|
|
6,973
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
432,611
|
|
UNIACC earn-out consideration
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,135
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,135
|
|
Purchase price allocation adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,110
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,110
|
|
Currency translation adjustment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,802
|
)
|
|
|
(3,664
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,466
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill as of August 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
37,018
|
|
|
$
|
421,836
|
|
|
$
|
33,871
|
|
|
$
|
12,742
|
|
|
$
|
16,891
|
|
|
$
|
522,358
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill represents the excess of the purchase price over the
amount assigned to the net assets acquired and liabilities
assumed. Any changes in the fair value of the net assets of
acquired companies will change the amount of the purchase price
allocable to goodwill. During fiscal year 2009, additions to
goodwill primarily included the following (for further
discussion of each of these items, refer to Note 3,
Acquisitions):
|
|
|
|
|
$425.6 million at our Apollo Global BPP segment
from Apollo Globals acquisition of BPP completed on
July 30, 2009;
|
|
|
$7.0 million at our Apollo Global Other segment
from Apollo Globals acquisition of the minority interest
in ULA completed on June 29, 2009;
|
|
|
$7.1 million addition to UNIACCs goodwill, which is
included in our Apollo Global - Other segment, for an earn-out
payment as the obligation amount and timing became determinable
during fiscal year 2009; and
|
|
|
$4.1 million in purchase price allocation adjustments
primarily related to Apollo Globals acquisition of ULA as
additional information about the valuation of certain acquired
assets and liabilities became available during fiscal year 2009.
The related purchase price allocation was preliminary as the
acquisition was completed in August 2008.
|
107
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Goodwill acquired during fiscal year 2008 included the following:
|
|
|
|
|
$37.0 million at our University of Phoenix segment from our
Aptimus acquisition completed in October 2007;
|
|
|
$2.1 million at our Apollo Global Other segment
from Apollo Globals acquisition of UNIACC completed in
March 2008; and
|
|
|
$17.7 million at our Apollo Global Other
segment from Apollo Globals acquisition of ULA completed
in August 2008.
|
Intangible assets consist of the following as of August 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
Acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of Foreign
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of Foreign
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
Currency
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Translation Loss
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Amortization
|
|
|
Translation Loss
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Finite-lived intangible assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student and customer relationships
|
|
$
|
26,515
|
|
|
$
|
(4,224
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,282
|
)
|
|
$
|
21,009
|
|
|
$
|
7,670
|
|
|
$
|
(1,208
|
)
|
|
$
|
(543
|
)
|
|
$
|
5,919
|
|
Copyrights
|
|
|
20,891
|
|
|
|
(488
|
)
|
|
|
(198
|
)
|
|
|
20,205
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
23,317
|
|
|
|
(5,233
|
)
|
|
|
(1,117
|
)
|
|
|
16,967
|
|
|
|
13,831
|
|
|
|
(2,671
|
)
|
|
|
(563
|
)
|
|
|
10,597
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total finite-lived intangible assets
|
|
|
70,723
|
|
|
|
(9,945
|
)
|
|
|
(2,597
|
)
|
|
|
58,181
|
|
|
|
21,501
|
|
|
|
(3,879
|
)
|
|
|
(1,106
|
)
|
|
|
16,516
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indefinite-lived intangible assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trademarks
|
|
|
140,797
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,441
|
)
|
|
|
138,356
|
|
|
|
5,825
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(539
|
)
|
|
|
5,286
|
|
Accreditations and designations
|
|
|
7,456
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(322
|
)
|
|
|
7,134
|
|
|
|
1,459
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(165
|
)
|
|
|
1,294
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total indefinite-lived intangible assets
|
|
|
148,253
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,763
|
)
|
|
|
145,490
|
|
|
|
7,284
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(704
|
)
|
|
|
6,580
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total intangible assets, net
|
|
$
|
218,976
|
|
|
$
|
(9,945
|
)
|
|
$
|
(5,360
|
)
|
|
$
|
203,671
|
|
|
$
|
28,785
|
|
|
$
|
(3,879
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,810
|
)
|
|
$
|
23,096
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finite-lived intangible assets are amortized on either a
straight-line basis or using an accelerated method to reflect
the economic useful life of the asset. The weighted average
useful lives range from 2 to 15 years. Amortization expense
for intangible assets for fiscal years 2009, 2008 and 2007 was
$9.3 million, $3.4 million and $0.4 million,
respectively.
Estimated future amortization expense of intangible assets is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
$
|
26,131
|
|
2011
|
|
|
15,728
|
|
2012
|
|
|
9,163
|
|
2013
|
|
|
4,534
|
|
2014
|
|
|
1,527
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
1,098
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total estimated amortization expense
|
|
$
|
58,181
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated future amortization expense may vary as acquisitions
and dispositions occur in the future, purchase price allocations
are finalized and as a result of foreign currency translation
adjustments.
108
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
At August 31, 2009, our CFFP reporting unit had goodwill of
approximately $15.3 million, which is included in the Other
Schools reportable segment. The economic downturn has caused the
demand for CFFPs financial planning education programs and
materials to diminish throughout fiscal year 2009 because
CFFPs primary customers come from the financial services
industry. Accordingly, we performed interim goodwill impairment
tests as of November 30, 2008, February 28, 2009 and
May 31, 2009 and evaluated and determined that the CFFP
goodwill balance was not impaired. As of August 31, 2009,
we performed our annual goodwill impairment test of CFFP using a
consistent methodology as our previous interim tests and
determined that the fair value of the CFFP reporting unit
continued to exceed the carrying value of its net assets by a
narrow margin.
At August 31, 2009, our Insight Schools reporting unit had
goodwill of approximately $12.7 million. Insight Schools
has encountered a number of administrative challenges in its
compliance activities in the course of expanding its business.
These challenges and
start-up
expenses have limited its growth rate and resulted in decreased
revenue and increased operating expenses. We considered this
factor in our annual goodwill impairment test of Insight Schools
and determined that the goodwill balance is not impaired.
Subsequent to our 2009 fiscal year end, we decided to explore
the sale of Insight Schools. There is no assurance that we will
be able to sell these operations on terms acceptable to us or at
all. In addition to the costs incurred in connection with such a
disposition, we may realize a loss on sale. If we are unable to
dispose of these operations on terms acceptable to us, we may
decide to continue providing some or all of the services now
provided by Insight Schools under its service contracts for the
remainder of the terms of such contracts, which have remaining
terms of 1 to 9 years.
During fiscal years 2009, 2008 and 2007, we performed annual
impairment tests on all applicable goodwill and indefinite-lived
intangible assets and these tests resulted in no impairment
charges. Please refer to Note 2, Significant Accounting
Policies, for our policy and methodology for evaluating
potential impairment of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible
assets.
|
|
Note 9.
|
Fair
Value Measurements
|
Assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring
basis consist of the following as of August 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements at Reporting Date Using
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted Prices in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Markets for
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identical Assets/
|
|
|
Significant Other
|
|
|
Significant
|
|
|
|
August 31,
|
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
Observable Inputs
|
|
|
Unobservable Inputs
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
(Level 1)
|
|
|
(Level 2)
|
|
|
(Level 3)
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash equivalents (including restricted cash equivalents):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Money market funds
|
|
$
|
1,400,550
|
|
|
$
|
1,400,550
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Marketable securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auction-rate securities
|
|
|
19,579
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,579
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets:
|
|
$
|
1,420,129
|
|
|
$
|
1,400,550
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
19,579
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swap
|
|
$
|
3,542
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,542
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities:
|
|
$
|
3,542
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,542
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
109
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In accordance with SFAS 157, we measure our money market
funds included in cash and restricted cash equivalents,
auction-rate securities included in marketable securities and
interest rate swap included in other liabilities at fair value.
|
|
|
|
|
Money market funds Classified within
Level 1 and were valued primarily using real-time quotes
for transactions in active exchange markets involving identical
assets.
|
|
|
|
Auction-rate securities Classified within
Level 3 due to the illiquidity of the market and were
valued using a discounted cash flow model that encompassed
significant unobservable inputs to determine probabilities of
default and timing of auction failure, probabilities of a
successful auction at par
and/or
repurchase at par value for each auction period,
collateralization of the underlying security and credit
worthiness of the issuer. The assumptions used to prepare the
discounted cash flows include estimates for interest rates,
credit spreads, timing and amount of cash flows, liquidity
premiums, expected holding periods and default risk. These
assumptions are subject to change as the underlying data sources
and market conditions evolve. Additionally, as the market for
auction-rate securities continues to be inactive, our discounted
cash flow model also factored the illiquidity of the
auction-rate securities market by adding a spread of 450 to
500 basis points to the applicable discount rate.
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swap We acquired the interest
rate swap in connection with the BPP acquisition. The swap has a
notional amount of £30.0 million ($48.9 million)
used to minimize the interest rate exposure on a portion of
BPPs variable rate debt. The interest rate swap is used to
fix the variable interest rate on the associated debt. The swap
is classified within Level 2 and is valued using readily
available pricing sources which utilize market observable inputs
including the current variable interest rate for similar types
of instruments.
|
At August 31, 2009, the carrying value of our debt,
excluding capital leases, was $581.3 million. Substantially
all of our debt is variable interest rate and the carrying
amount approximates fair value.
We did not significantly change our valuation techniques
associated with fair value measurements from prior periods.
Additionally, we did not have any non-recurring fair value
measurements during the period that required disclosure.
Changes in the assets measured at fair value on a recurring
basis using significant unobservable inputs
(Level 3) during the year ended August 31, 2009
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at August 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
25,204
|
|
Net unrealized loss in other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
(1,368
|
)
|
Reversal of unrealized loss on redemptions
|
|
|
718
|
|
Redemptions at par value
|
|
|
(4,975
|
)
|
Transfers in (out) of Level 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at August 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
19,579
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net unrealized gains (losses) included in earnings related to
assets held as of August 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 10.
|
Accrued
Liabilities
|
Accrued liabilities consist of the following as of August 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Estimated litigation loss
|
|
$
|
80,500
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Salaries, wages, and benefits
|
|
|
76,583
|
|
|
|
39,381
|
|
Accrued advertising
|
|
|
35,974
|
|
|
|
31,780
|
|
Accrued professional fees
|
|
|
25,287
|
|
|
|
22,534
|
|
Student refunds, grants and scholarships
|
|
|
11,287
|
|
|
|
12,658
|
|
Other accrued liabilities
|
|
|
38,787
|
|
|
|
14,847
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total accrued liabilities
|
|
$
|
268,418
|
|
|
$
|
121,200
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please refer to Note 18, Commitments and Contingencies, for
discussion of the estimated litigation loss. Salaries, wages,
and benefits represent amounts due to employees, faculty and
third parties for salaries, bonuses, vacation pay, and health
insurance. Accrued advertising represents amounts due for
Internet marketing, direct mail campaigns, and print and
broadcast advertising. Accrued professional fees represent
amounts due to third parties for outsourced student financial
aid processing and other accrued professional and legal
obligations. Student refunds, grants and scholarships represent
amounts due to students for tuition refunds, federal and state
grants payable, scholarships, and other related items. Other
accrued liabilities primarily includes sales and business taxes,
facilities costs such as rent and utilities, and certain accrued
purchases.
Debt and short-term borrowings consist of the following as of
August 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Bank Facility, see terms below
|
|
$
|
495,608
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Capital lease obligations
|
|
|
7,763
|
|
|
|
7,771
|
|
Other, interest rates ranging from 1.2% to 10.4% with various
maturities from 2010 to 2019
|
|
|
85,695
|
|
|
|
23,145
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt
|
|
|
589,066
|
|
|
|
30,916
|
|
Less short-term borrowings and current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
(461,365
|
)
|
|
|
(15,488
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
$
|
127,701
|
|
|
$
|
15,428
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate debt maturities for each of the years ended August 31
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
$
|
461,365
|
|
2011
|
|
|
3,329
|
|
2012
|
|
|
10,924
|
|
2013
|
|
|
104,875
|
|
2014
|
|
|
1,350
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
7,223
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
589,066
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On January 4, 2008, we entered into a syndicated
$500 million credit agreement (the Bank
Facility). The Bank Facility is an unsecured revolving
credit facility used for general corporate purposes including
acquisitions and stock buybacks. The Bank Facility has an
expansion feature for an aggregate principal amount
111
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
of up to $250 million. The term is five years and will
expire on January 4, 2013. The Bank Facility provides a
multi-currency
sub-limit
facility for borrowings in certain specified foreign currencies
up to $300 million.
We borrowed our entire credit line under the Bank Facility as of
August 31, 2009, which included £63.0 million
denominated in British Pounds related to the BPP acquisition. We
have classified the U.S. dollar denominated debt on our
Bank Facility of $393 million within short-term borrowings
and current portion of long-term debt on our Consolidated
Balance Sheets as it has been repaid subsequent to
August 31, 2009.
The Bank Facility fees are determined based on a pricing grid
that varies according to our leverage ratio. The Bank Facility
fee ranges from 12.5 to 17.5 basis points and the
incremental fees for borrowings under the facility range from
LIBOR + 50.0 to 82.5 basis points. The weighted average
interest rate on outstanding borrowings under the Bank Facility
at August 31, 2009 was 1.0%.
The Bank Facility contains affirmative and negative covenants,
including the following financial covenants: maximum leverage
ratio, minimum coverage interest and rent expense ratio, and a
U.S. Department of Education financial responsibility
composite score. In addition, there are covenants restricting
indebtedness, liens, investments, asset transfers and
distributions.
Other debt includes $72.1 million of variable rate debt and
$13.6 million of fixed rate debt at the subsidiaries of
Apollo Global. The weighted average interest rate of these debt
instruments at August 31, 2009 was 2.8%.
Please refer to Note 9, Fair Value Measurements, for
discussion of the fair value of our debt.
|
|
Note 12.
|
Other
Liabilities
|
Other liabilities consist of the following as of August 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Deferred rent and other lease incentives
|
|
$
|
71,579
|
|
|
$
|
72,512
|
|
Reserve for uncertain tax positions
|
|
|
97,619
|
|
|
|
55,319
|
|
Other
|
|
|
64,838
|
|
|
|
34,376
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other liabilities
|
|
|
234,036
|
|
|
|
162,207
|
|
Less current portion
|
|
|
(133,887
|
)
|
|
|
(31,740
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other long-term liabilities
|
|
$
|
100,149
|
|
|
$
|
130,467
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred rent and other lease incentives represent amounts
included in lease agreements and are amortized on a
straight-line basis over the term of the leases. Refer to
Note 13, Income Taxes, for discussion of our uncertain tax
positions.
Geographic sources of income (loss) before income taxes and
minority interests are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$
|
1,058,592
|
|
|
$
|
790,133
|
|
|
$
|
658,884
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
(18,777
|
)
|
|
|
(7,279
|
)
|
|
|
(1,587
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income (loss) before income taxes and minority
interests
|
|
$
|
1,039,815
|
|
|
$
|
782,854
|
|
|
$
|
657,297
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
112
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Income tax expense (benefit) consists of the following for
fiscal years 2009, 2008 and 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Current:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
$
|
369,513
|
|
|
$
|
271,434
|
|
|
$
|
253,048
|
|
State
|
|
|
91,296
|
|
|
|
51,894
|
|
|
|
42,294
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
(1,025
|
)
|
|
|
786
|
|
|
|
665
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current
|
|
|
459,784
|
|
|
|
324,114
|
|
|
|
296,007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
|
(8,916
|
)
|
|
|
(15,328
|
)
|
|
|
(43,236
|
)
|
State
|
|
|
(4,906
|
)
|
|
|
(1,859
|
)
|
|
|
(4,076
|
)
|
Foreign
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(208
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred
|
|
|
(13,799
|
)
|
|
|
(17,187
|
)
|
|
|
(47,520
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total provision for income taxes
|
|
$
|
445,985
|
|
|
$
|
306,927
|
|
|
$
|
248,487
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets and liabilities result primarily from
temporary differences in book versus tax basis accounting.
Deferred tax assets and liabilities consist of the following as
of August 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Gross deferred tax assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$
|
42,602
|
|
|
$
|
30,936
|
|
Deferred rent
|
|
|
8,950
|
|
|
|
7,647
|
|
Deferred tenant improvement allowances
|
|
|
15,087
|
|
|
|
16,080
|
|
Net operating loss carry-forward
|
|
|
14,332
|
|
|
|
6,277
|
|
Reserves
|
|
|
39,686
|
|
|
|
13,822
|
|
Share-based compensation
|
|
|
62,784
|
|
|
|
66,070
|
|
Other
|
|
|
22,619
|
|
|
|
16,155
|
|
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
(11,447
|
)
|
|
|
(3,245
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross deferred tax assets
|
|
|
194,613
|
|
|
|
153,742
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross deferred tax liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed assets
|
|
|
35,795
|
|
|
|
2,909
|
|
Intangible assets
|
|
|
54,399
|
|
|
|
2,222
|
|
Other
|
|
|
5,779
|
|
|
|
6,421
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross deferred tax liabilities
|
|
|
95,973
|
|
|
|
11,552
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred income taxes
|
|
$
|
98,640
|
|
|
$
|
142,190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During fiscal year 2009, the valuation allowance increased by
$8.2 million primarily as a result of an increase in net
operating losses of Apollo Global and certain foreign
subsidiaries. We have recorded a valuation allowance related to
these net operating losses and our foreign tax credit
carry-forwards, as it is more likely than not that these
carry-forwards will expire unutilized. In light of our history
of profitable operations, management has concluded that it is
more likely than not that we will ultimately realize the full
benefit of our deferred tax assets other than the items
mentioned above. Accordingly, we believe that a valuation
allowance should not be recorded for our remaining net deferred
tax assets.
113
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
As of August 31, 2009, we have foreign tax credits of
$2.1 million included in other in the above table. These
credits will begin to expire August 31, 2013.
We have U.S. net operating losses of $26.3 million
that will begin to expire August 31, 2021. In addition, we
have $16.1 million of net operating and capital losses in
various foreign jurisdictions of which $10.5 million of
these foreign losses will begin to expire on August 31,
2027. The remainder of these losses do not expire. These amounts
represent the net operating loss carry-forward in the above
table.
We have not provided deferred taxes on unremitted earnings
attributable to international companies that have been
considered to be permanently reinvested. As of August 31,
2009, any earnings related to the operations of these foreign
subsidiaries are not considered to be significant. It is not
currently practicable to determine the amount of liability, if
any, that would exist if such earnings were not permanently
reinvested.
We exercise significant judgment in determining our income tax
provision due to transactions, credits and calculations where
the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. The following is a
tabular reconciliation of the total amount of unrecognized tax
benefits, excluding interest and penalties, at the beginning and
the end of the period for fiscal year 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at September 1, 2007
|
|
$
|
36,453
|
|
Additions for tax positions taken in prior years
|
|
|
|
|
Settlement with tax authorities
|
|
|
|
|
Reductions for tax positions of prior years
|
|
|
|
|
Reductions due to lapse of applicable statute of limitations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at August 31, 2008
|
|
|
36,453
|
|
Additions based on tax positions taken in the current year
|
|
|
41,440
|
|
Additions for tax positions taken in prior years
|
|
|
3,007
|
|
Additions related to acquisition
|
|
|
4,289
|
|
Settlement with tax authorities
|
|
|
|
|
Reductions for tax positions of prior years
|
|
|
|
|
Reductions due to lapse of applicable statute of limitations
|
|
|
(328
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at August 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
84,861
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In fiscal year 2009, we accrued $80.5 million as an
estimated litigation loss. The deductibility of a portion of
this charge is currently uncertain, and so we did not recognize
a tax benefit for a portion of the charge recorded in fiscal
year 2009. Our unrecognized tax benefits were also increased in
fiscal year 2009 for an uncertainty related to allocation and
apportionment of income among various states.
We classify interest and penalties related to uncertain tax
positions as a component of provision for income taxes in our
Consolidated Statements of Income. We recognized
$4.4 million and $3.9 million of interest and
penalties in the Consolidated Statements of Income for fiscal
years 2009 and 2008, respectively. The total amount of interest
and penalties included in our Consolidated Balance Sheets is
$23.2 million and $18.8 million as of August 31,
2009 and August 31, 2008 respectively.
We have included $85.7 million, inclusive of interest and
penalties, of our uncertain tax liability in the current portion
of long-term liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets
because we believe that it is reasonably possible that this
portion of our uncertain tax liability could be resolved or
settled within the next 12 months. The current portion of
our uncertain tax liabilities primarily relates to certain
deductions taken that may be subject to Internal Revenue Code
Section 162(m), and allocation and apportionment of income
114
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
amongst the various states in which we operate. Our remaining
uncertain tax positions and related accrued interest and
penalties are included in other long-term liabilities in our
Consolidated Balance Sheets.
As of August 31, 2009, $55.8 million of our total
unrecognized tax benefits would favorably affect our effective
tax rate, if recognized. However, if amounts accrued are less
than amounts ultimately assessed by the taxing authorities, we
would record additional income tax expense in our Consolidated
Statements of Income.
Our U.S. federal tax years and various state tax years from
2003 remain subject to income tax examinations by tax
authorities. In addition, tax years from 2006 related to our
foreign taxing jurisdictions also remain subject to examination.
The provision for income taxes differs from the tax computed
using the statutory U.S. federal income tax rate as a
result of the following items for fiscal years 2009, 2008 and
2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Statutory U.S. federal income tax rate
|
|
|
35.0
|
%
|
|
|
35.0
|
%
|
|
|
35.0
|
%
|
State income taxes, net of federal benefit
|
|
|
5.1
|
%
|
|
|
4.1
|
%
|
|
|
3.6
|
%
|
Non-deductible compensation
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.5
|
%
|
Tax-exempt interest
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)%
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)%
|
|
|
(1.4
|
)%
|
Foreign taxes
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
Estimated litigation loss
|
|
|
1.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Other, net
|
|
|
0.9
|
%
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective income tax rate
|
|
|
42.9
|
%
|
|
|
39.2
|
%
|
|
|
37.8
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An audit relating to our U.S. federal income tax returns
for fiscal years 2003 through 2005 commenced in September 2006.
In February 2009, the Internal Revenue Service issued an
examination report and proposed to disallow deductions relating
to stock option compensation in excess of the limitations of
Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m). Under
Section 162(m), the amount of such deduction per covered
executive officer is limited to $1.0 million per year,
except to the extent the compensation qualifies as
performance-based. Compensation attributable to options with
revised measurement dates may not have qualified as
performance-based compensation. The Internal Revenue Service
examination report also proposed the additions of penalties and
interest. The proposed adjustments, including penalties and
interest, are consistent with our prior accruals relating to
this issue. In addition, we expensed an additional
$2.4 million in fiscal year 2009 related to interest, for a
total accrual of $50.0 million as of August 31, 2009
with respect to this uncertain tax position for the taxable
years 2003 through 2006. On March 6, 2009, we commenced
administrative proceedings with the Office of Appeals of the
Internal Revenue Service challenging the proposed adjustments,
including penalties and interest. We believe this matter will be
settled within 12 months and the accrual is now classified
as short-term. In October of 2009, we reached an agreement in
principle subject to negotiation of final documentation with the
Internal Revenue Service Office of Appeals to settle this matter
for less than the $50 million we have accrued at
August 31, 2009. The settlement, when finalized, will
result in a reduction in the amount currently accrued and a
related decrease in our effective tax rate for a portion of that
reduced accrual.
During the third quarter of 2009, we were notified by the
Internal Revenue Service that our tax returns for the years
ended in 2006, 2007, and 2008 have been selected for
examination. This audit commenced during the fourth quarter. In
addition, we are subject to numerous ongoing audits by state,
local, and foreign tax authorities. Although we believe our tax
accruals to be reasonable, the final determination of tax audits
in the U.S. or abroad and any related litigation could be
materially different from our historical income tax provisions
and accruals. The result of an audit or litigation could have a
material effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows.
115
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 14.
|
Stockholders
Equity
|
Treasury
Stock
Shares of Apollo Group Class A common stock newly
authorized for repurchase, repurchased and reissued, and the
related total cost, for the last three fiscal years are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum Value
|
|
|
|
Total Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Price
|
|
|
of Shares
|
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paid per
|
|
|
Available for
|
|
(Numbers in thousands, except per share data)
|
|
Repurchased
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Share
|
|
|
Repurchase
|
|
|
Treasury stock as of August 31, 2006
|
|
|
15,449
|
|
|
$
|
1,054,046
|
|
|
$
|
68.23
|
|
|
$
|
136,092
|
|
New authorizations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
363,908
|
|
Shares repurchased under repurchase program
|
|
|
7,167
|
|
|
|
437,735
|
|
|
|
61.08
|
|
|
|
(437,735
|
)
|
Shares reissued
|
|
|
(453
|
)
|
|
|
(30,413
|
)
|
|
|
67.31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treasury stock as of August 31, 2007
|
|
|
22,163
|
|
|
|
1,461,368
|
|
|
|
65.94
|
|
|
|
62,265
|
|
New authorizations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
892,097
|
|
Shares repurchased under repurchase program
|
|
|
9,824
|
|
|
|
454,362
|
|
|
|
46.25
|
|
|
|
(454,362
|
)
|
Shares reissued
|
|
|
(2,451
|
)
|
|
|
(158,453
|
)
|
|
|
64.65
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treasury stock as of August 31, 2008
|
|
|
29,536
|
|
|
|
1,757,277
|
|
|
|
59.50
|
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
New authorizations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
444,382
|
|
Shares repurchased under repurchase program
|
|
|
7,212
|
|
|
|
444,382
|
|
|
|
61.62
|
|
|
|
(444,382
|
)
|
Other share repurchases(1)
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
8,105
|
|
|
|
68.11
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares reissued
|
|
|
(3,121
|
)
|
|
|
(187,141
|
)
|
|
|
59.96
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treasury stock as of August 31, 2009
|
|
|
33,746
|
|
|
$
|
2,022,623
|
|
|
$
|
59.94
|
|
|
$
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
In connection with the release of vested shares of restricted
stock, we repurchased approximately 119,000 shares for
$8.1 million related to tax withholding requirements on
these restricted stock units during the fiscal year 2009. We did
not have any such repurchases during fiscal years 2008 and 2007.
These repurchase transactions do not fall under the repurchase
program described below, and therefore do not reduce the amount
that is available for repurchase under that program. |
Our Board of Directors has authorized us to repurchase
outstanding shares of Apollo Group Class A common stock,
from time to time, depending on market conditions and other
considerations. There is no expiration date on the repurchase
authorizations and repurchases occur at our discretion.
Repurchases may be made on the open market or in privately
negotiated transactions, pursuant to the applicable Securities
and Exchange Commission rules, and may include repurchases
pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 10b5-1
nondiscretionary trading programs. The amount and timing of
future share repurchases, if any, will be made as market and
business conditions warrant.
During fiscal years 2009, 2008 and 2007, we issued approximately
3.1 million, 2.5 million and 0.5 million shares
of our Class A common stock, respectively, as a result of
stock option exercises, release of shares covered by vested
restricted stock units, and purchases under our employee stock
purchase plan.
116
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Accumulated
Other Comprehensive Loss
The following table summarizes the components of accumulated
other comprehensive loss, net of $1.5 million and
$0.5 million of taxes in fiscal years 2009 and 2008
respectively, at August 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Foreign currency translation losses
|
|
$
|
14,690
|
|
|
$
|
2,985
|
|
Unrealized loss on auction-rate securities
|
|
|
1,363
|
|
|
|
973
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
|
$
|
16,053
|
|
|
$
|
3,958
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The increase in foreign currency translation losses is the
result of a general strengthening of the U.S. dollar
relative to foreign currencies during fiscal year 2009.
|
|
Note 15.
|
Earnings
Per Share
|
Our outstanding shares consist of Apollo Group Class A and
Class B common stock. Our Articles of Incorporation treat
the declaration of dividends on the Apollo Group Class A
and Class B common stock in an identical manner. As such,
both the Apollo Group Class A and Class B common stock
are included in the calculation of our earnings per share.
Diluted weighted average shares outstanding includes the
incremental effect of shares that would be issued upon the
assumed exercise of stock options and the vesting and release of
restricted stock units. The following provides a reconciliation
of the basic and diluted earnings per share computations for our
common stock for the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Per Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Per Share
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Per Share
|
|
(in thousands, except per share data)
|
|
Income
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Income
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Income
|
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Basic income per share
|
|
$
|
598,319
|
|
|
|
157,760
|
|
|
$
|
3.79
|
|
|
$
|
476,525
|
|
|
|
164,109
|
|
|
$
|
2.90
|
|
|
$
|
408,810
|
|
|
|
172,309
|
|
|
$
|
2.37
|
|
Effect of dilutive securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,482
|
|
|
|
(0.03
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,598
|
|
|
|
(0.03
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,293
|
|
|
|
(0.02
|
)
|
Restricted stock units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
272
|
|
|
|
(0.01
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
163
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted income per share
|
|
$
|
598,319
|
|
|
|
159,514
|
|
|
$
|
3.75
|
|
|
$
|
476,525
|
|
|
|
165,870
|
|
|
$
|
2.87
|
|
|
$
|
408,810
|
|
|
|
173,603
|
|
|
$
|
2.35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During fiscal year 2009, approximately 3.6 million of our
stock options outstanding and approximately 6,000 of our
restricted stock units were excluded from the calculation of
diluted earnings per share because their inclusion would have
been anti-dilutive. These options and restricted stock units
could be dilutive in the future.
|
|
Note 16.
|
Stock and
Savings Plans
|
401(k)
Plan
We sponsor a 401(k) plan for eligible employees which provides
them with the opportunity to make pre-tax employee
contributions. Such contributions are subject to certain
restrictions as set forth in the Internal Revenue Code. Upon a
participating employees completion of one year of service
and 1,000 hours worked, we will match, at our discretion,
30% of such employees contributions up to 15% of his or
her gross compensation per paycheck. Our matching contributions
totaled $9.6 million, $8.1 million and
$6.7 million for fiscal years 2009, 2008 and 2007,
respectively.
117
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Employee
Stock Purchase Plan
Our Third Amended and Restated 1994 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
allows eligible employees to purchase shares of our Class A
common stock at quarterly intervals through periodic payroll
deductions at a price per share equal to 95% of the fair market
value on the purchase date. This plan is deemed to be
non-compensatory, and accordingly, we do not recognize any
share-based compensation expense with respect to the shares of
our Class A common stock purchased under the plan.
Share-Based
Compensation Plans
We maintain the following three share-based compensation plans:
the Apollo Group, Inc. Second Amended and Restated Director
Stock Plan, the Apollo Group, Inc. Long Term Incentive Plan, and
the Apollo Group, Inc. Amended and Restated 2000 Stock Incentive
Plan.
Under the Second Amended and Restated Director Stock Plan, the
non-employee members of our Board of Directors received on
September 1 of each year through 2003 options to purchase shares
of our Class A common stock. No additional shares are
available for issuance under this plan, and no grants have been
made under such plan since the 2003 calendar year grants.
The Long Term Incentive Plan authorized us to grant
non-qualified stock options, stock appreciation rights,
restricted stock units, and other share-based awards covering
shares of our Class A common stock to officers, key
employees and the non-employee members of our Board of
Directors. On June 25, 2009, the remaining unallocated
reserve of approximately 1.0 million shares of our
Class A common stock was transferred to the Amended and
Restated 2000 Stock Incentive Plan. As a result, no additional
shares are available for issuance under this plan.
Under the Amended and Restated 2000 Stock Incentive Plan, we may
grant non-qualified stock options, incentive stock options,
stock appreciation rights, restricted stock units, and other
share-based awards covering shares of our Class A common
stock to officers, key employees and faculty members, and the
non-employee members of our Board of Directors. In general, the
awards granted under the Amended and Restated 2000 Stock
Incentive Plan vest over periods ranging from six months to four
years. Stock options granted have contractual terms of
10 years or less. For certain stock options granted,
vesting may be tied to the attainment of prescribed market
conditions tied to stock price appreciation. Restricted stock
units issued under the Plan may have both performance-vesting
and service- vesting components (for grants made to executive
officers) or service-vesting only (for other recipients).
Approximately 25.1 million shares of our Class A
common stock (including the 1.0 million shares transferred
from the Long-Term Incentive Plan) have been reserved for
issuance over the term of this plan. The shares are issued from
treasury shares or our authorized but unissued shares of our
Class A common stock. As of August 31, 2009,
approximately 16.3 million authorized and unissued shares
of our Class A common stock were available for issuance
under the Amended and Restated 2000 Stock Incentive Plan,
including the shares subject to outstanding equity awards under
such plan. In connection with our acquisition of Aptimus
approximately 0.1 million shares of assumed stock options
and stock appreciation rights to be settled in shares of our
Class A common stock were also outstanding as of
August 31, 2009.
Under each of the three Apollo Group Plans, the exercise price
for stock options may not be less than 100% of the fair market
value of our Class A common stock on the date of the grant.
The requisite service period for all awards is equal to the
vesting period.
Restatement
of Share-Based Compensation and Stock Option
Modifications
In May 2007, we restated prior period financial results due to
errors that occurred in the accounting for share-based
compensation. As a result of the restatement, we had to take the
following actions with respect to certain outstanding options
under our plans.
118
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Stock
Option Modifications
On January 12, 2007, the Compensation Committee of our
Board of Directors approved a resolution to modify the terms of
the stock option grants for approximately 50 individuals. These
modifications extended the normal
90-day
post-employment exercise period in effect for options held by
former employees, including officers, whose employment
terminated on or after November 3, 2006, and allowed those
individuals an additional period of time to exercise any of
their options that were in the money at the end of
the initial
90-day
post-employment exercise period. We extended the exercise
periods of these options because we were unable, during the
financial statement restatement process as described in our 2007
Annual Report on
Form 10-K,
to issue shares of our Class A common stock to such
individuals, in compliance with the applicable registration
requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Absent
the extension, the options would have expired before the former
employees had the opportunity to exercise their in the
money options, since the
90-day
post-employment exercise period would have expired prior to the
completion of our financial statement restatement process.
As a result of these modifications, we recorded a non-cash
charge to share-based compensation of $12.1 million during
the second quarter of fiscal year 2007. In addition, applicable
accounting guidance for the modified awards held by former
employees whose employment terminated prior to the
January 12, 2007 modification required us to report the
awards classified as liabilities at their fair value as of each
balance sheet date. Any increase or decrease in this fair value
was recorded in general and administrative expense in our
Consolidated Statements of Income. Of the $12.1 million in
expense recognized upon modification of the awards,
$11.8 million related to awards classified as liabilities.
The subsequent fair value adjustments recorded as expense for
the liability classified awards totaled $2.7 million for
the year ended August 31, 2008. As all awards had been
exercised as of November 30, 2007, there are no liabilities
in our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of August 31, 2009
and 2008 associated with these modifications.
119
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Stock
Options
During fiscal years 2009, 2008, and 2007, we granted stock
options with a service vesting condition to the members of our
Board of Directors, officers, and certain faculty and management
employees. During fiscal year 2009, we also granted stock
options with a service and a market vesting condition to certain
members of our management team. We measure the fair value of
stock options as of the date of grant. We amortize the
share-based compensation expense, net of forfeitures, over the
expected vesting period using the straight-line method for
awards with only a service condition, and the graded vesting
attribution method for awards with a service and a market
vesting condition. The vesting period of the stock options
granted generally ranges from six months to four years. A
summary of the activity and changes related to stock options and
stock appreciation rights granted under our plans is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
Remaining
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Price per
|
|
|
Contractual
|
|
|
Intrinsic
|
|
(numbers in thousands, except per share data)
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Share
|
|
|
Term (Years)
|
|
|
Value ($)(1)
|
|
|
Outstanding as of August 31, 2006
|
|
|
9,324
|
|
|
$
|
44.96
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
7,089
|
|
|
|
58.48
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(409
|
)
|
|
|
26.80
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited, canceled or expired
|
|
|
(2,635
|
)
|
|
|
64.83
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding as of August 31, 2007
|
|
|
13,369
|
|
|
|
48.90
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
2,508
|
|
|
|
62.08
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumed upon acquisition
|
|
|
106
|
|
|
|
72.15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(2,348
|
)
|
|
|
41.46
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited, canceled or expired
|
|
|
(1,258
|
)
|
|
|
51.71
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding as of August 31, 2008
|
|
|
12,377
|
|
|
|
52.41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
1,164
|
|
|
|
68.08
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(2,707
|
)
|
|
|
41.18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited, canceled or expired
|
|
|
(572
|
)
|
|
|
64.24
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding as of August 31, 2009
|
|
|
10,262
|
|
|
$
|
56.49
|
|
|
|
4.26
|
|
|
$
|
100,144
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested and expected to vest as of August 31, 2009
|
|
|
9,837
|
|
|
$
|
56.32
|
|
|
|
4.24
|
|
|
$
|
97,781
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercisable as of August 31, 2009
|
|
|
5,364
|
|
|
$
|
53.57
|
|
|
|
3.95
|
|
|
$
|
69,319
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available for future grant as of August 31, 2009
|
|
|
5,140
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Aggregate intrinsic value represents the value of our closing
stock price of $64.84 on August 31, 2009 in excess of the
weighted average exercise price multiplied by the number of
options outstanding or exercisable with an exercise price less
than the closing stock price. |
As of August 31, 2009, there was approximately
$79.7 million of total unrecognized share-based
compensation cost, net of forfeitures, related to unvested stock
options and stock appreciation rights. These costs are expected
to be recognized over a weighted average period of
2.24 years. The fair value of stock options and stock
appreciation rights that vested during fiscal years 2009, 2008
and 2007 was $54.1 million, $35.5 million and
$20.7 million, respectively.
120
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table summarizes information related to
outstanding and exercisable options and stock appreciation
rights as of August 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
Exercisable
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Avg.
|
|
Weighted Avg.
|
|
|
|
Weighted Avg.
|
|
|
|
|
Contractual
|
|
Exercise
|
|
|
|
Exercise
|
Range of
|
|
|
|
Life
|
|
Price
|
|
|
|
Price
|
Exercise Prices
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
Remaining
|
|
per Share
|
|
Exercisable
|
|
per Share
|
(options in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$3.27 to $30.77
|
|
|
832
|
|
|
|
1.87
|
|
|
$
|
21.03
|
|
|
|
832
|
|
|
$
|
21.03
|
|
$41.92 to $50.68
|
|
|
1,386
|
|
|
|
3.66
|
|
|
$
|
47.29
|
|
|
|
802
|
|
|
$
|
46.68
|
|
$51.33 to $57.54
|
|
|
1,455
|
|
|
|
5.69
|
|
|
$
|
53.51
|
|
|
|
603
|
|
|
$
|
52.46
|
|
$58.03 to $58.03
|
|
|
2,447
|
|
|
|
3.50
|
|
|
$
|
58.03
|
|
|
|
1,109
|
|
|
$
|
58.03
|
|
$58.43 to $70.02
|
|
|
3,190
|
|
|
|
5.03
|
|
|
$
|
64.13
|
|
|
|
1,260
|
|
|
$
|
62.58
|
|
$70.21 to $83.40
|
|
|
939
|
|
|
|
4.36
|
|
|
$
|
75.21
|
|
|
|
746
|
|
|
$
|
75.14
|
|
$91.20 to $173.32
|
|
|
13
|
|
|
|
5.83
|
|
|
$
|
121.33
|
|
|
|
12
|
|
|
$
|
124.31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$3.27 to $173.32
|
|
|
10,262
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,364
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table summarizes information related to stock
options and stock appreciation rights exercised for fiscal years
2009, 2008 and 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
2008
|
|
2007
|
|
Amounts related to options exercised:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intrinsic value realized by optionees
|
|
$
|
94,638
|
|
|
$
|
65,198
|
|
|
$
|
10,824
|
|
Actual tax benefit realized by Company for tax deductions
|
|
$
|
21,732
|
|
|
$
|
25,516
|
|
|
$
|
2,095
|
|
The shares issued upon the exercise of stock options and stock
appreciation rights were drawn from treasury shares or from our
authorized but unissued shares of Class A common stock.
Cash received from stock option exercises during fiscal years
2009, 2008, and 2007, totaled approximately $103.5 million,
$97.4 million, and $6.2 million, respectively.
121
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Restricted
Stock Units
During fiscal years 2009, 2008, and 2007, we granted restricted
stock units covering shares of our Class A common stock
with a service and a performance vesting condition to several of
our officers. We also granted restricted stock units with only a
service vesting condition to the members of our Board of
Directors, officers, and certain faculty and management
employees. We measure the fair value of restricted stock units
as of the date of grant. We amortize the share-based
compensation expense, net of forfeitures, over the expected
vesting period using the straight-line method for awards with
only a service condition, and the graded vesting attribution
method for awards with a service and a performance condition.
The vesting period of the restricted stock units granted
generally ranges from six months to four years. A summary of the
activity and changes related to restricted stock units granted
under our plans is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Grant Date
|
|
(numbers in thousands, except per share data)
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Nonvested balance at August 31, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
338
|
|
|
|
58.03
|
|
Vested and released
|
|
|
(13
|
)
|
|
|
58.03
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested balance at August 31, 2007
|
|
|
325
|
|
|
|
58.03
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
522
|
|
|
|
58.20
|
|
Vested and released
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(132
|
)
|
|
|
57.95
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested balance at August 31, 2008
|
|
|
715
|
|
|
|
58.17
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
645
|
|
|
|
69.49
|
|
Vested and released
|
|
|
(324
|
)
|
|
|
60.96
|
|
Forfeited
|
|
|
(38
|
)
|
|
|
57.58
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonvested balance at August 31, 2009
|
|
|
998
|
|
|
$
|
62.88
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of August 31, 2009, there was approximately
$42.4 million of total unrecognized share-based
compensation cost, net of forfeitures, related to unvested
restricted stock units. These costs are expected to be
recognized over a weighted average period of 2.80 years.
The fair value of restricted stock units that vested during
fiscal years 2009, 2008 and 2007 was $23.2 million, zero
and $0.8 million, respectively.
Share-based
Compensation Expense
The table below outlines share-based compensation expense for
fiscal years 2009, 2008, and 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
(numbers in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Instructional costs and services
|
|
$
|
22,071
|
|
|
$
|
20,609
|
|
|
$
|
13,346
|
|
Selling and promotional
|
|
|
5,657
|
|
|
|
3,603
|
|
|
|
3,069
|
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
40,310
|
|
|
|
29,358
|
|
|
|
37,612
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share-based compensation expense included in operating
expenses
|
|
|
68,038
|
|
|
|
53,570
|
|
|
|
54,027
|
|
Tax effect of share-based compensation
|
|
|
(26,603
|
)
|
|
|
(21,013
|
)
|
|
|
(21,189
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Share-based compensation expense, net of tax
|
|
$
|
41,435
|
|
|
$
|
32,557
|
|
|
$
|
32,838
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
122
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Share-based
Compensation Expense Assumptions
Fair Value. We typically use the
Black-Scholes-Merton option pricing model to estimate the fair
value of our options as of the grant dates using the following
weighted average assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Weighted average fair value
|
|
$
|
27.32
|
|
|
$
|
23.95
|
|
|
$
|
18.84
|
|
Expected volatility
|
|
|
47.7
|
%
|
|
|
44.2
|
%
|
|
|
32.7
|
%
|
Expected life (years)
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
Risk-free interest rate
|
|
|
2.2
|
%
|
|
|
2.9
|
%
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
Dividend yield
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
|
|
0.0
|
%
|
Expected Volatility. We use an average of our
historical volatility and the implied volatility of long-lived
call options to estimate expected volatility.
Expected Term (years). We generally use the
simplified mid-point method to estimate the expected term of
stock options. The simplified method for estimating expected
term uses the mid-point between the vesting term and the
contractual term of the share option. We have analyzed the
circumstances in which the use of the simplified method is
appropriate, and we have opted to use this method for options
granted to management in fiscal years 2009 and 2008, as
historical data is not comparable in order to determine the
expected term of current awards.
Risk-Free Interest Rate. We use the
U.S. constant maturity treasury rates as the risk-free rate
interpolated between the years commensurate with the expected
life assumptions.
Dividend Yield. The dividend yield assumption
is based on the fact that we have not historically paid
dividends and do not expect to pay dividends in the future.
Forfeitures. We estimate expected forfeitures
of share-based awards at the time of grant and recognize
compensation cost only for those awards expected to vest. We
estimate our forfeiture rate based on several factors, including
historical forfeiture activity, expected future employee
turnover, and other qualitative factors. We ultimately adjust
the recognized compensation expense to reflect actual forfeiture
activity. As a result, changes in the estimated forfeiture rate
do not impact the total share-based compensation expense
ultimately recognized over the vesting period; rather,
adjustments to the forfeiture assumptions only impact the timing
of expense recognition over the vesting period.
Expected Vesting Period. We amortize the
share-based compensation expense, net of forfeitures, over the
expected vesting period using the straight-line method for
awards with only service conditions, and the graded vesting
attribution method for awards with performance or market
conditions.
|
|
Note 17.
|
Related
Person Transactions
|
Dr. John
G. Sperling Note Receivable
In August 1998, we, together with Hughes Network Systems and
Hermes Onetouch, LLC, formed Interactive Distance Learning,
Inc., a new corporation, to acquire One Touch Systems, a
provider of interactive distance learning solutions. We
contributed $10.8 million in October 1999 and
$1.2 million in December 1999, in exchange for a 19%
interest in Interactive Distance Learning. We accounted for our
investment in Interactive Distance Learning under the cost
method. Hermes is owned by Dr. John G. Sperling, our
Founder, Executive Chairman of the Board and Director.
On December 14, 2001, Hermes acquired our investment in
Interactive Distance Learning in exchange for a promissory note
in the principal amount of $11.9 million, which represented
the related carrying value. The promissory note accrued interest
at a fixed annual rate of six percent. The promissory note was
repaid in full during fiscal year 2009.
123
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Governmental
Advocates, Inc.
Effective July 1, 1989, we entered into an agreement with
Governmental Advocates, Inc. to provide consulting services to
us with respect to matters concerning legislation, regulations,
public policy, electoral politics, and any other topics of
concern to us relating to state government in the state of
California. Hedy F. Govenar, who served as a director of Apollo
through May 2007, is the founder and Chairwoman of Governmental
Advocates, Inc. Pursuant to the agreement, we paid consulting
fees to Governmental Advocates, Inc. of $0.1 million in
fiscal year 2007, while Ms. Govenar served as a director of
Apollo.
Yo
Pegasus, LLC
Yo Pegasus, LLC, an entity controlled by Dr. John G.
Sperling, leases an aircraft to us as well as to other entities.
Payments to Yo Pegasus for the business use of the airplane,
including hourly flight charges, fuel, and direct operating
expenses during fiscal years 2009, 2008, and 2007 were
$0.2 million, $0.4 million, and $0.3 million,
respectively. These amounts are included in general and
administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statements of
Income. Additionally, through May 2007 the pilots were employed
by us and the costs of salaries and fringe benefits were paid
through our payroll and are included in general and
administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statements of
Income. The cost to us, including payments made to Yo Pegasus
and the cost of pilots wages (including fringe benefits)
during fiscal years 2009, 2008, and 2007 were $0.2 million,
$0.4 million, and $0.5 million, respectively.
TKG
Contact Center, Inc.
We entered into a sublease with TKG Contact Center, Inc., an
entity controlled by Dr. John G. Sperling, to lease
56,410 square feet of office space in Tempe, Arizona, for
the period from July 1, 2006 to November 30, 2007. We
extended the lease to December 7, 2007. Payments to this
entity during fiscal years 2008 and 2007 were $0.3 million
and $0.9 million, respectively.
Sperling
Gallery
We lease certain artwork pursuant to a contract between Apollo
Group and an art gallery owned by Virginia Sperling. Virginia
Sperling is the former wife of Dr. John Sperling and the
mother of Mr. Peter Sperling. Lease payments under the
contract during fiscal years 2009, 2008, and 2007 were $34,000,
$37,000, and $37,000, respectively.
Credit
Suisse Share Repurchase Services
During fiscal years 2008 and 2007, Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, an affiliate of the previous employer of Charles B.
Edelstein and Gregory W. Cappelli, our Co-Chief Executive
Officers, managed a share repurchase program for Apollo. We paid
Credit Suisse Securities approximately $196,000 and $143,000 in
commissions for this service during fiscal years 2008 and 2007,
respectively. Our engagement of Credit Suisse Securities and
payment of these fees occurred after Mr. Cappelli joined
Apollo in March 2007, and prior to the time Mr. Edelstein
accepted employment with Apollo in July 2008.
Earth
Day Network
University of Phoenix Foundation, a non-profit entity affiliated
with the University of Phoenix, provided grants totaling
$100,000 and $50,000 in fiscal years 2009 and 2008,
respectively, to Earth Day Network. Art Edelstein, the Director
of Development of Earth Day Network, is the brother of Charles
B. Edelstein, our Co-Chief Executive Officer.
124
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Cisco
Systems, Inc.
During fiscal year 2009, we purchased goods and services from
Cisco Systems, Inc., directly and through third party sellers,
in the normal course of our business, and we expect to do so in
the future. Manuel F. Rivelo, a member of our Board of
Directors, is employed by Cisco Systems, Inc. as Senior Vice
President of Enterprise Systems and Operations.
Deferred
Compensation Agreement with Dr. John G.
Sperling
The deferred compensation agreement relates to an agreement
between Apollo and Dr. John G. Sperling. The related
$2.5 million liability balance is included in other
long-term liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheets.
|
|
Note 18.
|
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
Guarantees
We have agreed to indemnify our officers and directors for
certain events or occurrences. The maximum potential amount of
future payments we could be required to make under these
indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, we have
director and officer liability insurance policies that mitigate
our exposure and enable us to recover a portion of any future
amounts paid. As a result of our insurance policy coverage,
management believes the estimated fair value of these
indemnification agreements is minimal.
Lease
Commitments
We are obligated under property and equipment leases under both
capital leases and operating leases. The following is a schedule
of future minimum lease commitments as of August 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
Capital Leases(1)
|
|
|
Operating Leases
|
|
|
2010
|
|
$
|
2,679
|
|
|
$
|
147,332
|
|
2011
|
|
|
2,066
|
|
|
|
144,263
|
|
2012
|
|
|
7,909
|
|
|
|
119,924
|
|
2013
|
|
|
11,026
|
|
|
|
90,827
|
|
2014
|
|
|
10,981
|
|
|
|
76,931
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
113,736
|
|
|
|
177,646
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total future minimum lease obligation(2)
|
|
$
|
148,397
|
|
|
$
|
756,923
|
|
Less: imputed interest on capital leases
|
|
|
(37,868
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net present value of lease obligations
|
|
$
|
110,529
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The total future minimum lease obligation associated with
capital leases includes lease payments for a lease agreement
executed in fiscal year 2009 for a building to be constructed
and for which we do not have the right to control the use of the
property under the lease at August 31, 2009. The future
minimum lease payments associated with this lease are
$139.5 million, which includes $36.2 million of
imputed interest. |
|
(2) |
|
The total future minimum lease obligation excludes noncancelable
sublease rental income of $3.1 million. |
Facility and equipment expense under leases totaled
$162.5 million, $156.2 million and $150.0 million
for fiscal years 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
We have entered into five separate sale-leaseback agreements
with unrelated third parties. These agreements were related to
property located throughout Phoenix, Arizona, which we currently
use to support our operations. The property is subject to
ten-year lease terms expiring between 2010 and 2014. In total we
125
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
received approximately $46.2 million in cash for the
property, which generated a combined gain of approximately
$17.5 million that is being deferred over the respective
lease terms. We recognized total gains of $1.7 million,
$1.8 million and $1.8 million in fiscal years 2009,
2008 and 2007, respectively, in the Consolidated Statements of
Income. The balance of the total deferred gain was
$7.0 million as of August 31, 2009 and
$8.7 million as of August 31, 2008, included in other
liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Naming
Rights to Glendale, Arizona Sports Complex
On September 22, 2006, we entered into a Naming and
Sponsorship Rights Agreement with New Cardinals Stadium, L.L.C.
and B&B Holdings, Inc. doing business as the Arizona
Cardinals, third parties unrelated to Apollo, for naming and
sponsorship rights on a stadium in Glendale, Arizona, which is
home to the Arizona Cardinals team in the National Football
League. The agreement includes naming, sponsorship, signage,
advertising and other promotional rights and benefits. The
initial agreement term is in effect until 2026 with options to
extend. Pursuant to the agreement, we were required to pay a
total of $5.8 million for the 2006 contract year, which is
increased 3% per year until 2026. Other payments apply if
certain events occur, such as if the Cardinals play in the Super
Bowl or if all of the Cardinals regular season home games
are sold-out.
Contingencies
Related to Litigation and Other Proceedings
The following is a description of pending litigation,
settlements, and other proceedings that fall outside the scope
of ordinary and routine litigation incidental to our business.
Pending
Litigation and Settlements
Incentive
Compensation False Claims Act Lawsuit
On August 29, 2003, we were notified that a qui tam action
had been filed against us on March 7, 2003, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
by two then-current employees on behalf of themselves and the
federal government. When the federal government declines to
intervene in a qui tam action, as it has done in this case, the
relators may elect to pursue the litigation on behalf of the
federal government and, if they are successful, are entitled to
receive a portion of the federal governments recovery. The
qui tam action alleges, among other things, violations of the
False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) and (2),
by University of Phoenix through submission of a knowingly false
or fraudulent claim for payment or approval, and submission of
knowingly false records or statements to get a false or
fraudulent claim paid or approved in connection with federal
student aid programs. The qui tam action also asserts that
University of Phoenix improperly compensates its employees.
Specifically, the relators allege that our entry into Program
Participation Agreements with the U.S. Department of
Education under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, as
reauthorized, constitutes a false claim because we did not
intend to comply with the applicable employee compensation
requirements and, therefore, we should be required to pay to the
U.S. Department of Education treble the amount of costs
incurred by the U.S. Department of Education in student
loan defaults, student loan subsidies and student financial aid
grants from January 1997 to the present, plus statutory
penalties and forfeiture amounts. We believe that at all
relevant times our compensation programs and practices were in
compliance with the applicable legal requirements. Under the
District Courts current Scheduling Order, trial is set for
March 2010.
In September 2009, the parties to the action, along with the
U.S. Department of Justice, participated in a private
mediation in which the parties reached an agreement in principle
regarding the financial terms of a potential settlement.
Significant other terms remain to be negotiated, and there is no
certainty that a final agreement will be reached. Pursuant to a
joint request by the parties, on October 2, 2009, the Court
granted a stay of all litigation proceedings for 45 days
while the parties attempt to negotiate a final settlement. The
ultimate dismissal of the action, should a final settlement be
reached, is subject to the Courts approval.
126
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
During the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009, based on the
settlement discussions to resolve this matter, we recorded a
pre-tax charge of $80.5 million which represents our best
estimate of the loss related to this matter. The actual amount
of this loss will not be known until a final settlement
agreement, if any, is reached.
If we do not successfully conclude these settlement
negotiations, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain
because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise.
Any subsequent settlement or final disposition of this
litigation could be on terms less favorable than our current
proposed settlement and could have a material and adverse affect
on our business, financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows.
Securities
Class Action
In October 2004, three class action complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The
District Court consolidated the three pending class action
complaints under the caption In re Apollo Group, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT
and a consolidated class action complaint was filed on
May 16, 2005 by the lead plaintiff. The consolidated
complaint named us, Todd S. Nelson, Kenda B. Gonzales and Daniel
E. Bachus as defendants. On March 1, 2007, by stipulation
and order of the Court, Daniel E. Bachus was dismissed as a
defendant from the case. Lead plaintiff represents a class of
our shareholders who acquired their shares between
February 27, 2004 and September 14, 2004. The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Act by us for defendants allegedly
material false and misleading statements in connection with our
failure to publicly disclose the contents of a preliminary
U.S. Department of Education program review report. The
case proceeded to trial on November 14, 2007. On
January 16, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of
the plaintiffs awarding damages of up to $5.55 for each share of
common stock in the class suit, plus pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest. The class shares are those purchased
after February 27, 2004 and still owned on
September 14, 2004. The judgment was entered on
January 30, 2008, subject to an automatic stay until
February 13, 2008. On February 13, 2008, the District
Court granted our motion to stay execution of the judgment
pending resolution of our motions for post-trial relief, which
were also filed on February 13, 2008, provided that we post
a bond in the amount of $95.0 million. On February 19,
2008, we posted the $95.0 million bond with the District
Court. Oral arguments on our post-trial motions occurred on
August 4, 2008, during which the District Court vacated the
earlier judgment based on the jury verdict and entered judgment
in favor of Apollo and the other defendants. The
$95.0 million bond posted in February was subsequently
released on August 11, 2008. Plaintiffs lawyers filed
a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on
August 29, 2008. A hearing date for the appeal has not been
set. The plaintiffs filed their opening brief on
May 18, 2009 and we filed our response brief on
August 20, 2009.
In the second quarter of fiscal year 2008, we recorded a charge
for estimated damages of $168.4 million as a result of the
jury verdict awarded in favor of the plaintiffs. The original
charge was recorded at the mid-point of the range of
$120.5 million to $216.4 million and was estimated for
financial reporting purposes, using statistically valid models
and a 60% confidence interval which included our estimate of
damages based on the verdict, our estimate of potential amounts
we expected to reimburse our insurance carriers, our estimate of
future defense costs and legal and other professional fees
incurred during the second quarter of fiscal year 2008. At that
time, we elected to record the mid-point of the range because
under statistically valid modeling techniques the mid-point of
the range was a more likely estimate than other points in the
range, and the point at which there was an equal probability
that the ultimate loss could be toward the lower end or the
higher end of the range. In the third quarter of fiscal year
2008, we recorded an additional charge of $1.6 million for
interest on the estimated damages.
In the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2008, we reversed the
original estimated charge and related pre- and post-judgment
interest totaling $170.0 million because the District Court
vacated the earlier judgment and entered judgment in favor of
Apollo. Applying similar assumptions used to estimate the
original charge,
127
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
including if the plaintiffs were to prevail in a judgment on
appeal, we currently estimate our range of loss for this matter
to be between zero and $225.0 million. Damages, if any,
will not be known until all court proceedings, including the
plaintiffs appeal, have been completed. Based on
information available to us at present, our management does not
expect a material adverse effect on our business to result from
this action. We have not accrued any liability associated with
this action as of August 31, 2009.
Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission v. University of
Phoenix
On September 25, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission filed a Title VII action against University of
Phoenix captioned Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission v. University of Phoenix, Inc.,
No. CV-06-2303-PHX-MHM,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of four identified former employees and an asserted class
of unidentified former and current employees who were allegedly
discriminated against because they were not members of the
Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day
Saints. The Complaint also alleged that some of the employees
were retaliated against after complaining about the alleged
discrimination. University of Phoenix answered the Complaint on
December 8, 2006, denying the material allegations
asserted. During the course of discovery, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission identified approximately 48 additional
class members on whose behalf it was seeking relief. The parties
subsequently reached a settlement resolving this action through
a consent decree that was approved by the District Court on
November 7, 2008 and the case is now closed. Under the
terms of the consent decree, University of Phoenix paid in the
first quarter of fiscal year 2009 approximately
$1.9 million to the class members and an additional
$0.1 million in attorneys fees, which we accrued for
in the third quarter of fiscal year 2008. University of Phoenix
will also provide, among other things, additional training and
oversight to the Enrollment Department of its online campus.
University of Phoenix did not admit any liability or wrongdoing
in resolving this matter.
Barnett
Derivative Action
On April 24, 2006, Larry Barnett, one of our shareholders,
filed a shareholder derivative complaint on behalf of Apollo.
The allegations in the complaint pertain to the matters that
were the subject of the investigation performed by the
U.S. Department of Education that led to the issuance of
the U.S. Department of Educations February 5,
2004 Program Review Report. The complaint was filed in the
Superior Court for the State of Arizona, Maricopa County and is
entitled Barnett v. John Blair et al, Case Number
CV2006-051558. In the complaint, plaintiff asserts a derivative
claim, on our behalf, for breaches of fiduciary duty against the
following nine of our current or former officers and directors:
John M. Blair, Dino J. DeConcini, Hedy F. Govenar, Kenda B.
Gonzales, Todd S. Nelson, Laura Palmer Noone, John R. Norton
III, John G. Sperling and Peter V. Sperling. Plaintiff contends
that we are entitled to recover from these individuals the
amount of the settlement that we paid to the
U.S. Department of Education and our losses (both
litigation expenses and any damages awarded) stemming from the
federal securities class actions pending against us in Federal
District Court as described above under Securities
Class Action. On August 21, 2006, we filed a
Motion to Stay the case pending the resolution of the federal
Securities Class Action.
On October 10, 2006, plaintiff subsequently amended his
complaint to include new allegations pertaining to our alleged
backdating of stock option grants to Todd S. Nelson, Kenda B.
Gonzales, Laura Palmer Noone, John G. Sperling and three
additional defendants: J. Jorge Klor de Alva, Jerry F. Noble and
Anthony F. Digiovanni. This First Amended Complaint adds
allegations that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to us and that certain of them were unjustly
enriched by their receipt of backdated stock option grants. The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, an award of unspecified
damages and reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys fees.
On November 10, 2006, we filed an Amended Motion to Stay
the action pending resolution of the federal Securities
Class Action and the Special Committees investigation
into the allegations of stock option
128
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
backdating. On January 29, 2007, the Court granted the
Amended Motion to Stay pending the resolution of the trial in
the federal Securities Class Action.
On March 7, 2008, following the entry of judgment in the
federal Securities Class Action, we filed a motion to stay
discovery regarding the U.S. Department of Education claims
pending the disposition of post-trial motions in the federal
Securities Class Action and informed the Superior Court of
an imminent settlement regarding the stock option claims. On
March 10, 2008, the Superior Court stayed the stock option
claims. On September 17, 2008, the Superior Court dismissed
the stock option backdating claims. The settlement does not
apply to the U.S. Department of Education claims.
With respect to the U.S. Department of Education claims, on
April 10, 2008, the plaintiff filed his Second Amended
Complaint. In addition to the damages previously sought,
plaintiff added a request that we recover from defendants the
expenses associated with the ongoing qui tam action
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California. On May 9, 2008, we moved for a continued
stay of Counts 1-2 and dismissal of Counts 3-5 added in the
Second Amended Complaint. On July 30, 2008, the Superior
Court dismissed Counts 3-5, and stayed Counts 1-2, until the
next pre-trial conference. At the continued pre-trial conference
on October 27, 2008, the Superior Court lifted the
discovery stay and set certain long-range deadlines for
completion of discovery, dispositive motions, and disclosure of
experts, the earliest of which is May 31, 2010. A trial, if
any, is not likely to occur until some time in 2011.
On April 3, 2009, we filed a motion seeking the appointment
of an independent panel consisting of Dr. Roy A.
Herberger, Jr. and Stephen J. Giusto. The Court granted our
motion on July 31, 2009.
Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise,
the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.
Based on information available to us at present, our management
does not expect a material adverse effect on our business to
result from this action. In addition, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss for this action and accordingly have
not accrued any liability associated with this action.
Bamboo
Partners Derivative Action
On August 15, 2006, Bamboo Partners, one of our
shareholders, filed a shareholder derivative complaint on our
behalf and on behalf of University of Phoenix. The lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona and is entitled Bamboo Partners v. Nelson et al.,
Case Number CIV-06-1973-PHX-SRB. The complaint names as
defendants Apollo Group, Inc., University of Phoenix, Inc., Todd
S. Nelson, Kenda B. Gonzales, Daniel E. Bachus, John G.
Sperling, Peter V. Sperling, Laura Palmer Noone, John M. Blair,
Dino J. DeConcini, Hedy F. Govenar and John Norton III. The
complaint seeks contribution from defendants Nelson, Gonzales
and Bachus pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 21D of the
Exchange Act for damages incurred by Apollo and University of
Phoenix in connection with the federal securities class action
described above under Securities Class Action,
and also alleges that all defendants committed numerous breaches
of fiduciary duties associated with the facts underlying the
federal Securities Class Action. In addition, the complaint
asserts claims relating to Laura Palmer Noones sale of our
stock and Todd S. Nelsons separation agreement executed
with us in January 2006. In addition to damages, the complaint
seeks attorneys fees, reasonable costs and disbursements.
On November 13, 2006, we filed a Motion to Stay the case
arguing that it is not in our best interest to prosecute
plaintiffs purported derivative claims prior to resolution
of the federal Securities Class Action. The individual
defendants joined in the Motion to Stay. The Court granted our
motion to stay on May 18, 2007. Following entry of judgment
in the federal Securities Class Action, the Court granted
our motion to extend the stay of the case pending disposition of
the post-trial motions. On August 18, 2008, we notified the
Court that judgment had been entered in favor of defendants in
the Securities Class Action. Plaintiff filed a response on
August 25, 2008 notifying the Court of its intention to
file a Second Amended Complaint by September 26, 2008. The
Court dissolved the stay on September 25, 2008, and ordered
plaintiff to file its Second Amended
129
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Complaint by October 15, 2008. Plaintiff did not file the
Second Amended Complaint. Instead, counsel for plaintiff, by
letter dated September 25, 2008, advised the Court and
defendants counsel of its intention to take the necessary
steps to obtain an order dismissing the case. On
November 14, 2008, another one of our shareholders filed a
motion to intervene in the case and pursue the action in the
place of Bamboo Partners. We filed a response in opposition to
the shareholders motion on December 4, 2008, asking
the Court to dismiss the case, and fully briefed that motion on
December 16, 2008. On January 13, 2009, the
shareholder filed a request for oral argument on her motion,
which the Court denied on January 16, 2009. On
February 3, 2009 the Court also denied the
shareholders motion to intervene. On March 17, 2009,
the Court dismissed this action with prejudice, without costs to
either party.
Teamsters
Local Union Putative Class Action
On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and
Welfare Funds filed a class action complaint purporting to
represent a class of shareholders who purchased our stock
between November 28, 2001 and October 18, 2006. The
complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona, is entitled Teamsters Local 617
Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc. et
al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB, and alleges that we and
certain of our current and former directors and officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by purportedly making misrepresentations
concerning our stock option granting policies and practices and
related accounting. The defendants are Apollo Group, Inc., J.
Jorge Klor de Alva, Daniel E. Bachus, John M. Blair, Dino J.
DeConcini, Kenda B. Gonzales, Hedy F. Govenar, Brian E. Mueller,
Todd S. Nelson, Laura Palmer Noone, John R. Norton III, John G.
Sperling and Peter V. Sperling. Plaintiff seeks unstated
compensatory damages and other relief. On January 3, 2007,
other shareholders, through their separate attorneys, filed
motions seeking appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of
their designated counsel as lead counsel to pursue this action.
On September 11, 2007, the Court appointed The Pension
Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff and
approved lead plaintiffs selection of lead counsel and
liaison counsel. Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
November 23, 2007, asserting the same legal claims as the
original complaint and adding claims for violations of
Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
allegations of breach of fiduciary duties and civil conspiracy.
On January 22, 2008, all defendants filed motions to
dismiss. On March 31, 2009, the Court dismissed the case
with prejudice as to Daniel Bachus, Hedy Govenar, Brian E.
Mueller, Dino J. DeConcini, and Laura Palmer Noone. The Court
also dismissed the case as to John Sperling and Peter Sperling,
but granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint
against them. Finally, the Court dismissed all of
plaintiffs claims concerning misconduct before November
2001 and all of the state law claims for conspiracy and breach
of fiduciary duty. On April 30, 2009, Plaintiffs filed
their Second Amended Complaint, which alleges similar claims for
alleged securities fraud against the same defendants. On
June 15, 2009, all defendants filed another motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which is currently pending
with the Court.
Discovery in this case has not yet begun. Because of the many
questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on
information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss for this action and accordingly have
not accrued any liability associated with this action.
Patent
Infringement Litigation
On March 3, 2008, Digital-Vending Services International
Inc. filed a complaint against University of Phoenix and Apollo
Group Inc., as well as Capella Education Company, Laureate
Education Inc., and Walden University Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The
complaint alleges that we and the other defendants have
infringed and are infringing various patents relating to
managing courseware in a shared use operating environment. We
filed an answer to the complaint on May 27, 2008, in which
we denied
130
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
that Digital-Vending Services Internationals patents were
duly and lawfully issued, and asserted defenses of
non-infringement and patent invalidity, among others. We also
asserted a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that the
patents are invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed by us. The
District Court has scheduled the trial for November 7,
2011. Together with the other defendants, we filed a motion to
transfer venue from the Eastern District of Texas to
Washington, D.C. on February 27, 2009. Because of the
many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of
this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on
information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss for this action and accordingly have
not accrued any liability associated with this action.
Student
Loan Class Action
On December 9, 2008, three former University of Phoenix
students filed a complaint against Apollo Group, Inc. and
University of Phoenix in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas. The complaint alleges that with
regard to students who dropped from their courses shortly after
enrolling, University of Phoenix improperly returned the entire
amount of the students undisbursed federal loan funds to
the lender. The students purport to be bringing the complaint on
behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly-situated
student loan borrowers. On January 21, 2009, the plaintiffs
voluntarily filed a dismissal without prejudice to
re-filing. The plaintiffs then filed a similar complaint
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Western Division Los Angeles) on
February 5, 2009. We filed an answer denying all of the
asserted claims on March 30, 2009. Under the District
Courts current Scheduling Order, trial is set for August
2010. The matter is currently in discovery. The plaintiffs filed
their motion for class certification and an amended complaint on
July 14, 2009. The hearing on class certification is
currently set for October 26, 2009.
At this time, we do not know how many students may fall into
this category, or whether there is a proper basis for the
lawsuit to proceed as a class action lawsuit. Because of the
many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of
this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on
information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss for this action and accordingly have
not accrued any liability associated with this action.
Brodale
Employment and False Claims Lawsuit
On August 1, 2008, former employee, Stephen Lee Brodale,
filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in San Diego
against Apollo, University of Phoenix, and several individual
employees. The complaint alleges various employment claims and
also includes claims under the Federal and California false
claims acts. The Department of Justice declined to participate
in the lawsuit and it was served on the Company on
August 10, 2009. On September 16, 2009, the Court
dismissed the employment claims without prejudice, upon joint
motion by the parties, so that they could proceed to binding
arbitration. On September 14, 2009, we filed a motion to
dismiss the remaining false claims act allegations that is
currently pending with the Court. Because of the many questions
of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal
proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information
available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a
range of loss for this action and accordingly have not accrued
any liability associated with this action.
Wage and
Hour Class Actions
During fiscal year 2009, four lawsuits, each styled as a class
action, were commenced by various former employees against
Apollo
and/or
University of Phoenix alleging wage and hour claims for failure
to pay minimum wages and overtime and certain other violations.
These lawsuits are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Juric. Action filed April 3, 2009, by
former employee Dejan Juric in California State Court in Los
Angeles. We filed an answer denying all of the asserted claims
on May 4, 2009 and then removed the case to the Federal
District Court in Los Angeles. The matter is currently in
discovery. Under the
|
131
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
District Courts current Scheduling Order, the deadline for
Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification is
January 11, 2010 and the hearing on the motion is set for
March 22, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sabol. Action filed July 31, 2009, by
several former employees in Federal District Court in
Philadelphia. We filed an answer denying the asserted claim on
September 29, 2009.
|
|
|
|
Tranchiti. Action filed August 10, 2009,
by several former employees in Federal District Court in
Chicago. On September 2, 2009, we filed a motion to
dismiss, or in the alternative to stay or transfer, the case
based on the previously filed Sabol action. The motion is
currently pending with the Court.
|
|
|
|
Davis. Action filed September 28, 2009,
by former employee Adonijah Davis in Federal District Court in
Tampa, Florida. Our initial response to the complaint is due on
November 2, 2009.
|
Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise,
the outcome of these legal proceedings is uncertain at this
point. Based on information available to us at present, we
cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for these actions
and, accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated
with these actions.
Other
We are subject to various claims and contingencies in the
ordinary course of business, including those related to
regulation, litigation, business transactions, employee-related
matters and taxes, among others. We do not believe any of these
are material for separate disclosure.
Regulatory
and Other Legal Matters
Student
Financial Aid
All U.S. federal financial aid programs are established by
Title IV of the Higher Education Act and regulations
promulgated thereunder. In August 2008, the Higher Education Act
was reauthorized through September 30, 2013 by the Higher
Education Opportunity Act.
The Higher Education Opportunity Act specifies the manner in
which the U.S. Department of Education reviews institutions
for eligibility and certification to participate in
Title IV programs. Every educational institution involved
in Title IV programs must be certified to participate and
is required to periodically renew this certification.
University of Phoenix was recertified in June 2003 and its
current certification for the Title IV programs expired in
June 2007. In March 2007, University of Phoenix submitted its
Title IV recertification application to the
U.S. Department of Education. We have been collaborating
with the U.S. Department of Education since that date and
continue to supply additional
follow-up
information based on requests from the U.S. Department of
Education. Our eligibility continues on a
month-to-month
basis until the U.S. Department of Education issues its
decision on the application. We have no reason to believe that
the application will not be renewed.
Western International University was recertified in October 2003
and its current certification for participation in Title IV
programs expired on June 30, 2009. In March 2009, Western
International University submitted its Title IV
recertification application to the U.S. Department of
Education and Western International Universitys
eligibility continues on a
month-to-month
basis until the U.S. Department of Education completes it
review of the application and issues its decision. As with
University of Phoenix, we have no reason to believe that the
application will not be renewed in due course.
U.S.
Department of Education Audits and Other Matters
All higher education institutions participating in Title IV
programs must be accredited by an accrediting body recognized by
the U.S. Department of Education. The U.S. Department
of Education periodically reviews
132
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
all participating institutions for compliance with all
applicable standards and regulations under the Higher Education
Opportunity Act. In February 2009, the U.S. Department of
Education performed an ordinary course, focused program review
of University of Phoenixs policies and procedures
involving Title IV programs. We have not yet received the
program review report.
During a previous internal review of certain Title IV
policies and procedures, it came to our attention that certain
Satisfactory Academic Progress calculations performed by
University of Phoenix and Western International University
failed to properly identify students who should have been placed
on financial aid disqualification status and therefore were
ineligible to participate in Title IV financial aid
programs. Additionally, we determined that University of Phoenix
was inadvertently disbursing certain funds under a grant
program. These matters were self-reported to the
U.S. Department of Education in October 2008. In February
2009, after completing our review of these practices, we
reported to the U.S. Department of Education the results of
our review and paid the U.S. Department of Education our
best estimate of the liability, which was $8.4 million.
Approximately half of this amount was recorded in our
Consolidated Statements of Income in fiscal year 2008, which was
our best estimate based on the information available when we
identified the matter. We recorded the remaining amount in our
Consolidated Statements of Income in fiscal year 2009 following
completion of our review. The U.S. Department of Education
has informed us that this matter has been resolved.
Securities
and Exchange Commission Informal Inquiry
During October 2009, we received notification from the
Enforcement Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission
indicating that they have commenced an informal inquiry into our
revenue recognition practices. Based on the information that has
been disclosed to us, the scope, duration and outcome of the
inquiry cannot be determined at this time. We intend to
cooperate fully with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the inquiry.
Internal
Revenue Service Audit
Please refer to Note 13, Income Taxes, for discussion of
Internal Revenue Service audits.
|
|
Note 19.
|
Segment
Reporting
|
We operate primarily in the education industry. We have
organized our segments using a combination of factors primarily
focusing on the type of educational services provided and
products delivered. Our seven operating segments are managed in
the following five reportable segments:
|
|
|
|
|
University of Phoenix;
|
|
|
Apollo Global BPP;
|
|
|
Apollo Global Other;
|
|
|
Insight Schools; and
|
|
|
Other Schools.
|
The University of Phoenix segment offers
associates, bachelors, masters and doctoral
degrees in a variety of program areas. University of Phoenix
offers its educational programs worldwide through its online
education delivery system and at its campus locations and
learning centers.
The Apollo Global BPP segment offers
degree programs through its College of Professional Studies
division, provides education and training to professionals in
the legal and finance industries through its Professional
Education division, and college preparatory education services
through its Mander Portman Woodward division. Apollo
Global BPP provides these services through schools
located in the United Kingdom and a European network of BPP
offices. We began reporting Apollo Global BPP as a
separate
133
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
reportable segment during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009
following Apollo Globals acquisition of BPP on
July 30, 2009.
The Apollo Global Other segment
includes the results of operations for UNIACC, ULA and the
Apollo Global corporate operations. UNIACC offers
bachelors and masters programs on campuses in Chile
and online. ULA offers degree programs at its four campuses
throughout Mexico.
The Insight Schools segment offers educational and
administrative services to public schools to operate full-time
online high school programs. Subsequent to our 2009 fiscal year
end, we decided to explore the sale of Insight Schools.
The Other Schools segment includes the results of
operations of Western International University, IPD, CFFP and
Meritus. Western International University offers undergraduate
and graduate degree program courses at its Arizona campus
locations and online at Western International University
Interactive Online. IPD provides program development,
administration and management consulting services to private
colleges and universities to establish or expand their programs
for working learners. CFFP provides financial services education
programs, including the Master of Science in three majors and
certification programs in retirement, asset management, and
other financial planning areas online and from its headquarters
in Colorado. Meritus offers degree programs online to students
throughout Canada and abroad.
Our reportable segments have been determined based on the method
by which management evaluates performance and allocates
resources. Management evaluates performance based on reportable
segment profit. This measure of profit includes allocating
corporate support costs to each segment as part of a general
allocation, but excludes taxes, interest income and expense,
foreign currency fluctuations and certain revenue and
unallocated corporate charges. At the discretion of management,
certain corporate costs are not allocated to the subsidiaries
due to their designation as special charges because of their
infrequency of occurrence, the non-cash nature of the expense
and/or the
determination that the allocation of these costs to the
subsidiaries will not result in an appropriate measure of the
subsidiaries results. These costs include such items as
unscheduled or significant management bonuses, unusual severance
pay and stock-based compensation expense attributed to corporate
management and administrative employees. The Corporate caption
includes adjustments to reconcile segment results to
consolidated results which primarily consist of net revenue and
corporate charges that are not allocated to our reportable
segments.
During fiscal years 2009, 2008, and 2007, no individual customer
accounted for more than 10% of our consolidated net revenue.
134
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
A summary of financial information by reportable segment is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Net revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University of Phoenix
|
|
$
|
3,766,600
|
|
|
$
|
2,987,656
|
|
|
$
|
2,537,815
|
|
Apollo Global:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BPP
|
|
|
13,062
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
54,283
|
|
|
|
13,435
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Apollo Global
|
|
|
67,345
|
|
|
|
13,435
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insight Schools
|
|
|
20,636
|
|
|
|
7,495
|
|
|
|
1,981
|
|
Other Schools
|
|
|
116,845
|
|
|
|
122,495
|
|
|
|
182,638
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
2,776
|
|
|
|
9,850
|
|
|
|
1,359
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net revenue
|
|
$
|
3,974,202
|
|
|
$
|
3,140,931
|
|
|
$
|
2,723,793
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University of Phoenix(1)
|
|
$
|
1,131,331
|
|
|
$
|
817,609
|
|
|
$
|
656,322
|
|
Apollo Global:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BPP
|
|
|
(6,607
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(11,450
|
)
|
|
|
(1,879
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Apollo Global
|
|
|
(18,057
|
)
|
|
|
(1,879
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Insight Schools
|
|
|
(28,637
|
)
|
|
|
(18,906
|
)
|
|
|
(6,304
|
)
|
Other Schools
|
|
|
6,950
|
|
|
|
20,336
|
|
|
|
42,671
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
(52,127
|
)
|
|
|
(67,694
|
)
|
|
|
(66,992
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,039,460
|
|
|
|
749,466
|
|
|
|
625,697
|
|
Reconciling items:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
12,591
|
|
|
|
30,079
|
|
|
|
31,172
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(4,460
|
)
|
|
|
(3,450
|
)
|
|
|
(232
|
)
|
Other, net
|
|
|
(7,776
|
)
|
|
|
6,759
|
|
|
|
660
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes and minority interest
|
|
$
|
1,039,815
|
|
|
$
|
782,854
|
|
|
$
|
657,297
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University of Phoenix
|
|
$
|
47,181
|
|
|
$
|
41,659
|
|
|
$
|
38,539
|
|
Apollo Global:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BPP
|
|
|
3,115
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
6,286
|
|
|
|
1,929
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Apollo Global
|
|
|
9,401
|
|
|
|
1,929
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insight Schools
|
|
|
3,510
|
|
|
|
1,682
|
|
|
|
630
|
|
Other Schools
|
|
|
1,451
|
|
|
|
1,220
|
|
|
|
4,949
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
38,329
|
|
|
|
33,236
|
|
|
|
26,997
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total depreciation and amortization
|
|
$
|
99,872
|
|
|
$
|
79,726
|
|
|
$
|
71,115
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital expenditures(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University of Phoenix
|
|
$
|
49,031
|
|
|
$
|
37,119
|
|
|
$
|
41,444
|
|
Apollo Global:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BPP
|
|
|
504
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
5,995
|
|
|
|
341
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Apollo Global
|
|
|
6,499
|
|
|
|
341
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insight Schools
|
|
|
5,859
|
|
|
|
3,758
|
|
|
|
959
|
|
Other Schools
|
|
|
1,134
|
|
|
|
630
|
|
|
|
456
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
64,833
|
|
|
|
63,031
|
|
|
|
61,692
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital expenditures
|
|
$
|
127,356
|
|
|
$
|
104,879
|
|
|
$
|
104,551
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
|
University of Phoenix income from
operations for fiscal year 2009 includes $80.5 million in
charges associated with an estimated litigation loss. Please
refer to Note 18, Commitments and Contingencies, for
further discussion.
|
|
(2)
|
|
Capital expenditures exclude
non-cash fixed asset additions of $17.8 million,
$13.7 million and $11.5 million in fiscal years 2009,
2008, and 2007, respectively. Non-cash fixed assets additions
include credits received for tenant improvements and accrued
purchases in accounts payable.
|
135
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
A summary of our consolidated assets by reportable segment is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of August 31,
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University of Phoenix
|
|
$
|
1,112,002
|
|
|
$
|
920,553
|
|
Apollo Global:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BPP
|
|
|
778,416
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
133,615
|
|
|
|
123,688
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Apollo Global
|
|
|
912,031
|
|
|
|
123,688
|
|
Insight Schools
|
|
|
26,590
|
|
|
|
20,294
|
|
Other Schools
|
|
|
52,100
|
|
|
|
47,736
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
1,160,654
|
|
|
|
748,141
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
3,263,377
|
|
|
$
|
1,860,412
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A summary of financial information by geographical area based on
country of domicile for our respective operating locations is as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended August 31,
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
Net revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$
|
3,900,251
|
|
|
$
|
3,122,272
|
|
|
$
|
2,718,525
|
|
United Kingdom
|
|
|
13,062
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latin America
|
|
|
54,536
|
|
|
|
13,712
|
|
|
|
258
|
|
Other
|
|
|
6,353
|
|
|
|
4,947
|
|
|
|
5,010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net revenue
|
|
$
|
3,974,202
|
|
|
$
|
3,140,931
|
|
|
$
|
2,723,793
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of August 31,
|
|
($ in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
Long-lived assets(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
$
|
496,493
|
|
|
$
|
470,092
|
|
United Kingdom
|
|
|
698,273
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latin America
|
|
|
86,137
|
|
|
|
77,247
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2,633
|
|
|
|
860
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-lived assets
|
|
$
|
1,283,536
|
|
|
$
|
548,199
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Long-lived assets include property and equipment, net, goodwill,
and intangible assets, net. |
136
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
Note 20.
|
Quarterly
Results of Operations (Unaudited)
|
Seasonality
Our operations are generally subject to seasonal trends. We
experience, and expect to continue to experience, seasonal
fluctuations in our results of operations as a result of
seasonal variations in the level of student enrollments. While
University of Phoenix enrolls students throughout the year, our
net revenue generally is lower in the second quarter (December
through February) than the other quarters due to holiday breaks
in December and January. Most of our other subsidiaries
experience more significant seasonality, as they have limited
enrollment during their respective summer breaks.
Quarterly
Results of Operations
The following unaudited consolidated interim financial
information presented should be read in conjunction with other
information included in our consolidated financial statements.
The following unaudited consolidated financial information
reflects all adjustments necessary for the fair presentation of
the results of interim periods. The following tables set forth
selected unaudited quarterly financial information for each of
our last eight quarters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
Q1
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
Q3
|
|
|
Q4
|
|
($ in thousands, except per share data)
|
|
November 30
|
|
|
February 28
|
|
|
May 31
|
|
|
August 31
|
|
|
Consolidated Quarterly Statements of Operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net revenue
|
|
$
|
970,967
|
|
|
$
|
876,129
|
|
|
$
|
1,051,343
|
|
|
$
|
1,075,763
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instructional costs and services
|
|
|
377,296
|
|
|
|
373,290
|
|
|
|
400,202
|
|
|
|
452,913
|
|
Selling and promotional
|
|
|
228,585
|
|
|
|
225,711
|
|
|
|
243,633
|
|
|
|
262,508
|
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
58,221
|
|
|
|
71,100
|
|
|
|
71,518
|
|
|
|
89,265
|
|
Estimated litigation loss (Note 18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80,500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
664,102
|
|
|
|
670,101
|
|
|
|
715,353
|
|
|
|
885,186
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from operations
|
|
|
306,865
|
|
|
|
206,028
|
|
|
|
335,990
|
|
|
|
190,577
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
5,379
|
|
|
|
3,430
|
|
|
|
2,395
|
|
|
|
1,387
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(1,432
|
)
|
|
|
(627
|
)
|
|
|
(511
|
)
|
|
|
(1,890
|
)
|
Other, net
|
|
|
(2,431
|
)
|
|
|
(826
|
)
|
|
|
1,781
|
|
|
|
(6,300
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income before income taxes and minority interest
|
|
|
308,381
|
|
|
|
208,005
|
|
|
|
339,655
|
|
|
|
183,774
|
|
Provision for income taxes
|
|
|
(128,073
|
)
|
|
|
(82,929
|
)
|
|
|
(139,043
|
)
|
|
|
(95,940
|
)
|
Minority interest, net of tax
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
270
|
|
|
|
492
|
|
|
|
3,675
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
$
|
180,360
|
|
|
$
|
125,346
|
|
|
$
|
201,104
|
|
|
$
|
91,509
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic income per share(1)
|
|
$
|
1.13
|
|
|
$
|
0.78
|
|
|
$
|
1.28
|
|
|
$
|
0.59
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted income per share(1)
|
|
$
|
1.12
|
|
|
$
|
0.77
|
|
|
$
|
1.26
|
|
|
$
|
0.59
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic weighted average shares outstanding
|
|
|
159,138
|
|
|
|
160,153
|
|
|
|
157,616
|
|
|
|
154,201
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted average shares outstanding
|
|
|
160,762
|
|
|
|
162,757
|
|
|
|
159,305
|
|
|
|
155,722
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The sum of quarterly income per share may not equal annual
income per share due to rounding. |
137
APOLLO
GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
Q1
|
|
|
Q2
|
|
|
Q3
|
|
|
Q4
|
|
($ in thousands, except per share data)
|
|
November 30
|
|
|
February 29
|
|
|
May 31
|
|
|
August 31
|
|
|
Consolidated Quarterly Statements of Operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net revenue
|
|
$
|
780,674
|
|
|
$
|
693,643
|
|
|
$
|
835,217
|
|
|
$
|
831,397
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs and expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Instructional costs and services
|
|
|
333,289
|
|
|
|
327,723
|
|
|
|
347,598
|
|
|
|
362,268
|
|
Selling and promotional
|
|
|
176,909
|
|
|
|
201,705
|
|
|
|
203,644
|
|
|
|
223,137
|
|
General and administrative
|
|
|
51,281
|
|
|
|
55,011
|
|
|
|
60,910
|
|
|
|
47,990
|
|
Estimated securities litigation loss (Note 18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
168,400
|
|
|
|
1,566
|
|
|
|
(169,966
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs and expenses
|
|
|
561,479
|
|
|
|
752,839
|
|
|
|
613,718
|
|
|
|
463,429
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from operations
|
|
|
219,195
|
|
|
|
(59,196
|
)
|
|
|
221,499
|
|
|
|
367,968
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
9,190
|
|
|
|
8,540
|
|
|
|
7,036
|
|
|
|
5,313
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(77
|
)
|
|
|
(581
|
)
|
|
|
(1,988
|
)
|
|
|
(804
|
)
|
Other, net
|
|
|
537
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
(1,719
|
)
|
|
|
7,841
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes and minority interest
|
|
|
228,845
|
|
|
|
(51,137
|
)
|
|
|
224,828
|
|
|
|
380,318
|
|
(Provision) benefit for income taxes
|
|
|
(88,980
|
)
|
|
|
19,098
|
|
|
|
(85,951
|
)
|
|
|
(151,094
|
)
|
Minority interest, net of tax
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
229
|
|
|
|
369
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
139,865
|
|
|
$
|
(32,039
|
)
|
|
$
|
139,106
|
|
|
$
|
229,593
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic income (loss) per share(1)
|
|
$
|
0.84
|
|
|
$
|
(0.19
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
1.45
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted income (loss) per share(1)
|
|
$
|
0.83
|
|
|
$
|
(0.19
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.85
|
|
|
$
|
1.43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic weighted average shares outstanding
|
|
|
167,036
|
|
|
|
168,005
|
|
|
|
162,751
|
|
|
|
158,719
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted average shares outstanding
|
|
|
169,289
|
|
|
|
168,005
|
|
|
|
163,841
|
|
|
|
160,118
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The sum of quarterly income per share may not equal annual
income per share due to rounding and second quarter net loss. |
138
|
|
Item 9
|
Changes
in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure
|
None.
|
|
Item 9A
|
Controls
and Procedures
|
Disclosure
Controls and Procedures
We intend to maintain disclosure controls and procedures
designed to provide reasonable assurance that information
required to be disclosed in reports filed under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is recorded, processed,
summarized and reported within the specified time periods and
accumulated and communicated to our management, including our
Co-Chief Executive Officers (Principal Executive
Officers) and our Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer),
as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required
disclosure. We have established a Disclosure Committee,
consisting of certain members of management, to assist in this
evaluation. Our Disclosure Committee meets on a quarterly basis
and more often if necessary.
Our management, under the supervision and with the participation
of our Principal Executive Officers and Principal Financial
Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in
Rules 13a-15(e)
or 15d-15(e)
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act), as of the end of
the period covered by this report. Based on that evaluation,
management concluded that, as of that date, our disclosure
controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable
assurance level.
We acquired BPP Holdings plc (BPP) in the fourth
quarter of fiscal year 2009. We are not yet required to
evaluate, and have not fully evaluated BPPs internal
control over financial reporting and, therefore, any material
changes in internal control over financial reporting that may
result from this acquisition have not been disclosed in this
Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
We intend to disclose all material changes in internal control
over financial reporting resulting from this acquisition prior
to or in our Annual Report on
Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ending August 31, 2010, in which report
we will be required for the first time to include BPP in our
annual assessment of internal control over financial reporting.
Attached as exhibits to this Annual Report on
Form 10-K
are certifications of our Principal Executive Officers and
Principal Financial Officer, which are required in accordance
with
Rule 13a-14
of the Securities Exchange Act. This Disclosure Controls and
Procedures section includes information concerning
managements evaluation of disclosure controls and
procedures referred to in those certifications and, as such,
should be read in conjunction with the certifications of our
Principal Executive Officers and Principal Financial Officer.
Managements
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
effective internal control over financial reporting.
Managements intent is to design a process to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial
reporting and the preparation of financial statements for
external purposes in accordance with GAAP in the United States
of America.
Our internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that:
(i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in
reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the
transactions and dispositions of our assets;
(ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are
recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with GAAP, and that receipts and
expenditures are being made only in accordance with
authorizations of our management and directors; and
(iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or
timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or
disposition of our assets that could have a material effect on
the financial statements.
139
Management performed an assessment of the effectiveness of our
internal control over financial reporting as of August 31,
2009, utilizing the criteria described in the Internal
Control Integrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission. The objective of this assessment was to determine
whether our internal control over financial reporting was
effective as of August 31, 2009. We have excluded from our
assessment the internal control over financial reporting for
BPP, which was acquired on July 30, 2009, and whose
financial statements reflect total assets and total revenue
constituting 24% and less than 1%, respectively, of our
consolidated financial statement amounts as of and for the
fiscal year ended August 31, 2009. Based on our assessment,
management believes that, as of August 31, 2009, the
Companys internal control over financial reporting is
effective.
Our independent registered public accounting firm,
Deloitte & Touche LLP, independently assessed the
effectiveness of the Companys internal control over
financial reporting. Deloitte & Touche LLP has issued
a report, which is included at the end of Part II,
Item 9A of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Changes
in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
There have not been any changes in our internal control over
financial reporting during the quarter ended August 31,
2009, that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to
materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
140
REPORT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of
Apollo Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Phoenix, Arizona
We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of
Apollo Group, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) as
of August 31, 2009, based on criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission. As described in Managements Report on Internal
Control Over Financial Reporting, management excluded from its
assessment the internal control over financial reporting at BPP
Holdings plc, which was acquired on July 30, 2009 and whose
financial statements constitute 24% of total assets and less
than 1% of revenues, of the consolidated financial statement
amounts as of and for the year ended August 31, 2009.
Accordingly, our audit did not include the internal control over
financial reporting at BPP Holdings plc. The Companys
management is responsible for maintaining effective internal
control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,
included in the accompanying Managements Report on
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is
to express an opinion on the Companys internal control
over financial reporting based on our audit.
We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control
over financial reporting was maintained in all material
respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of
internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk
that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the
design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on
the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed by, or under the supervision of, the
companys principal executive and principal financial
officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected
by the companys board of directors, management, and other
personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions
are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial
statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (3) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over
financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or
improper management override of controls, material misstatements
due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a
timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the
effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting
to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may
become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the
degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may
deteriorate.
In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material
respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as
of August 31, 2009, based on the criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission.
We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the
consolidated balance sheets of the Company as of August 31,
2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of
income, comprehensive income, changes in shareholders
equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period
ended August 31, 2009 of the Company, and our report dated
October 27, 2009 expressed an unqualified opinion on those
financial statements.
/s/ DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLP
Phoenix, Arizona
October 27, 2009
141
PART III
Item 10
Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate
Governance
Information relating to our Board of Directors, Executive
Officers, and Corporate Governance required by this item appears
in the Information Statement for Apollo Group, Inc., to be filed
within 120 days of our fiscal year end (August 31,
2009) and such information is incorporated herein by
reference.
Our employees must act ethically at all times and in accordance
with the policies in our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. We
require full compliance with this policy from all designated
employees including our Co-Chief Executive Officers, Chief
Financial Officer, and Chief Accounting Officer. We publish the
policy, and any amendments or waivers to the policy, in the
Corporate Governance section of our website located at
www.apollogrp.edu/CorporateGovernance.
The charters of our Audit Committee, Compensation Committee,
Equity Award Subcommittee, and Nominating and Governance
Committee are also available in the Corporate Governance section
our website located at www.apollogrp.edu/CorporateGovernance.
|
|
Item 11
|
Executive
Compensation
|
Information relating to this item appears in the Information
Statement for Apollo Group, Inc., to be filed within
120 days of our fiscal year end (August 31,
2009) and such information is incorporated herein by
reference.
|
|
Item 12
|
Security
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and
Related Stockholder Matters
|
Information relating to this item appears in the Information
Statement for Apollo Group, Inc., to be filed within
120 days of our fiscal year end (August 31,
2009) and such information is incorporated herein by
reference.
|
|
Item 13
|
Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director
Independence
|
See Note 17, Related Person Transactions in Item 8,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, which is
incorporated by reference in this Item 13.
Other information relating to this item appears in the
Information Statement for Apollo Group, Inc., to be filed within
120 days of our fiscal year end (August 31,
2009) and such information is incorporated herein by
reference.
|
|
Item 14
|
Principal
Accounting Fees and Services
|
Information relating to this item appears in the Information
Statement for Apollo Group, Inc., to be filed within
120 days of our fiscal year end (August 31,
2009) and such information is incorporated herein by
reference.
142
PART IV
|
|
Item 15
|
Exhibits,
Financial Statement Schedules
|
(a) The
following documents are filed as part of this Annual Report on
Form 10-K:
1. Financial Statements filed as part of this
report
|
|
|
|
|
Index to Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
Page
|
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
|
82
|
|
|
|
|
83
|
|
|
|
|
84
|
|
|
|
|
85
|
|
|
|
|
86
|
|
|
|
|
87
|
|
2. Financial Statement Schedules
All financial statement schedules have been omitted since the
required information is not applicable or is not present in
amounts sufficient to require submission of the schedule, or
because the information required is included in the Consolidated
Financial Statements and Notes thereto.
3. Exhibits
143
Index
to Exhibits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorporated by Reference
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
Filed
|
Number
|
|
Exhibit Description
|
|
Form
|
|
File No.
|
|
Number
|
|
Filing Date
|
|
Herewith
|
|
3.1
|
|
Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Apollo Group,
Inc.
|
|
Proxy
Statement
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
Annex B
|
|
August 1, 2000
|
|
|
3.1a
|
|
Articles of Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of Apollo
Group, Inc.
|
|
8-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
99.1
|
|
June 27, 2007
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws of Apollo Group, Inc.
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
3.2
|
|
April 10, 2006
|
|
|
10.1
|
|
Apollo Group, Inc. Long-Term Incentive Plan*
|
|
S-1
|
|
No. 33-83804
|
|
10.3
|
|
September 9, 1994
|
|
|
10.2
|
|
Apollo Group, Inc. Plan Amendment to Long-Term Incentive Plan*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.5
|
|
June 28, 2007
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
Apollo Group, Inc. Plan Amendment to Long-Term Incentive Plan*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
10.4
|
|
Apollo Group, Inc. Amended and Restated Savings and Investment
Plan*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.4
|
|
January 14, 2002
|
|
|
10.5
|
|
Apollo Group, Inc. Third Amended and Restated 1994 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan*
|
|
10-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.5
|
|
November 14, 2005
|
|
|
10.7
|
|
Apollo Group, Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan (as amended and
restated June 25, 2009)*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.3
|
|
June 29, 2009
|
|
|
10.8
|
|
Form of Apollo Group, Inc. Non-Employee Director Stock Option
Agreement*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.6
|
|
June 28, 2007
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
Form of Apollo Group, Inc. Non-Employee Director Restricted
Stock Unit Award Agreement*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.7
|
|
June 28, 2007
|
|
|
10.10
|
|
Form of Apollo Group, Inc. Stock Option Agreement (for officers
with an employment agreement)*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.3
|
|
January 8, 2009
|
|
|
10.11
|
|
Form of Non-Statutory Stock Option Agreement (for officers
without an employment agreement)*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.4
|
|
January 8, 2009
|
|
|
10.12
|
|
Form of Apollo Group, Inc. Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement
(for officers with an employment agreement)*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.1
|
|
January 8, 2009
|
|
|
10.13
|
|
Form of Apollo Group, Inc. Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement
(for officers without an employment agreement)*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.2
|
|
January 8, 2009
|
|
|
10.14
|
|
Aptimus, Inc. 2001 Stock Plan*
|
|
S-8
|
|
No. 333-147151
|
|
99.1
|
|
November 5, 2007
|
|
|
10.15
|
|
Apollo Group, Inc. Stock Option Assumption Agreement Aptimus,
Inc. 2001 Stock Plan*
|
|
S-8
|
|
No. 333-147151
|
|
99.2
|
|
November 5, 2007
|
|
|
10.16
|
|
Apollo Group, Inc. Stock Appreciation Right Assumption Agreement
Aptimus, Inc. 2001 Stock Plan*
|
|
S-8
|
|
No. 333-147151
|
|
99.3
|
|
November 5, 2007
|
|
|
10.17
|
|
Aptimus, Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan, as amended*
|
|
S-8
|
|
No. 333-147151
|
|
99.4
|
|
November 5, 2007
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorporated by Reference
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
Filed
|
Number
|
|
Exhibit Description
|
|
Form
|
|
File No.
|
|
Number
|
|
Filing Date
|
|
Herewith
|
|
10.18
|
|
Apollo Group, Inc. Stock Option Assumption Agreement Aptimus,
Inc. 1997 Stock Option Plan, as amended*
|
|
S-8
|
|
No. 333-147151
|
|
99.5
|
|
November 5, 2007
|
|
|
10.19
|
|
Apollo Group, Inc. Executive Officer Performance Incentive Plan*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.1
|
|
January 8, 2008
|
|
|
10.20
|
|
Apollo Group, Inc. Deferral Election Program for Non-Employee
Board Members*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
10.21
|
|
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement between Apollo Group,
Inc. and John G. Sperling, dated December 31, 2008*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.10
|
|
January 8, 2009
|
|
|
10.22
|
|
Amended and Restated Deferred Compensation Agreement between
Apollo Group, Inc. and John G. Sperling, dated December 31, 2008*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.11
|
|
January 8, 2009
|
|
|
10.23
|
|
Shareholder Agreement among Apollo Group, Inc. and holders of
Apollo Group Class B common stock, dated September 7, 1994
|
|
S-1
|
|
No. 33-83804
|
|
10.10
|
|
September 9, 1994
|
|
|
10.23b
|
|
Amendment to Shareholder Agreement among Apollo Group, Inc. and
holders of Apollo Group Class B common stock, dated May 25, 2001
|
|
10-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.10b
|
|
November 28, 2001
|
|
|
10.23c
|
|
Amendment to Shareholder Agreement among Apollo Group, Inc. and
holders of Apollo Group Class B common stock, dated June 23, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
10.23d
|
|
Amendment to Shareholder Agreement among Apollo Group, Inc. and
holders of Apollo Group Class B common stock, dated May 19, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
10.24
|
|
Independent Contractor Agreement between Apollo Group, Inc. and
Governmental Advocates, Inc., dated June 1, 2006
|
|
10-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.12
|
|
May 22, 2007
|
|
|
10.25
|
|
Promissory Note from Hermes Onetouch, L.L.C. dated December 14,
2001
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.14
|
|
April 12, 2002
|
|
|
10.25a
|
|
Corrected Promissory Note from Hermes Onetouch, L.L.C., dated
December 14, 2001
|
|
10-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.13a
|
|
May 22, 2007
|
|
|
10.26
|
|
Engagement Letter Agreement between Apollo Group, Inc. and FTI
Consulting, Inc., dated November 14, 2006*
|
|
10-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.16
|
|
May 22, 2007
|
|
|
10.27
|
|
Consulting Agreement between Apollo Group, Inc. and Brian L.
Swartz, dated February 13, 2007*
|
|
10-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.17
|
|
May 22, 2007
|
|
|
10.28
|
|
Employment Agreement between Apollo Group, Inc. and Gregory W.
Cappelli, dated March 31, 2007*
|
|
10-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.18
|
|
May 22, 2007
|
|
|
145
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorporated by Reference
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
Filed
|
Number
|
|
Exhibit Description
|
|
Form
|
|
File No.
|
|
Number
|
|
Filing Date
|
|
Herewith
|
|
10.29
|
|
Stock Option Agreement between Apollo Group, Inc. and Gregory W.
Cappelli, dated June 28, 2007*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.10
|
|
June 28, 2007
|
|
|
10.30
|
|
Amendment to Employment Agreement between Apollo Group, Inc. and
Gregory Cappelli, dated December 12, 2008*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.6
|
|
January 8, 2009
|
|
|
10.31
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement between Apollo Group,
Inc. and Gregory Cappelli, dated April 24, 2009*
|
|
8-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.1
|
|
April 27, 2009
|
|
|
10.32
|
|
Employment Agreement between Apollo Group, Inc. and Joseph L.
DAmico, dated June 5, 2007*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.1
|
|
June 28, 2007
|
|
|
10.33
|
|
Amendment to Employment Agreement between Apollo Group, Inc. and
Joseph L. DAmico, dated June 5, 2007*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.2
|
|
June 28, 2007
|
|
|
10.34
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement between Apollo Group,
Inc. and Joseph L. DAmico, dated December 12, 2008*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.7
|
|
January 8, 2009
|
|
|
10.35
|
|
Amendment No. 3 to Employment Agreement between Apollo Group,
Inc. and Joseph L. DAmico, dated February 23, 2009*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.1
|
|
March 31, 2009
|
|
|
10.36
|
|
Employment Agreement between Apollo Group, Inc. and P. Robert
Moya, dated August 31, 2007*
|
|
10-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.26
|
|
October 29, 2007
|
|
|
10.37
|
|
Amendment to Employment Agreement between Apollo Group, Inc. and
P. Robert Moya, dated December 12, 2008*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.9
|
|
January 8, 2009
|
|
|
10.38
|
|
Employment Agreement between Apollo Group, Inc. and Charles B.
Edelstein, dated July 7, 2008*
|
|
8-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.1
|
|
July 8, 2008
|
|
|
10.39
|
|
Amendment to Employment Agreement between Apollo Group, Inc. and
Charles B. Edelstein, dated December 12, 2008*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.8
|
|
January 8, 2009
|
|
|
10.40
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement between Apollo Group,
Inc. and Charles B. Edelstein, dated February 23, 2009*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.2
|
|
March 31, 2009
|
|
|
10.41
|
|
Amendment No. 3 to Employment Agreement between Apollo Group,
Inc. and Charles B. Edelstein, dated April 24, 2009*
|
|
8-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.2
|
|
April 27, 2009
|
|
|
10.42
|
|
Employment Agreement between Apollo Group, Inc. and Rob Wrubel,
dated August 7, 2007*
|
|
10-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.31
|
|
October 28, 2008
|
|
|
10.43
|
|
Amendment to Employment Agreement between Apollo Group, Inc. and
Rob Wrubel, dated October 31, 2008*
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.5
|
|
January 8, 2009
|
|
|
146
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorporated by Reference
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
Filed
|
Number
|
|
Exhibit Description
|
|
Form
|
|
File No.
|
|
Number
|
|
Filing Date
|
|
Herewith
|
|
10.44
|
|
Stock Option Repricing Agreement between Apollo Group, Inc. and
John G. Sperling, dated August 25, 2008*
|
|
10-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.32
|
|
October 28, 2008
|
|
|
10.45
|
|
Stock Option Repricing Agreement between Apollo Group, Inc. and
Peter V. Sperling, dated August 25, 2008*
|
|
10-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.33
|
|
October 28, 2008
|
|
|
10.46
|
|
Amended and Restated Capital Contribution Agreement among Apollo
Group, Inc., Carlyle Ventures Partners III, L.P. and Apollo
Global, Inc., dated July 28, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
10.47
|
|
Amended and Restated Shareholders Agreement among Apollo
Group, Inc., CVP III Coinvestment, L.P., Carlyle Ventures
Partners III, L.P. and Apollo Global, Inc., dated July 28, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
10.48
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement among Apollo Group, Inc., Carlyle
Ventures Partners III, L.P. and Apollo Global, Inc., dated
October 22, 2007
|
|
10-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.29
|
|
October 29, 2007
|
|
|
10.49
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to Registration Rights Agreement among Apollo
Group, Inc., Carlyle Ventures Partners III, L.P. and Apollo
Global, Inc., dated July 28, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
10.50
|
|
Agreement and Plan of Exchange among Apollo Global, Inc., Apollo
Group, Inc., Carlyle Ventures Partners III, L.P. and CVP III
Coinvestment, L.P., dated July 28, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
10.51
|
|
Credit Agreement among Apollo Group, Inc., the Lenders from time
to time party thereto, Bank of America, N.A. and BNP Paribas, as
Co-Documentation Agents, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Syndication
Agent and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent,
dated January 4, 2008
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.2
|
|
January 8, 2008
|
|
|
10.52
|
|
Rule 62(b) Bond and Supersedeas Bond, dated February 15, 2008
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.1
|
|
March 27, 2008
|
|
|
10.53
|
|
Registered Pledge and Master Security Agreement by and between
Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America and Apollo
Group, Inc., entered into by Apollo Group, Inc. on February 14,
2008
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.2
|
|
March 27, 2008
|
|
|
10.54
|
|
General Contract of Indemnity by Apollo Group, Inc. for the
benefit of Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America,
entered into by Apollo Group, Inc. on February 14, 2008
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.3
|
|
March 27, 2008
|
|
|
147
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incorporated by Reference
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit
|
|
|
|
Filed
|
Number
|
|
Exhibit Description
|
|
Form
|
|
File No.
|
|
Number
|
|
Filing Date
|
|
Herewith
|
|
10.55
|
|
Control Agreement by and among Apollo Group, Inc., Travelers
Casualty and Surety Company of America, and Smith Barney Inc.,
entered into by Apollo Group, Inc. on February 14, 2008
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.4
|
|
March 27, 2008
|
|
|
10.56
|
|
Option Agreement by and between Apollo Group, Inc. and Macquarie
Riverpoint AZ, LLC, dated June 20, 2006
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.6
|
|
March 27, 2008
|
|
|
10.57
|
|
First Amendment to Option Agreement by and between Apollo Group,
Inc. and Macquarie Riverpoint AZ, LLC, dated March 7, 2007
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.7
|
|
March 27, 2008
|
|
|
10.59
|
|
Second Amendment to Option Agreement by and between Apollo
Group, Inc. and Macquarie Riverpoint AZ, LLC, dated March 17,
2008
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.8
|
|
March 27, 2008
|
|
|
10.60
|
|
Third Amendment to Option Agreement and Joint Order to Title
Company by and between Apollo Group, Inc. and Macquarie
Riverpoint AZ, LLC, dated April 28, 2008
|
|
10-Q
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
10.1
|
|
July 1, 2008
|
|
|
10.61
|
|
Implementation Agreement, dated June 7, 2009, by and among
Apollo Global, Inc., Apollo UK Acquisition Company Limited and
BPP Holdings plc.
|
|
8-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
2.1
|
|
June 8, 2009
|
|
|
10.62
|
|
Rule 2.5 Announcement, dated June 8, 2009
|
|
8-K
|
|
No. 000-25232
|
|
2.2
|
|
June 8, 2009
|
|
|
21
|
|
List of Subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X
|
23.1
|
|
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
|
|
X
|
31.1
|
|
Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
X
|
31.2
|
|
Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
X
|
31.3
|
|
Certification of Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Section
302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
X
|
32.1
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
X
|
32.2
|
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
X
|
32.3
|
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Indicates a management contract or compensation plan. |
148
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized.
APOLLO GROUP, INC.
An Arizona Corporation
|
|
|
|
By:
|
/s/ Charles
B. Edelstein
|
Charles B. Edelstein
Co-Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
|
|
|
|
By:
|
/s/ Gregory
W. Cappelli
|
Gregory W. Cappelli
Co-Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
Date: October 27, 2009
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the
dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ John
G. Sperling
John
G. Sperling
|
|
Founder, Executive Chairman of the Board and Director
|
|
October 27, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Peter
V. Sperling
Peter
V. Sperling
|
|
Vice Chairman of the Board and Director
|
|
October 27, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Charles
B. Edelstein
Charles
B. Edelstein
|
|
Co-Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive
Officer)
|
|
October 27, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Gregory
W. Cappelli
Gregory
W. Cappelli
|
|
Co-Chief Executive Officer and Director (Principal Executive
Officer)
|
|
October 27, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Terri
C. Bishop
Terri
C. Bishop
|
|
Executive Vice President,
External Affairs and Director
|
|
October 27, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Brian
L. Swartz
Brian
L. Swartz
|
|
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)
|
|
October 27, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Gregory
J. Iverson
Gregory
J. Iverson
|
|
Vice President, Chief Accounting Officer and Controller
(Principal Accounting Officer)
|
|
October 27, 2009
|
149
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Title
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Dino
J. DeConcini
Dino
J. DeConcini
|
|
Director
|
|
October 27, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ K.
Sue Redman
K.
Sue Redman
|
|
Director
|
|
October 27, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ James
R. Reis
James
R. Reis
|
|
Director
|
|
October 27, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ George
A. Zimmer
George
A. Zimmer
|
|
Director
|
|
October 27, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Roy
A. Herberger
Roy
A. Herberger
|
|
Director
|
|
October 27, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Ann
Kirschner
Ann
Kirschner
|
|
Director
|
|
October 27, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Stephen
J. Giusto
Stephen
J. Giusto
|
|
Director
|
|
October 27, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Manuel
F. Rivelo
Manuel
F. Rivelo
|
|
Director
|
|
October 27, 2009
|
150