ASPEN GROUP, INC. - Annual Report: 2019 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

or

Commission file number 001-38175

ASPEN GROUP, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

(646) 448-5144

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes ¨    No þ 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act.  Yes ¨    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 ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).  Yes þ    No ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  ¨

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

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.  Approximately $91 million based on a closing price of $5.70 on October 31, 2018.

The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s classes of common stock, as of July 9, 2019 was 18,648,884 shares.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant's Proxy Statement for the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated herein by reference in Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K to the extent stated herein. Such Proxy Statement will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days of the registrant's fiscal year ended April 30, 2019.

INDEX

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS.

Aspen Group, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, the “Company” or “AGI”) is a holding company. AGI has three subsidiaries, Aspen University Inc. organized in 1987, United States University Inc., and Aspen Nursing, Inc. (“ANI”). ANI is a subsidiary of Aspen University Inc. On March 13, 2012, the Company was recapitalized in a reverse merger.

All references to the “Company”, “AGI”, “Aspen Group”, “we”, “our” and “us” refer to Aspen Group, Inc., unless the context otherwise indicates.

Description of Business

AGI is an education technology holding company.  It operates two universities, Aspen University (“Aspen University” or “AUI” or “Aspen”) and United States University (“United States University” or “USU”).

AGI leverages its education technology infrastructure and expertise to allow its two universities, Aspen University and United States University, to deliver on the vision of making college affordable again. Because we believe higher education should be a catalyst to our students’ long-term economic success, we exert financial prudence by offering affordable tuition that is one of the greatest values in higher education. AGI’s primary focus relative to future growth is to target the high growth nursing profession, as today 81% of all students across both universities are degree-seeking nursing students.

In March 2014, Aspen University unveiled a monthly payment plan available to all students across every online degree program offered by the university. The monthly payment plan is designed so that students will make one payment per month, and that monthly payment is applied towards the total cost of attendance (tuition and fees, excluding textbooks). The monthly payment plan offers online associate and bachelor students the opportunity to pay their tuition and fees at $250/month, online master students $325/month, and online doctoral students $375/month, interest free, thereby giving students a monthly payment option versus taking out a federal financial aid loan.

USU began offering monthly payment plans in the summer of 2017. Today, monthly payment plans are available for the online RN to BSN program ($250/month), online MBA/M.A.Ed/MSN programs ($325/month), and the online hybrid Masters of Nursing-Family Nurse Practitioner (“FNP”) program ($375/month). Effective August 2019, new student enrollments for USU’s FNP monthly payment plan will be offered a $9,000 two-year payment plan ($375/month x 24 months) designed to pay for the first year’s pre-clinical courses only (approximate cost of $9,000). The second academic year in which students complete their clinical courses (approximate cost of $18,000) will be required to be funded through conventional payment methods (either cash, private loans, corporate tuition reimbursement or federal financial aid).

Additionally, Aspen University began its first semester in July 2018 for its pre-licensure Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree program at its initial campus in Phoenix, Arizona. Aspen’s innovative hybrid (online/on-campus) program allows most of the credits to be completed online (83 of 120 credits or 69%), with pricing offered at Aspen’s current low tuition rates of $150/credit hour for online general education courses and $325/credit hour for online core nursing courses. For high school students with no prior college credits, the total cost of attendance is less than $50,000. As a result of overwhelming demand in the Phoenix metro area, Aspen University began offering both day (July, November, and March semesters) and evening/weekend (January, May, and September semesters) programs starting in January 2019, equaling six semester starts per year. In September 2018, Aspen announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding to open a second campus in the Phoenix metro in partnership with HonorHealth, currently projected to launch in September 2019.

Since 1993, Aspen University has been nationally accredited by the DEAC, a national accrediting agency recognized by the DOE and CHEA. On February 25, 2019, the DEAC informed Aspen University that it had renewed its accreditation for five years to January 2024.

Since 2009, USU has been regionally accredited by WSCUC.

Both universities are qualified to participate under the Higher Education Act and the Federal student financial assistance programs (Title IV, HEA programs).

1

Competitive Strengths - We believe that we have the following competitive strengths:

Emphasis on Online Education - Except for our Aspen University pre-licensure BSN hybrid (online/on-campus) nursing program and USU’s hybrid (online/on-campus) MSN-FNP and International MBA programs, we have designed our courses and programs exclusively for online delivery, and we recruit and train faculty for online instruction. We provide students the flexibility to study and interact at times that suit their schedules. We design our online sessions and materials to be interactive, dynamic and user friendly.

Debt Minimization - We are committed to offering among the lowest tuition rates in the sector, which to date has alleviated the need for a significant majority of our students to take out federal financial aid loans to fund their tuition and fees requirements.

Commitment to Academic Excellence - We are committed to continuously improving our academic programs and services, as evidenced by the level of attention and resources we apply to instruction and educational support. We are committed to achieving high course completion and graduation rates compared to competitive distance learning, for-profit schools. One-on-one contact with our highly experienced faculty brings knowledge and great perspective to the learning experience. Faculty members are available by telephone and email to answer questions, discuss assignments and provide help and encouragement to our students.

Highly Scalable and Profitable Business Model - We believe our education model, our relatively low student acquisition costs, and our variable faculty cost model will enable us to expand our operating margins. As we increase student enrollments we are able to scale our online business on a variable basis the number of adjunct faculty members after we reach certain enrollment metrics (not before). A single adjunct faculty member can work with as little as two students or as many as 30 at any given time.

We also think our hybrid BSN pre-licensure nursing program has significant potential since there are large waiting lists of applicants at most public universities that offer pre-licensure BSN programs in major U.S. metropolitan areas. Specifically, there were 56,397 qualified applicants not admitted to pre-licensure BSN programs in the 2016-2017 academic year, as reported by the AACN (2018). Our experience in the Phoenix metro has confirmed the existence of the backlog. Throughout our first full fiscal year (FY’19) marketing the program, Aspen University delivered 433 new student enrollments and ended the fiscal year with 396 active students in its Pre-Licensure BSN program in Phoenix.

“One Student at a Time” personal care - We are committed to providing our students with highly responsive and personal individualized support. Every student is assigned an Academic Advisor who becomes an advocate for the student’s success. Our one-on-one approach assures contact with faculty members when a student needs it and monitoring to keep them on course. Our administrative staff is readily available to answer any questions and works with a student from initial interest through the application process and enrollment, and most importantly while the student is pursuing a degree or studies.

Admissions

In considering candidates for acceptance into any of our certificate or degree programs, we look for those who are serious about pursuing – or advancing in – a professional career, and who want to be both prepared and academically challenged in the process. We strive to maintain the highest standards of academic excellence, while maintaining a friendly learning environment designed for educational, personal and professional success. A desire to meet those standards is a prerequisite. Because our programs are designed for self-directed learners who know how to manage their time, successful students have a basic understanding of time management principles and practices, as well as good writing and research skills. Admission to Aspen is based on a thorough assessment of each applicant’s potential to complete successfully the program.

2

Industry Overview

The U.S. market for postsecondary education is a large but flattening market. From 2012 to 2016, total enrollments declined 4% from 20,928,443 to 20,082,977, according to Babson Survey Research Group.  The survey reported that private, for-profit enrollments declined significantly over the four-year period, from 1,856,538 to 1,218,646 or -34.4%. Additionally, the survey reported that students enrolled exclusively in distance education courses increased by 13.2% over the four-year period, from 2,633,515 to 2,980,854. Again, enrollments in this cohort in the private, for-profit segment declined by 24.3%, from 927,899 to 702,139. The market share increases among exclusively distance education students was split between public universities and private, non-profits as both segments increased enrollments by more than 250,000 students each. Students enrolled in “some but not all” distance education courses rose 20.1% over the four-year period, from 2,791,891 to 3,353,659. The private, for-profit segment declined at a lower rate in this cohort, from 134,319 to 125,181 students or -6.8%.

Competition

According to the 2015 Digest of Education Statistics (nces.ed.gov), there are more than 4,600 U.S. colleges and universities serving traditional college age students and adult students. Any reference to universities herein also includes colleges. Competition is highly fragmented and varies by geography, program offerings, delivery method, ownership, quality level, and selectivity of admissions. No one institution has a significant share of the total postsecondary market. While we compete in a sense with traditional “brick and mortar” universities, our primary competitors are universities that primarily enroll online students. Our primarily online university competitors that are publicly traded include: American Public Education, Inc. (Nasdaq: APEI), Adtalem Global Education (NYSE: ATGE), Grand Canyon Education, Inc. (Nasdaq: LOPE), and Strategic Education, Inc. (Nasdaq: STRA). We also compete with the privately owned Apollo Education Group, which includes University of Phoenix and is considered the market leader based on total enrollments.

These competitors have degreed enrollments ranging from approximately 38,000 to 90,000 students. As of April 30, 2019, the Company had 8,932 active degree-seeking students enrolled.

The primary mission of most traditional accredited four-year universities is to serve full-time students and conduct research. Most online universities serve working adults. Aspen Group acknowledges the differences in the educational needs between working and full-time students at “brick and mortar” schools and provides programs and services that allow our students to earn their degrees without major disruption to their personal and professional lives.

We also compete with public and private degree-granting regionally and nationally accredited universities. An increasing number of universities enroll working students in addition to the traditional 18 to 24-year-old students, and we expect that these 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:

·

Active and relevant curriculum development that considers the needs of employers;

·

The ability to provide flexible and convenient access to programs and classes;

·

Cost of the program;

·

High-quality courses and services;

·

Comprehensive student support services;

·

Breadth of programs offered;

·

The time necessary to earn a degree;

·

Qualified and experienced faculty;

·

Reputation of the institution and its programs;

·

The variety of geographic locations of campuses;

·

Name recognition; and

·

Convenience.

3

Academics

Aspen University

School of Nursing

School of Education

School of Business and Technology

School of Professional Studies

United States University

College of Nursing and Health Sciences

College of Business and Technology

College of Education

Extended Studies

Sales and Marketing

Following Mr. Michael Mathews becoming Aspen’s Chief Executive Officer in May 2011, Mr. Mathews and his team made significant changes to Aspen’s sales and marketing program, specifically spending a significant amount of time, money and resources on our proprietary Internet marketing program. What is unique about our Internet marketing program is that we have not used and have no plans in the near future to utilize third-party online lead generation companies to attract prospective students. To our knowledge, most if not all for-profit online universities utilize multiple third-party online lead generation companies to obtain a meaningful percentage of their prospective student leads. Aspen’s executive officers have many years of expertise in the online lead generation and Internet advertising industry, which for the foreseeable future will allow Aspen to cost-effectively drive all prospective student leads internally. This is a competitive advantage for Aspen Group because third-party leads are typically unbranded and non-exclusive (lead generation firms typically sell prospective student leads to multiple universities), therefore the conversion rate for those leads tends to be appreciably lower than internally generated, Aspen Group university-specific branded, proprietary leads.

Additionally, in connection with the launch of the pre-licensure BSN hybrid (online/on-campus) program in Phoenix, AZ, the Company has begun to augment its Internet advertising marketing with local radio spots in the Phoenix metro area.

Employees

As of June 15, 2019, we had 232 full-time employees, and 405 adjunct professors, who are part-time employees. None of our employees are parties to any collective bargaining arrangement. We believe our relationships with our employees are good.

Corporate History

Aspen Group was incorporated on February 23, 2010 in Florida. In February 2012, Aspen Group reincorporated in Delaware under the name Aspen Group, Inc.

Aspen University Inc. was incorporated on September 30, 2004 in Delaware. Its predecessor was a Delaware limited liability company organized in Delaware in 1999. On March 13, 2012, Aspen Group, which was then inactive, acquired Aspen University Inc. in a transaction we refer to as the reverse merger. On December 1, 2017, Aspen Group acquired USU.

Available Information

Our corporate website is www.aspu.com. We make available on our website under “SEC Filings” access to our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, Proxy Statements on Schedule 14A and amendments to those materials filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), free of charge.

Regulation

Students attending our schools finance their education through a combination of individual resources, corporate reimbursement programs and federal student financial assistance funds available through our participation in the Title IV Programs. The discussion which follows outlines the extensive regulations that affect our business. Complying with these regulations entails significant effort from our executives and other employees. Further, regulatory compliance is also expensive. Beyond the internal costs, compliance with the extensive regulatory requirements also involves engagement of outside regulatory professionals.

4

To participate in Title IV Programs, a school must, among other things, be:

State Authorization

On December 19, 2016, DOE issued regulations regarding state authorization of distance education (the “2016 regulations”) that were originally scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2018. Under the 2016 regulations, Title IV Program institutions, like ours, that offer postsecondary education through distance education to students in a state in which the institution is not physically located or in which it is otherwise subject to state jurisdiction as determined by that state, must meet any state requirements to offer postsecondary education to students in that state and provide specific consumer disclosures regarding educational programs. Under the 2016 regulations, an institution may meet state requirements by seeking authorization from the state or (in all states other than California) through a state authorization reciprocity agreement. The 2016 regulations would require an institution to document state approval for distance education if requested by DOE.

On May 25, 2018, the DOE published an announcement in the Federal Register (the “Notice”) that proposed a two-year delay, until July 1, 2020, of the effective date of the 2016 regulations, and on July 3, 2018, the DOE’s delay of the 2016 regulations took effect. According to the Notice, the regulatory delay was prompted by the receipt of letters from the American Council on Education, the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, the Cooperative for Educational Technologies, the National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements, and the Distance Education Accrediting Commission. The organizations stated that they needed information as to how to comply with the regulations, including how the term “residence” as described in the preamble of the 2016 regulations may conflict with state laws and how to disclose to students the appropriate state complaint process when a number of states, including California, do not currently have formalized complaint processes for all out-of-state institutions. The organizations also pointed out that there is widespread confusion with respect to the public and individualized disclosures of state licensure eligibility for every discipline that requires a license to enter a profession. The Department of Education said that because of the “complexity of these issues, we are not confident that we could develop a workable solution through guidance and without the input of negotiators who have been engaged in meeting these requirements.” The Notice said that since guidance is nonbinding, negotiated rulemaking is the most appropriate vehicle to provide substantive clarification necessary to stakeholders.

On July 31, 2018, DOE announced its intention to convene a negotiated rulemaking committee (the “Committee”) to consider proposed regulations for Title IV Programs, including revisions to the 2016 regulations. The Committee convened for several meetings from January to April 2019. On June 12, 2019, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking, which included proposed regulations that would supplant the 2016 regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”). Like the 2016 regulations, the Proposed Regulations would require Title IV Program institutions, like ours, that offer postsecondary education through distance education to students in a state in which the institution is not physically located or in which it is otherwise subject to state jurisdiction as determined by that state, to meet any state requirements to offer postsecondary education to students who are located in that state.

The Proposed Regulations are subject to a public comment period set to conclude on July 12, 2019, and DOE has indicated that it plans to issue a final rule by November 1, 2019, meaning the Proposed Regulations would be scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2020. We cannot predict whether the Proposed Regulations will go into effect as currently drafted or as revised.

Because we are subject to extensive regulations by the states in which we become authorized or licensed to operate, we must abide by state laws that typically establish standards for instruction, qualifications of faculty, administrative procedures, marketing, recruiting, financial operations and other operational matters. State laws and regulations may limit our ability to offer educational programs and to award degrees. Some states may also prescribe financial regulations that are different from those of DOE. If we fail to comply with state licensing requirements, we may lose our state licensure or authorizations. Failure to comply with state requirements could result in Aspen losing its authorization from the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, a department of the Colorado Department of Higher Education (“Colorado Department”) or Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education (“Arizona Board”), and USU losing its authorization from the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (“California Bureau”). In such event, the school would lose its eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs, or its ability to offer certain educational programs, any of which may force us to cease the school’s operations.

5

Additionally, Aspen, ANI and USU are Delaware corporations. Delaware law requires an institution to obtain approval from the Delaware Department of Education, or Delaware DOE, before it may incorporate with the power to confer degrees. In July 2012, Aspen received notice from the Delaware DOE that it was granted provisional approval status effective until June 30, 2015. On April 25, 2016, the Delaware DOE informed Aspen University it was granted full approval to operate with degree-granting authority in the State of Delaware until July 1, 2020. On June 6, 2018, the Delaware DOE granted an initial operating license to United States University until June 30, 2023.

Accreditation

Aspen University is accredited by the DEAC, a national accrediting agency recognized by CHEA and DOE, and USU is accredited by WSCUC, a regional accrediting agency recognized by CHEA and DOE. Accreditation is a non-governmental system for evaluating educational institutions and their programs in areas including student performance, governance, integrity, educational quality, faculty, physical resources, administrative capability and resources, and financial stability. In the U.S., this recognition comes primarily through private voluntary associations that accredit institutions and programs. To be recognized by DOE, accrediting agencies must adopt specific standards for their review of educational institutions. Accrediting agencies establish criteria for accreditation, conduct peer-review evaluations of institutions and programs for accreditation, and publicly designate those institutions or programs that meet their criteria. Accredited institutions are subject to periodic review by accrediting agencies to determine whether such institutions maintain the performance, integrity and quality required for accreditation.

Accreditation is important to our schools for several reasons. Accreditation provides external recognition and status. Employers rely on the accredited status of institutions when evaluating an employment candidate’s credentials. Corporate and government sponsors under tuition reimbursement programs look to accreditation for assurance that an institution maintains quality educational standards. Other institutions depend, in part, on our accreditation in evaluating transfers of credit and applications to graduate schools. Moreover, institutional accreditation awarded from an accrediting agency recognized by DOE is necessary for eligibility to participate in the Title IV Programs. From time to time, accrediting agencies adopt or make changes to their policies, procedures and standards. If our schools fail to comply with any of these requirements, the non-complying school’s accreditation status could be at risk.

In addition to institutional accreditation, there are numerous specialized accreditors that accredit specific programs or schools within their jurisdiction, many of which are in healthcare and professional fields. USU’s and Aspen University’s baccalaureate and master’s degree programs in nursing are accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE) and Aspen University’s doctoral nursing degree is currently under review for accreditation. CCNE is officially recognized by CHEA and DOE and provides accreditation for nursing programs. Accreditation by CCNE signifies that those programs have met the additional standards of that agency. We are also pleased that Aspen University’s School of Business and Technology has been awarded the status of Candidate for Accreditation by the International Accreditation Council for Business Education (IACBE) for its baccalaureate and master’s business programs. If we fail to satisfy the standards of specialized accreditors, we could lose the specialized accreditation for the affected programs, which could result in materially reduced student enrollments in those programs and prevent our students from seeking and obtaining appropriate licensure in their fields.

State Education Licensure and Regulation

As an institution of higher education that grants degrees and certificates, we are required to be authorized by applicable state education authorities which exercise regulatory oversight of our institutions. In addition, in order to participate in the Title IV Programs, we must be authorized by the applicable state education agencies.

Aspen University is an approved institutional participant in SARA. SARA is intended to make it easier for students to take online courses offered by postsecondary institutions based in another state. SARA is overseen by a National Council (“NC-SARA”) and administered by four regional education compacts. There is an annual renewal for participating in NC-SARA and the state-level agency, in Aspen University’s case CO-SARA, and institutions must agree to meet certain requirements to participate.

6

The only state that does not participate in SARA is California and it has imposed regulatory requirements on out-of-state educational institutions operating within its boundaries, such as those having a physical facility or conducting certain academic activities within the state. Aspen University is registered as an out-of-state institution with California until February 28, 2021. Aspen currently enrolls students in all 50 states. While we do not believe that any of the states in which our schools are currently licensed or authorized, other than Colorado, Arizona and California, are individually material to our operations, the loss of licensure or authorization in any state could prohibit us from recruiting prospective students or offering services to current students in that state, which could significantly reduce our enrollments.

Because USU is based in California, which does not participate in NC-SARA, USU must obtain authorization in every state in which it intends to market and enroll online students, which was the standard method prior to the formation of NC-SARA. USU is currently authorized to offer one or more programs in 40 states and is in the application process with 7 additional states and the District of Columbia. USU maintains its state authorizations through annual reporting and required renewals.

Individual state laws establish standards in areas such as instruction, qualifications of faculty, administrative procedures, marketing, recruiting, financial operations, and other operational matters, some of which are different than the standards prescribed by the Colorado Department, the Arizona Board and the California Bureau. Laws in some states limit schools’ ability to offer educational programs and award degrees to residents of those states. Some states also prescribe financial regulations that are different from those of DOE, and many require the posting of surety bonds. Laws, regulations, or interpretations related to online education could increase our cost of doing business and affect our ability to recruit students in particular states, which could, in turn, negatively affect enrollments and revenues and have a material adverse effect on our business.

On February 22, 2019, members of the California General Assembly proposed a legislative package that would increase regulatory compliance requirements for institutions that are approved by the California Bureau. The legislative package passed the California General Assembly but has been amended to reduce significantly the regulatory burden on institutions approved by the California Bureau. The legislative package must also pass the California Senate by September 13, 2019 before it is signed into law. We cannot predict whether the legislative package will become law.

State Professional Licensure

States have specific requirements that an individual must satisfy in order to be licensed or certified as a professional in specific fields. For example, graduates from some USU and Aspen University nursing programs often seek professional licensure in their field because they are legally required to do so in order to work in that field or because obtaining licensure enhances employment opportunities. Success in obtaining licensure depends on several factors, including each individual’s personal and professional qualifications as well as other factors related to the degree or program completed, including but not necessarily limited to:

Professional licensure and certification requirements can vary by state and may change over time.  

Nature of Federal, State and Private Financial Support for Postsecondary Education

The federal government provides a substantial part of its support for postsecondary education through the Title IV Programs, in the form of grants and loans to students. Students can use those funds at any institution that has been certified by DOE to participate in the Title IV Programs. Aid under Title IV Programs is primarily awarded on the basis of financial need, generally defined as the difference between the cost of attending the institution and the amount a student can reasonably contribute to that cost. All recipients of Title IV Program funds must maintain satisfactory academic progress and must progress in a timely manner toward completion of their program of study. In addition, each school must ensure that Title IV Program funds are properly accounted for and disbursed in the correct amounts to eligible students.

7

Our institutional missions manifest itself through offering students the opportunity to fund their education without relying solely on student loans. In March 2014, Aspen University launched a $250 monthly payment plan for associate and bachelor degree students and a $325 monthly payment plan for master’s degree students, and subsequently a $375 monthly payment plan for doctoral students. The monthly payment plan is available to all Aspen University and United States University students except those in the Aspen University BSN Pre-licensure program.  Note that effective August 2019, new student enrollments for USU’s FNP monthly payment plan will be offered a $9,000 two-year payment plan ($375/month x 24 months) designed to pay for the first year’s pre-clinical courses only (approximate cost of $9,000). The second academic year in which students complete their clinical courses (approximate cost of $18,000) will be required to be funded through conventional payment methods (either cash, private loans, corporate tuition reimbursement or federal financial aid).

Currently, 69% of Aspen University students utilize monthly payment options, including the monthly payment plan (63%) or the installment plan (6%). In 2017, USU implemented these monthly payment options and currently has 68% of its students utilizing them, including the monthly payment plan (67%) and the installment plan (1%).

When Aspen University students seek funding from the federal government, they receive loans and grants to fund their education under the following Title IV Programs: (1) the Federal Direct Loan program, or Direct Loan and (2) the Federal Pell Grant program, or Pell. USU students are eligible for the same, plus Federal Work Study and Federal Supplemental Opportunity Grants. For the fiscal year ended April 30, 2019, approximately 19% of Aspen University’s cash-basis revenues for eligible tuition and fees were derived from Title IV Programs. Therefore, the majority of Aspen University students self-finance all or a portion of their education. For the calendar year ended December 31, 2018, approximately 30% of United States University’s cash-basis revenues for eligible tuition and fees were derived from Title IV Programs.

Additionally, students may receive full or partial tuition reimbursement from their employers. Eligible students can also access private loans through a number of different lenders for funding at current market interest rates.

Under the Direct Loan program, DOE makes loans directly to students. The Direct Loan Program includes the Direct Subsidized Loan, the Direct Unsubsidized Loan, the Direct PLUS Loan (including loans to graduate and professional students), and the Direct Consolidation Loan. The Budget Control Act of 2011 signed into law in August 2011, eliminated Direct Subsidized Loans for graduate and professional students, as of July 1, 2012. The terms and conditions of subsidized loans originated prior to July 1, 2012 are unaffected by the law.

For Pell grants, DOE makes grants to undergraduate students who demonstrate financial need. To date, few of our students have received Pell Grants. Accordingly, the Pell Grant program currently is not material to the Company’s cash revenues.

Regulation of Federal Student Financial Aid Programs

The substantial amount of federal funds disbursed through Title IV Programs, the large number of students and institutions participating in these programs, and allegations of fraud and abuse by certain for-profit institutions have prompted DOE to exercise considerable regulatory oversight over for-profit institutions of higher learning. Accrediting agencies and state education agencies also have responsibilities for overseeing compliance of institutions in connection with Title IV Program requirements. As a result, our institutions are subject to extensive oversight and review. Because DOE periodically revises its regulations and changes its interpretations of existing laws and regulations, we cannot predict how the Title IV Program requirements will be applied in all circumstances. See the “Risk Factors” contained herein which disclose comprehensive regulatory risks.

In addition to the state authorization requirements and other regulatory requirements described herein, other significant factors relating to Title IV Programs that could adversely affect us include the following legislative action and regulatory changes:

Congressional Action. Congress reauthorizes the Higher Education Act approximately every five to six years. Congress most recently reauthorized the Higher Education Act in August 2008 through the end of 2013 and the law has been extended since that date. Congress has held hearings regarding the reauthorization of the HEA and has continued to consider new legislation regarding passage of the HEA. We cannot predict whether or when Congress might act to amend further the HEA. The elimination of additional Title IV Programs, material changes in the requirements for participation in such programs, or the substitution of materially different programs could increase our costs of compliance and could reduce the ability of certain students to finance their education at our institutions.

8

Federal Rulemaking. On July 31, 2018, DOE announced its intention to convene a negotiated rulemaking committee (the “Committee”) to prepare proposed regulations for Title IV Programs. From January 2019 to April 2019, the Committee met to consider proposed regulations on a variety of topics including the following:

In April 2019, the Committee reached consensus on all proposed rules subject to the negotiated rulemaking. On June 12, 2019, DOE issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) that proposes rules related to accreditation and state authorization. The NPRM is subject to a public comment period set to conclude on July 12, 2019, and DOE has indicated that it plans to issue a final rule by November 1, 2019, meaning the rules included in the June 12, 2019 NPRM would be scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2020. We cannot predict whether those proposed regulations will go into effect as currently drafted or will be revised.

DOE intends to issue two additional NPRMs prior to November 1, 2019, that would include the proposed rules not included in the June 12, 2019 NPRM. We cannot predict when DOE will publish the two additional NPRMs.  

Administrative Capability. DOE regulations specify extensive criteria by which an institution must establish that it has the requisite “administrative capability” to participate in Title IV Programs. Failure to satisfy any of the standards may lead DOE to find the institution ineligible to participate in Title IV Programs or to place the institution on provisional certification as a condition of its participation. To meet the administrative capability standards, an institution must, among other things:

DOE regulations also add an administrative capability standard related to the existing requirement that students must have a high school diploma or its recognized equivalent in order to be eligible for Title IV Program aid. Under the administrative capability standard, institutions must develop and follow procedures for evaluating the validity of a student’s high school diploma if the institution or the Secretary of Education has reason to believe that the student’s diploma is not valid.

If an institution fails to satisfy any of these criteria or any other DOE regulation, DOE may:

9

If we are found not to have satisfied DOE’s “administrative capability” requirements, we could lose, or be limited in our access to, Title IV Program funding. USU had been requested to post a letter of credit (LOC) in the amount of $71,634 in response to a compliance audit that reported the university had a repeat finding related to late R2T4 (return to Title IV) returns, but that LOC, as funded by AGI expired as of March 31, 2019 and the funds are slated to return. As of May 14, 2019, United States University has been granted provisional approval to participate in the Title IV Programs and has a program participation agreement reapplication date of December 31, 2020.  As part of the provisional approval, the DOE informed USU that it must post a letter of credit in the amount of $255,708, which was funded by AGI; this letter will remain in effect for the duration of the provisional approval. USU expects to be on Heightened Cash Management 1 (“HCM1”), once formal notification is received from the DOE.

Distance Education. We offer all of our existing degree and certificate programs via Internet-based telecommunications from our headquarters in Colorado, Arizona and California. Under the Higher Education Opportunity Act, or HEOA, an accreditor that evaluates institutions offering distance education must require such institutions to have processes through which the institution establishes that a student who registers for a distance education program is the same student who participates in and receives credit for the program.

On December 16, 2016, DOE issued a final rule that requires institutions to meet all state requirements for legally offering distance education in any state in which the institution is offering distance education courses. The rule was scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2018 which has been delayed until July 1, 2020. On June 12, 2019, DOE issued Proposed Regulations that among other things, would modify the 2016 regulations regarding state authorization of distance education. See “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of this Report.

Financial Responsibility. The Higher Education Act and DOE regulations establish extensive standards of financial responsibility that institutions such as Aspen must satisfy to participate in the Title IV Programs. These standards generally require that an institution provide the resources necessary to comply with Title IV Program requirements and meet all of its financial obligations, including required refunds and any repayments to DOE for liabilities incurred in programs administered by DOE.

DOE evaluates institutions on an annual basis for compliance with specified financial responsibility standards that include a complex formula that uses line items from the institution’s audited financial statements. In addition, the financial responsibility standards require an institution to receive an unqualified opinion from its accountants on its audited financial statements, maintain sufficient cash reserves to satisfy refund requirements, meet all of its financial obligations, and remain current on its debt payments. The formula focuses on three financial ratios: (1) equity ratio (which measures the institution’s capital resources, financial viability, and ability to borrow); (2) primary reserve ratio (which measures the institution’s viability and liquidity); and (3) net income ratio (which measures the institution’s profitability or ability to operate within its means). An institution’s financial ratios must yield a composite score of at least 1.5 for the institution to be deemed financially responsible without the need for further federal oversight. DOE may also apply such measures of financial responsibility to the operating company and ownership entities of an eligible institution.

Although we believe our schools met the minimum composite score necessary to meet the financial ratio standard for fiscal year 2019, DOE may determine that our calculations are incorrect, and/or it may determine that either or both of our schools continue to not meet other financial responsibility standards. If DOE were to determine that we do not meet its financial responsibility standards, we may be able to continue to establish financial responsibility on an alternative basis. Alternative bases include, for example:

Failure to meet DOE’s “financial responsibility” requirements, either because we do not meet DOE’s financial responsibility standards or are unable to establish financial responsibility on an alternative basis, would cause us to lose access to Title IV Program funding.

10

Third-Party Servicers. DOE regulations permit an institution to enter into a written contract with a third-party servicer for the administration of any aspect of the institution’s participation in Title IV Programs. The third-party servicer must, among other obligations, comply with Title IV Program requirements and be jointly and severally liable with the institution to the Secretary of Education for any violation by the servicer of any Title IV Program provision. An institution must report to DOE new contracts with or any significant modifications to contracts with third-party servicers as well as other matters related to third-party servicers. We contract with a third-party servicer which performs certain activities related to our participation in Title IV Programs. If our third-party servicer does not comply with applicable statutes and regulations including the Higher Education Act, we may be liable for its actions, and we could lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs.

Return of Title IV Program Funds. Under DOE’s return of funds regulations, when a student withdraws, an institution must return unearned funds to DOE in a timely manner. An institution must first determine the amount of Title IV Program funds that a student “earned.” If the student withdraws during the first 60% of any period of enrollment or payment period, the amount of Title IV Program funds that the student earned is equal to a pro rata portion of the funds for which the student would otherwise be eligible. If the student withdraws after the 60% threshold, then the student has earned 100% of the Title IV Program funds. The institution must return to the appropriate Title IV Programs, in a specified order, the lesser of (i) the unearned Title IV Program funds and (ii) the institutional charges incurred by the student for the period multiplied by the percentage of unearned Title IV Program funds. An institution must return the funds no later than 45 days after the date of the institution’s determination that a student withdrew. If such payments are not timely made, an institution may be subject to adverse action, including being required to submit a letter of credit equal to 25% of the refunds the institution should have made in its most recently completed fiscal year. Under DOE regulations, late returns of Title IV Program funds for 5% or more of students sampled in the institution’s annual compliance audit or a DOE program review constitutes material non-compliance with the Title IV Program requirements.

The “90/10 Rule.” A requirement of the Higher Education Act commonly referred to as the “90/10 Rule,” applies only to “proprietary institutions of higher education.” An institution is subject to loss of eligibility to participate in the Title IV Programs if it derives more than 90% of its revenues (calculated on a cash basis and in accordance with a DOE formula) from Title IV Programs for two consecutive fiscal years. An institution whose rate exceeds 90% for any single fiscal year will be placed on provisional certification for at least two fiscal years and may be subject to other conditions specified by the Secretary of DOE. For the year ended April 30, 2019, approximately 19% of Aspen’s revenues were derived from Title IV Programs. For the year ended December 31, 2018, 30% of USU’s revenues were derived from Title IV Programs.

Student Loan Defaults. Under the Higher Education Act, an education institution may lose its eligibility to participate in some or all of the Title IV Programs if defaults on the repayment of Direct Loan Program loans by its students exceed certain levels. For each federal fiscal year, a rate of student defaults (known as a “cohort default rate”) is calculated for each institution with 30 or more borrowers entering repayment in a given federal fiscal year by determining the rate at which borrowers who become subject to their repayment obligation in that federal fiscal year default by the end of the following two federal fiscal years. For such institutions, DOE calculates a single cohort default rate for each federal fiscal year that includes in the cohort all current or former student borrowers at the institution who entered repayment on any Direct Loan Program loans during that year.

If an institution’s cohort default rate equals or exceeds 25% in any single year, the institution may be placed on provisional certification status. Provisional certification does not limit an institution’s access to Title IV Program funds; however, an institution with provisional status is subject to closer review by DOE and may be subject to summary adverse action if it violates Title IV Program requirements. If an institution’s default rate exceeds 40% for one federal fiscal year, the institution may lose eligibility to participate in some or all Title IV Programs. Aspen University’s official 3-year cohort default rates were as follows: FY2015 (5.7%), FY2014 (6.2%) and FY2013 (6.4%). USU’s official 3-year cohort default rates were as follows: FY2015 (11.4%), FY2014 (9.6%) and FY2013 (3.5%).

Incentive Compensation Rule. As a part of an institution’s program participation agreement with DOE and in accordance with the Higher Education Act, an institution may not provide any commission, bonus or other incentive payment to any person or entity engaged in any student recruitment, admissions or financial aid awarding activity based directly or indirectly on success in securing enrollments or financial aid. Failure to comply with the incentive payment rule could result in termination of participation in Title IV Programs, limitation on participation in Title IV Programs, or financial penalties. Aspen believes it is in compliance with the Incentive Compensation Rule (the “IC Rule”).

11

In recent years, other postsecondary educational institutions have been named as defendants in whistleblower lawsuits, known as “qui tam” cases, brought by current or former employees pursuant to the Federal False Claims Act, alleging that their institution’s compensation practices did not comply with the IC Rule. A qui tam case is a civil lawsuit brought by one or more individuals, referred to as a relator, on behalf of the federal government for an alleged submission to the government of a false claim for payment. The relator, often a current or former employee, is entitled to a share of the government’s recovery in the case, including the possibility of treble damages. A qui tam action is always filed under seal and remains under seal until the government decides whether to intervene in the case. If the government intervenes, it takes over primary control of the litigation. If the government declines to intervene in the case, the relator may nonetheless elect to continue to pursue the litigation at his or her own expense on behalf of the government. Any such litigation could be costly and could divert management’s time and attention away from the business, regardless of whether a claim has merit.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (the “GAO”) released a report finding that DOE has inadequately enforced the current ban on incentive payments. In response, DOE has undertaken to increase its enforcement efforts by, among other approaches, strengthening procedures provided to auditors reviewing institutions for compliance with the incentive payments ban and updating its internal compliance guidance in light of the GAO findings and DOE incentive payment rule.

Code of Conduct Related to Student Loans. As part of an institution’s program participation agreement with DOE, HEOA requires that institutions that participate in Title IV Programs adopt a code of conduct pertinent to student loans. For financial aid officers or other employees who have responsibility related to education loans, the code must forbid, with limited exceptions, gifts, consulting arrangements with lenders, and advisory board compensation other than reasonable expense reimbursement. The code also must ban revenue-sharing arrangements, “opportunity pools” that lenders offer in exchange for certain promises, and staffing assistance from lenders. The institution must post the code prominently on its website and ensure that its officers, employees, and agents who have financial aid responsibilities are informed annually of the code’s provisions. Aspen has adopted a code of conduct under the HEOA which is posted on its website. In addition to the code of conduct requirements that apply to institutions, HEOA contains provisions that apply to private lenders, prohibiting such lenders from engaging in certain activities as they interact with institutions. Failure to comply with the code of conduct provision could result in termination of our participation in Title IV Programs, limitations on participation in Title IV Programs, or financial penalties.

Misrepresentation. The Higher Education Act and current regulations authorize DOE to take action against an institution that participates in Title IV Programs for any “substantial misrepresentation” made by that institution regarding the nature of its educational program, its financial charges, or the employability of its graduates. DOE regulations define “substantial misrepresentation” to cover additional representatives of the institution and additional substantive areas and expands the parties to whom a substantial misrepresentation cannot be made. The regulations also augment the actions DOE may take if it determines that an institution has engaged in substantial misrepresentation. DOE may revoke an institution’s program participation agreement, impose limitations on an institution’s participation in Title IV Programs, or initiate proceedings to impose a fine or to limit, suspend, or terminate the institution’s participation in Title IV Programs.

Credit Hours. The Higher Education Act and current regulations use the term “credit hour” to define an eligible program and an academic year and to determine enrollment status and the amount of Title IV Program aid an institution may disburse during a payment period. Recently, both Congress and DOE have increased their focus on institutions’ policies for awarding credit hours. DOE regulations define the term “credit hour” in terms of a certain amount of time in class and outside class, or an equivalent amount of work. The regulations also require accrediting agencies to review the reliability and accuracy of an institution’s credit hour assignments. If an accreditor identifies systematic or significant noncompliance in one or more of an institution’s programs, the accreditor must notify the Secretary of Education. If DOE determines that an institution is out of compliance with the credit hour definition, DOE could require the institution to repay the incorrectly awarded amounts of Title IV Program aid. In addition, if DOE determines that an institution has significantly overstated the amount of credit hours assigned to a program, DOE may fine the institution, or limit, suspend, or terminate its participation in the Title IV Programs.

On July 31, 2018, DOE announced its intention to convene a negotiated rulemaking committee (the “Committee”) to consider proposed regulations for Title IV Programs, including revisions to the regulatory definition of “credit hour.” The Committee reached consensus on a revised definition of “credit hour” in April 2019, but DOE has not yet published a proposed rule that includes the revised definition.

12

Compliance Reviews. We are subject to announced and unannounced compliance reviews and audits by various external agencies, including DOE, its Office of Inspector General, state licensing agencies, and accrediting agencies. As part of DOE’s ongoing monitoring of institutions’ administration of Title IV Programs, the Higher Education Act and DOE regulations require institutions to submit annually a compliance audit conducted by an independent certified public accountant in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and applicable audit standards of DOE. These auditing standards differ from those followed in the audit of our consolidated financial statements contained herein. In addition, to enable DOE to make a determination of financial responsibility, institutions must annually submit audited financial statements prepared in accordance with DOE regulations. Furthermore, DOE regularly conducts program reviews of education institutions that are participating in the Title IV Programs, and the Office of Inspector General of DOE regularly conducts audits and investigations of such institutions.

Potential Effect of Regulatory Violations. If we fail to comply with the regulatory standards governing Title IV Programs, DOE could impose one or more sanctions, including transferring the non-complying school to the reimbursement or cash monitoring system of payment, seeking to require repayment of certain Title IV Program funds, requiring Aspen to post a letter of credit in favor of DOE as a condition for continued Title IV certification, taking emergency action against us, referring the matter for criminal prosecution or initiating proceedings to impose a fine or to limit, condition, suspend or terminate our participation in Title IV Programs. In addition, the failure to comply with the Title IV Program requirements by one institution could increase DOE scrutiny of the other institution and could impact the other institution’s participation in Title IV Programs.

We also may be subject, from time to time, to complaints and lawsuits relating to regulatory compliance brought not only by our regulatory agencies, but also by other government agencies and third parties, such as state attorneys general, federal and state consumer protection agencies, present or former students or employees and other members of the public.

Restrictions on Adding Educational Programs. State requirements and accrediting agency standards may, in certain instances, limit our ability to establish additional educational programs. Many states require approval before institutions can add new programs under specified conditions. The Colorado Commission on Higher Education, the Arizona Board, the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, and other state educational regulatory agencies that license or authorize us and our programs may require institutions to notify them in advance of implementing new programs, and upon notification, may undertake a review of the institution’s licensure or authorization.

On August 22, 2017, DOE recertified Aspen University to participate in Title IV Programs, and set a subsequent program participation agreement reapplication date of March 31, 2021. As of May 14, 2019, United States University has been granted provisional approval to participate in the Title IV Programs and has a program participation agreement reapplication date of December 31, 2020.  As part of the provisional approval, the DOE informed USU that it must post a letter of credit in the amount of $255,708, which was funded by AGI; this letter will remain in effect for the duration of the provisional approval. USU expects to be on HCM1, once formal notification is received from the DOE.

In the future, DOE may impose terms and conditions in any program participation agreement that it may issue, including growth restrictions or limitation on the number of students who may receive Title IV Program aid. The institution may also be required to provide certifications to DOE signed by a senior administrative official attesting that the new program meets certain accreditation and state licensure requirements.

DEAC and WSCUC require pre-approval of new courses, programs, and degrees that are characterized as a “substantive change.” An institution must obtain written notice approving such change before it may be included in the institution’s grant of accreditation. An institution is further prohibited from advertising or posting on its website information about the course or program before it has received approval. The process for obtaining approval generally requires submission of a report and course materials and may require a follow-up on-site visit by an examining committee.

Gainful Employment. Under the Higher Education Act, only proprietary school educational programs that lead to gainful employment in a recognized occupation are eligible to participate in Title IV Program funding. DOE issued final Gainful Employment (“GE”) regulations on October 31, 2014 (“2014 GE Rule”), which went into effect on July 1, 2015. The 2014 GE Rule defines the requirements that programs at proprietary institutions must meet in order to be considered a GE program that is eligible for Title IV Program funding.  Under these regulations, all GE programs must meet certain metrics regarding their graduates’ debt-to-earnings or debt-to-discretionary-income (collectively, “D/E”) ratios to maintain Title IV Program eligibility, as well as creating extensive reporting and disclosure requirements for institutions.

13

Under the 2014 GE Rule, DOE issued only one set of D/E rates, in January 2017. In the period following that publication, DOE has continued to collect and distribute information to institutions, and institutions were required to continue complying with the Rule, subject to various delays.  

On July 1, 2019, DOE issued a new final GE Rule. In this publication, DOE rescinded the entirety of Subparts Q and R of 34 CFR 668, which included all of the provisions of the 2014 GE Rule. The effective date of this new rule is July 1, 2020; however, the Secretary has provided institutions the opportunity to implement the new rule beginning on July 1, 2019. Both Aspen University and USU have opted to implement the new rule early and have internally documented their determination to take early action, following the direction provided by the DOE in Gainful Employment Electronic Announcement #122.  Therefore, as of July 1, 2019, neither Aspen University nor USU is required to comply with the 2014 GE Rule.

Eligibility and Certification Procedures. Each institution must periodically apply to DOE for continued certification to participate in Title IV Programs. Such recertification is required every six years, but may be required earlier, including when an institution undergoes a change of control. An institution may come under DOE’s review when it expands its activities in certain ways, such as opening an additional location, adding a new program, or, in certain cases, when it modifies academic credentials that it offers.

DOE may place an institution on provisional certification status if it finds that the institution does not fully satisfy all of the eligibility and certification standards and in certain other circumstances, such as when it undergoes a change in ownership and control. DOE may more closely review an institution that is provisionally certified if it applies for approval to open a new location, add an educational program, acquire another school or make any other significant change.

In addition, during the period of provisional certification, the institution must comply with any additional conditions included in its program participation agreement. If DOE determines that a provisionally certified institution is unable to meet its responsibilities under its program participation agreement, it may seek to revoke the institution’s certification to participate in Title IV Programs with fewer due process protections for the institution than if it were fully certified. Students attending provisionally certified institutions remain eligible to receive Title IV Program funds.

Borrower Defense to Repayment (“BDTR”). Pursuant to the Higher Education Act and following negotiated rulemaking, on November 1, 2016, the DOE released a final regulation (“2016 BDTR Rule”) specifying the acts or omissions of an institution that a borrower may assert as a defense to repayment of a loan made under the Direct Loan Program and the consequences of such borrower defenses for borrowers, institutions, and the DOE. Under the regulation, for Direct Loans disbursed after July 1, 2017, a student borrower may assert a defense to repayment if: (1) the student borrower obtained a state or federal court judgment against the institution; (2) the institution failed to perform on a contract with the student; and/or (3) the institution committed a “substantial misrepresentation” on which the borrower reasonably relied to his or her detriment.

These defenses are asserted through claims submitted to the DOE, and the DOE has the authority to issue a final decision. In addition, the regulation permits the DOE to grant relief to an individual or group of individuals, including individuals who have not applied to the DOE seeking relief. If a defense is successfully raised, the DOE has discretion to initiate action to collect from an institution the amount of losses incurred based on the borrower defense.

The regulation also amends the rules concerning discharge of federal student loans when a school or campus closes, requires institutions to report events that might potentially impact an institution’s financial responsibility (“financial triggers”) to allow DOE to determine if the institution needs to provide additional assurances or surety to continue participating in the Title IV programs, and prohibits pre-dispute arbitration agreements and class action waivers for borrower defense-type claims.

On January 19, 2017, the DOE issued a final procedural rule, specifically relating to the then-upcoming borrower defense rules, with request for comments. These rules were limited to updating the hearing procedures for actions to establish liability against an institution of higher education and establishing procedures for recovery proceedings under the borrower defense regulations.

Several times between June 2017 and February 2018, the DOE announced delays until July 1, 2019 for implementation of certain portions of the 2016 BDTR Rule. However, in October 2018, a judge denied a request to delay implementation, and as a result, the regulations went into effect as of October 16, 2018 and will remain in effect until such time as any new regulations are developed under the negotiated rulemaking process. DOE issued additional guidance regarding its planned implementation of the 2016 BDTR rule on March 15, 2019, which included specific processes for reporting financial responsibility trigger events occurring since July 1, 2017.

14

Prior to the court decision noted above, on June 16, 2017, the DOE announced its intent to convene a negotiated rulemaking committee to develop new and different proposed regulations related to borrower defense to replace the 2016 BDTR Rule and to address certain other related matters. Following three negotiated rulemaking sessions, on July 31, 2018, the DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking that, among other things, would establish a new federal standard for evaluating, and a process for adjudicating, BDTR claims made on or after July 1, 2019. The DOE accepted public comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking through August 30, 2018; however, the DOE did not publish the final rule by November 1, 2018, as required by the Department’s master calendar to allow the final regulation to take effect on July 1, 2019. DOE has indicated that it still intends to publish a new BDTR Rule to replace the 2016 BDTR Rule, but has not yet done so. We cannot predict when or if DOE will issue a new BDTR Rule, or what will be proposed or ultimately adopted.

Change in Ownership Resulting in a Change of Control. In addition to school acquisitions, other types of transactions can also cause a change of control. The DOE, most state education agencies, and the DEAC all have standards pertaining to the change of control of schools, but those standards are not uniform. DOE regulations describe some transactions that constitute a change of control, including the transfer of a controlling interest in the voting stock of an institution or the institution’s parent corporation. The DOE regulations provide that a change of control of a publicly-traded corporation occurs in one of two ways: (i) if there is an event that would obligate the corporation to file a Current Report on Form 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, disclosing a change of control or (ii) if the corporation has a shareholder that owns at least 25% of the total outstanding voting stock of the corporation and is the largest shareholder of the corporation, and that shareholder ceases to own at least 25% of such stock or ceases to be the largest shareholder. A significant purchase or disposition of our voting stock could be determined by the DOE to be a change of control under this standard. Many states include the sale of a controlling interest of common stock in the definition of a change of control requiring approval. A change of control under the definition of one of these agencies would require us to seek approval of the change in ownership and control to maintain our accreditations, state authorization or licensure. The requirements to obtain such approval from the states and the DEAC vary widely. In some cases, approval of the change of ownership and control cannot be obtained until after the transaction has occurred.

When a change of ownership resulting in a change of control occurs at a for-profit institution, the DOE applies a different set of financial tests to determine the financial responsibility of the institution in conjunction with its review and approval of the change of ownership. The institution generally is required to submit a same-day audited balance sheet reflecting the financial condition of the institution immediately following the change in ownership. The institution’s same-day balance sheet must demonstrate an acid test ratio of at least 1:1, which is calculated by adding cash and cash equivalents to current accounts receivable and dividing the sum by total current liabilities (and excluding all unsecured or uncollateralized related party receivables). The same-day balance sheet must also demonstrate positive tangible net worth. If the institution does not satisfy these requirements, the DOE may condition its approval of the change of ownership on the institution’s agreeing to post a letter of credit, provisional certification, and/or additional monitoring requirements, as described in the above section on Financial Responsibility. The time required for the DOE to act on a change in ownership and control application may vary substantially. As of May 14, 2019, United States University has been granted provisional approval to participate in the Title IV Programs and has a program participation agreement reapplication date of December 31, 2020. As part of the provisional approval, the DOE informed USU that it must post a letter of credit in the amount of $255,708; this letter will remain in effect for the duration of the provisional approval. United States University currently awaits final disposition concerning any potential Heightened Cash Monitoring 1 (HCM1); the institution has not been, nor is it currently identified on the DOE website as an HCM1 school. See “Risk Factors” contained in Item 1A of this Report.

A change of control also could occur as a result of future transactions in which Aspen is involved. Some corporate reorganizations and some changes in the composition of the Board are examples of such transactions. Moreover, the potential adverse effects of a change of control could influence future decisions by us and our shareholders regarding the sale, purchase, transfer, issuance or redemption of our stock. In addition, the regulatory burdens and risks associated with a change of control also could discourage bids for your shares of common stock and could have an adverse effect on the market price of your shares.

Possible Acquisitions. Similarly to the Company’s acquisition of USU, we may expand through acquisition of related or synergistic businesses. Our internal growth is subject to monitoring and ultimately approval by the DEAC and WSCUC. If the DEAC or WSCUC finds that the growth may adversely affect our academic quality, the DEAC or WSCUC can request us to slow the growth and potentially withdraw accreditation and require us to re-apply for accreditation. DOE may also impose growth restrictions on an institution, including in connection with a change in ownership and control.

15

Clery Act and Title IX. Both USU and Aspen University publish the required Annual Crime and Security Reports to comply with the requirements of the federal Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (“Clery Act”). USU’s Report covers its San Diego, CA location; Aspen publishes separate reports for its Denver, CO and Phoenix, AZ locations. Both universities are committed to providing students, faculty, staff, and guests a safe and secure environment. The Reports identify policies and procedures for security and crime prevention, substance abuse, sexual misconduct/harassment (Title IX), and emergency response and evacuation.

Other Approvals. The U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (the “VA”) regulate our participation in the military’s tuition assistance program and the VA’s veterans’ education benefits program, respectively. The laws, regulations, standards and policies of these agencies cover the vast majority of our operations, including our educational programs, facilities, instructional and administrative staff, administrative procedures, marketing, recruiting, financial operations and financial condition. These regulatory requirements can also affect our ability to add new or expand existing educational programs and to change our corporate structure and ownership.

Seasonality

Our business has been seasonal with our fiscal fourth quarter (beginning February 1) being our strongest quarter and the fiscal second quarter (beginning August 1) being the next strongest. The fiscal first quarter (beginning May 1) is the weakest as it covers the summer months of June and July.  Given the growth of USU’s structured two-year MSN-FNP program and Aspen University’s six semesters per year pre-licensure BSN campus program, future seasonality may be less pronounced.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS.

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the following Risk Factors before deciding whether to invest in Aspen Group. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us, or that we currently deem immaterial, may also impair our business operations or our financial condition. If any of the events discussed in the Risk Factors below occur, our business, consolidated financial condition, results of operations or prospects could be materially and adversely affected. In such case, the value and marketability of the common stock could decline.

Risks Relating to Our Business

If we cannot manage our growth, our results of operations may suffer and could adversely affect our ability to comply with federal regulations.

The growth that we have experienced as well as any future growth that we experience, may place a significant strain on our resources and increase demands on our management information and reporting systems and financial management controls. We have experienced growth at Aspen University over the last several years and USU has grown significantly since we acquired it. Further, we lack experience in managing hybrid programs and anticipate substantial growth from this business. Managing multiple campuses in many locations will be challenging. Assuming we continue to grow as planned, it may impact our ability to manage our business. If growth negatively impacts our ability to manage our business, the learning experience for our students could be adversely affected, resulting in a higher rate of student attrition and fewer student referrals. Future growth will also require continued improvement of our internal controls and systems, particularly those related to complying with federal regulations under the Higher Education Act, as administered by DOE, including as a result of our participation in federal student financial aid programs under Title IV. If we are unable to manage our growth, we may also experience operating inefficiencies that could increase our costs and adversely affect our profitability and results of operations.

16

Because there is strong competition in the postsecondary education market, especially in the online education market, our cost of acquiring students may increase and our results of operations may be harmed.

Postsecondary education is highly fragmented and competitive. We compete with traditional public and private two-year and four-year brick and mortar colleges as well as other for-profit schools. Public and private colleges and universities, as well as other for-profit schools, offer programs similar to those we offer. Public institutions receive substantial government subsidies, and public and private institutions have access to government and foundation grants, tax-deductible contributions that create large endowments and other financial resources generally not available to for-profit schools. Accordingly, public and private institutions may have instructional and support resources that are superior to those in the for-profit sector. In addition, some of our competitors, including both traditional colleges and universities and online for-profit schools, have substantially greater name recognition and financial and other resources than we have, which may enable them to compete more effectively for potential students. We also expect to face increased competition as a result of new entrants to the online education market, including established colleges and universities that have not previously offered online education programs. Major brick and mortar universities continue to develop and advertise their online course offerings. Purdue University’s 2017 acquisition of Kaplan University is a prime example of this change.  Another example is Arizona State University which spends considerable sums on advertising its online degree programs in partnership with its Online Program Manager (OPM).

We may not be able to compete successfully against current or future competitors and may face competitive pressures including price pressures that could adversely affect our business or results of operations and reduce our operating margins. These competitive factors could cause our enrollments, revenues and profitability to materially decrease.

In the event that we are unable to update and expand the content of existing programs and develop new programs and specializations on a timely basis and in a cost-effective manner, our results of operations may be harmed.

The updates and expansions of our existing programs and the development of new programs and specializations may not be accepted by existing or prospective students or employers. If we cannot respond to changes in market requirements, our business may be adversely affected. Even if we are able to develop acceptable new programs, we may not be able to introduce these new programs as quickly as students require or as quickly as our competitors introduce competing programs. To offer a new academic program, we may be required to obtain appropriate federal, state and accrediting agency approvals, which may be conditioned or delayed in a manner that could significantly affect our growth plans. In addition, a new academic program that must prepare students for gainful employment must be approved by DOE for Title IV purposes if the institution is provisionally certified. If we are unable to respond adequately to changes in market requirements due to financial constraints, regulatory limitations or other factors, our ability to attract and retain students could be impaired and our financial results could suffer.

Establishing new academic programs or modifying existing programs may require us to make investments in management and faculty, incur marketing expenses and reallocate other resources. 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 results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

If we are unable to successfully execute our growth strategy of opening new campuses, our results of operations and future growth could be materially and adversely affected.

In addition to its original campus and the second campus it expects to open in the Phoenix metro area, Aspen University expects to open additional campuses in a number of other states as well as possibly in Arizona. This would require us to obtain appropriate state and accrediting agency approvals and to comply with any requirements from those agencies related to a new location. Adding new locations will also require significant financial investments, including capital improvements, human resource capabilities, and new clinical placement relationships. If we are unable to obtain the required approvals, attract sufficient additional students to new campus locations, offer programs at new campuses in a cost-effective manner, identify appropriate clinical placements, or otherwise manage effectively the operations of newly established campuses, our results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

17

Because our future growth and profitability will depend in large part upon the effectiveness of our marketing and advertising efforts, if those efforts are unsuccessful we may not be profitable in the future.

Our future growth and profitability will depend in large part upon our media performance, including our ability to:

Our marketing expenditures may not result in increased revenue or generate sufficient levels of brand name and program awareness. If our media performance is not effective, our future results of operations and financial condition will be adversely affected.

Because we are an almost exclusively online provider of education, we are substantially dependent on continued growth and acceptance of online education and, if the recognition by students and employers of the value of online education does not continue to grow, our ability to grow our business could be adversely impacted.  

We believe that continued growth in online education will be largely dependent on additional students and employers recognizing the value of degrees and courses from online institutions. If students and employers are not convinced that online schools are an acceptable alternative to traditional schools or that an online education provides necessary value, or if growth in the market penetration of exclusively online education slows, growth in the industry and our business could be adversely affected. Because our business model is based on online education, if the acceptance of online education does not grow, our ability to continue to grow our business and our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Although our management has successfully implemented a monthly payment business model, it may not be successful long-term.

Mr. Michael Mathews, our Chief Executive Officer, has developed a monthly payment business model designed to substantially increase our student enrollment and reduce student debt among Aspen University’s and USU’s student bodies. While results to date have been as anticipated, there are no assurances that this marketing campaign will continue to be successful. Among the risks are the following:

18

If our monthly payment plan business model does not continue to be favorably received, our revenues may not increase.

If the demand for the nursing workforce decreases or the educational requirements for nurses were relaxed, our business will be adversely affected.

Aspen Group, Inc.’s primary focus has been the continued growth of enrollment in its Nursing programs at both universities. As of April 30, 2019, approximately 81% of our active degree-seeking students were enrolled in our nursing programs. If the demand for nurses does not continue to grow (or declines) or there are changes within the healthcare industry that make the nursing occupation less attractive to learners or reduce the benefits of a bachelor’s or an advanced degree, our enrollment and results of operations will be adversely affected.

If we experience system disruptions to our online computer networks, it could impact our ability to generate revenue and damage our reputation, limiting our ability to attract and retain students.

Since early 2011, Aspen University has made significant investments to update its computer network primarily to permit accelerated student enrollment and enhance its students’ learning experience. USU is using the same information technology improvements. The performance and reliability of our technology infrastructure is critical to our reputation and ability to attract and retain students. Any system error or failure, or a sudden and significant increase in bandwidth usage, could result in the unavailability of our online classroom, damaging our reputation and could cause a loss in enrollment. Our technology infrastructure could be vulnerable to interruption or malfunction due to events beyond our control, including natural disasters, terrorist activities, hacking or cyber security issues and telecommunications failures.

If we are unable to develop awareness among, and attract and retain, high quality learners to our schools, our ability to generate significant revenue or achieve profitability will be significantly impaired.

Building awareness of Aspen University and USU and the programs we offer are critical to our ability to attract prospective learners. If we are unable to successfully market and advertise our educational programs, Aspen University’s ability to attract and enroll prospective students in such programs could be adversely affected, and consequently, our ability to increase revenue or achieve profitability could be impaired. It is also critical to our success that we convert these applicants to enrolled students in a cost-effective manner and that these students remain active in our programs. Some of the factors that could prevent us from successfully enrolling and retaining students in our programs include:

If we are unable to continue to develop awareness of Aspen University and USU and the programs we offer, and to enroll and retain students, our enrollments would suffer and our ability to increase revenues and achieve profitability would be significantly impaired.

19

If we experience any interruption to our technology infrastructure, it could prevent students from accessing their courses, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to attract and retain students and could require us to incur additional expenses to correct or mitigate the interruption.

Our computer networks may also be vulnerable to unauthorized access, computer hackers, computer viruses and other security problems. A user who circumvents security measures could misappropriate proprietary information, personal information about our students 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 security breaches or to alleviate problems caused by any breaches.

Because we rely on third parties to provide services in running our operations, if any of these parties fail to provide the agreed services at an acceptable level, it could limit our ability to provide services and/or cause student dissatisfaction, either of which could adversely affect our business.

We rely on third parties to provide us with services in order for us to efficiently and securely operate our business including our computer network and the courses we offer to students. Any interruption in our ability to obtain the services of these or other third parties or deterioration in their performance could impair the quality of our educational product and overall business. Generally, there are multiple sources for the services we purchase. Our business could be disrupted if we were required to replace any of these third parties, especially if the replacement became necessary on short notice, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

If we or our service providers are unable to update the technology that we rely upon to offer online education, our future growth may be impaired.

We believe that continued growth will require our service providers to increase the capacity and capabilities of their technology infrastructure. Increasing the capacity and capabilities of the technology infrastructure will require these third parties to invest capital, time and resources, and there is no assurance that even with sufficient investment their systems will be scalable to accommodate future growth. Our service providers may also need to invest capital, time and resources to update their technology in response to competitive pressures in the marketplace. If they are unwilling or unable to increase the capacity of their resources or update their resources appropriately and we cannot change over to other service providers efficiently, our ability to handle growth, our ability to attract or retain students, and our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Because we rely on third-party administration and hosting of learning management system software for our online classroom, if that third-party were to cease to do business or alter its business practices and services, it could have an adverse impact on our ability to operate.

Our online classrooms at Aspen University and USU employ the Desire2Learn (renamed to D2L in 2017) learning management system named Brightspace. The system is a web-based portal that stores and delivers course content, provides interactive communication between students and faculty, and supplies online evaluation tools. We rely on third parties to host and help with the administration of it. We further rely on third parties, the D2L agreement and our internal staff for ongoing support and customization and integration of the system with the rest of our technology infrastructure. If D2L were unable or unwilling to continue to provide us with service, we may have difficulty maintaining the software required for our online classroom or updating it for future technological changes. Any failure to maintain our online classroom would have an adverse impact on our operations, damage our reputation and limit our ability to attract and retain students.

Because the CAN-SPAM Act imposes certain obligations on the senders of commercial emails, it could adversely impact our ability to market Aspen University’s and USU’s educational services, and otherwise increase the costs of our business.

The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, or the CAN-SPAM Act, establishes requirements for commercial email and specifies penalties for commercial email that violates the CAN-SPAM Act. In addition, the CAN-SPAM Act gives consumers the right to require third parties to stop sending them commercial email.

The CAN-SPAM Act covers email sent for the primary purpose of advertising or promoting a commercial product, service, or Internet website. The Federal Trade Commission, a federal consumer protection agency, is primarily responsible for enforcing the CAN-SPAM Act, and the Department of Justice, other federal agencies, State Attorneys General, and Internet service providers also have authority to enforce certain of its provisions.

20

The CAN-SPAM Act’s main provisions include:

The CAN-SPAM Act also prohibits unlawful acquisition of email addresses, such as through directory harvesting and transmission of commercial emails by unauthorized means, such as through relaying messages with the intent to deceive recipients as to the origin of such messages.

Violations of the CAN-SPAM Act’s provisions can result in criminal and civil penalties, including statutory penalties that can be based in part upon the number of emails sent, with enhanced penalties for commercial email companies who harvest email addresses, use dictionary attack patterns to generate email addresses, and/or relay emails through a network without permission.

The CAN-SPAM Act acknowledges that the Internet offers unique opportunities for the development and growth of frictionless commerce, and the CAN-SPAM Act was passed, in part, to enhance the likelihood that wanted commercial email messages would be received.

The CAN-SPAM Act preempts, or blocks, most state restrictions specific to email, except for rules against falsity or deception in commercial email, fraud and computer crime. The scope of these exceptions, however, is not settled, and some states have adopted email regulations that, if upheld, could impose liabilities and compliance burdens in addition to those imposed by the CAN-SPAM Act.

Moreover, some foreign countries, including the countries of the European Union, have regulated the distribution of commercial email and the online collection and disclosure of personal information. Foreign governments may attempt to apply their laws extraterritorially or through treaties or other arrangements with U.S. governmental entities.

Because we use email marketing, our requirement to comply with the CAN-SPAM Act could adversely affect our marketing activities and increase its costs.

If we lose the services of key personnel, it could adversely affect our business.

Our future success depends, in part, on our ability to attract and retain key personnel. Our future also depends on the continued services of Mr. Michael Mathews, our Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Gerard Wendolowski, our Chief Operating Officer, and Dr. Cheri St. Arnauld, our Chief Academic Officer, who are critical to the management of our business and operations and the development of our strategic direction and would also be difficult to replace. We have a $3 million key man life insurance policy on Mr. Mathews. The loss of the services of Mr. Mathews and other key individuals and the process to replace these individuals would involve significant time and expense and may significantly delay or prevent the achievement of our business objectives.

If we are unable to attract and retain our faculty, administrators, management and skilled personnel, we may not be able to support our growth strategy.

To execute our growth strategy, we must attract and retain highly qualified faculty, administrators, management and skilled personnel. Competition for hiring these individuals is intense, especially with regard to faculty in specialized areas. If we fail to attract new skilled personnel or faculty or fail to retain and motivate our existing faculty, administrators, management and skilled personnel, our business and growth prospects could be severely harmed. Further, we are moving to a new hybrid model focused on using full-time faculty members in addition to adjunct or part-time faculty. These efforts may not be successful resulting in the loss of faculty and difficulties in recruiting.

21

If we are unable to protect our intellectual property, our business could be harmed.

In the ordinary course of our business, we develop intellectual property of many kinds that is or will be the subject of copyright, trademark, service mark, trade secret or other protections. This intellectual property includes but is not limited to courseware materials, business know-how and internal processes and procedures developed to respond to the requirements of operating and various education regulatory agencies. We rely on a combination of copyrights, trademarks, service marks, trade secrets, domain names, agreements and registrations to protect our intellectual property. We rely on service mark and trademark protection in the U.S. to protect our rights to the mark ASPEN UNIVERSITY and the mark UNITED STATES UNIVERSITY as well as distinctive logos and other marks associated with our services. We rely on agreements under which we obtain rights to use course content developed by faculty members and other third-party content experts. We cannot assure you that the measures that we take will be adequate or that we have secured, or will be able to secure, appropriate protections for all of our proprietary rights in the U.S. or select foreign jurisdictions, or that third parties will not infringe upon or violate our proprietary rights. Despite our efforts to protect these rights, unauthorized third parties may attempt to duplicate or copy the proprietary aspects of our curricula, online resource material and other content, and offer competing programs to ours.

In particular, third parties may attempt to develop competing programs or duplicate or copy aspects of our curriculum, online resource material, quality management and other proprietary content. Any such attempt, if successful, could adversely affect our business. Protecting these types of intellectual property rights can be difficult, particularly as it relates to the development by our competitors of competing courses and programs.

We may encounter disputes from time to time over rights and obligations concerning intellectual property, and we may not prevail in these disputes. Third parties may raise a claim against us alleging an infringement or violation of the intellectual property of that third-party.

If we are subject to intellectual property infringement claims, it could cause us to incur significant expenses and pay substantial damages.

Third parties may claim that we are infringing or violating their intellectual property rights. Any such claims could cause us to incur significant expenses and, if successfully asserted against us, could require that we pay substantial damages and prevent us from using our intellectual property that may be fundamental to our business. Even if we were to prevail, any litigation regarding the intellectual property could be costly and time-consuming and divert the attention of our management and key personnel from our business operations.

If we incur liability for the unauthorized duplication or distribution of class materials posted online during our class discussions, it may affect our future operating results and financial condition.

In some instances, our faculty members or our students may post various articles or other third-party content on class discussion boards. We may incur liability for the unauthorized duplication or distribution of this material posted online for class discussions. Third parties may raise claims against us for the unauthorized duplication 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. As a result we may be required to alter the content of our courses or pay monetary damages.

Because the personal information that we or our vendors collect may be vulnerable to breach, theft or loss, any of these factors 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. Aspen University and USU use a third-party to collect 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. 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, restrict our use of personal information, and cause us to lose our certification to participate in the Title IV Programs. We cannot guarantee that there will not be a breach, loss or theft of personal information that we store or our third parties store. 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 or administrative actions by state attorneys general, private litigants, and federal regulators and by such other international laws including the European Union’s GDPR and their respective enforcement mechanisms any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

22

If our data or our users’ content is hacked, including through privacy and data security breaches, our business could be damaged, and we could be subject to liability.

Our business is and we expect it will continue to be heavily reliant upon the Internet. Cyber security events have caused significant damage to large well-known companies. If our systems are hacked and our students’ confidential information is misappropriated, we could be subject to liability.

We may fail to detect the existence of a breach of user content and be unable to prevent unauthorized access to user and company content. The techniques used to obtain unauthorized access, disable or degrade service, or sabotage systems change frequently and are often not recognized until launched against a target. They may originate from less regulated third world countries where lax local enforcement and poverty create opportunities for hacking. If our security measures are breached, or our students’ content is otherwise accessed through unauthorized means, or if any such actions are believed to occur, Aspen University and USU may lose existing students and or fail to enroll new students or otherwise be materially harmed.

Our business could be harmed by any significant disruption of service on our websites.

Because of the importance of the Internet to our business, in addition to cybersecurity we face the risk that our systems will fail to function in a robust manner. Our reputation, and ability to attract, retain, and serve our students are dependent upon the reliable performance of our websites, including our underlying technical infrastructure. Our technical infrastructure may not be adequately designed with sufficient reliability and redundancy to avoid performance delays or outages that could be harmful to our business. If our websites are unavailable when students and professors attempt to access them, or if they experience frequent slowdowns or disruptions, we may lose students and professors.

If governments enact new laws to regulate Internet commerce, it may negatively affect our business.

The widespread use of the Internet has led and may in the future lead to the adoption of new laws and regulatory practices in the U.S. and to new interpretations of existing laws and regulations. As well as regulations elsewhere including the European Union. These new laws and interpretations may relate to issues such as online privacy, copyrights, trademarks and service marks, sales taxes, 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, revenues and results of operations.

If we fail to comply with laws and regulations relating to privacy, data protection, information security, advertising and consumer protection, government access requests, or, new laws in one or more of these areas are enacted, it could result in proceedings, actions, or penalties against us and could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We rely on a variety of marketing techniques, including email, radio, display advertising, and social media marketing, targeted online advertisements, and postal mailings, and we are or may become subject to various laws and regulations that govern such marketing and advertising practices. A variety of federal, state, and international laws and regulations govern the collection, use, retention, sharing, and security of personal data, particularly in the context of online advertising, which we utilize to attract new students.

The use and storage of data, files, and information on our websites and those of our third-party service providers concerning, among others, student information is essential to their enrollment in our schools. Laws and regulations relating to privacy, data protection, information security, marketing and advertising, and consumer protection are evolving and subject to potentially differing interpretations. These requirements may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent from one jurisdiction to another or may conflict with other regulations or our current practices. As a result, our practices may not have complied or may not comply in the future with all such laws, regulations, requirements, and obligations. We have implemented various features, integrations, and capabilities as well as contractual obligations intended to enable us to comply with applicable privacy and security requirements in our collection, use, and transmittal of data, but these features do not ensure our compliance and may not be effective against all potential privacy concerns. In particular, as a United States company, we may be obliged to disclose data pursuant to government requests under United States law. Compliance with such requests may be inconsistent with local laws in other countries where our students reside. Any failure, or perceived failure, by us to comply with our posted privacy policies or with any privacy or consumer protection-related laws, regulations, industry self-regulatory principles, industry standards or codes of conduct, regulatory guidance, orders to which we may be subject, or other legal obligations relating to privacy or consumer protection, whether federal, state, or international, could adversely affect our reputation, brand, and business, and may result in claims, proceedings, or actions against us by governmental entities, students, users of our website, third party service providers, or others, or may require us to change our operations and/or cease using certain types of data. Any such claims, proceedings, or actions could hurt our reputation, brand, and business, force us to incur significant expenses in defense of such proceedings or actions, result in adverse publicity, distract our management, increase our costs of doing business, result in a loss of students and/or third party service providers, and result in the imposition of monetary penalties.

23

The legislative and regulatory bodies or self-regulatory organizations in various jurisdictions both inside and outside the United States may expand current laws or regulations, enact new laws or regulations, or issue revised rules or guidance regarding privacy, data protection, consumer protection, information security, and online advertising. For example, in June 2018 the State of California enacted the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”), which will come into effect on January 1, 2020. The CCPA requires companies that process personal information on California residents to make new disclosures to consumers about such companies’ data collection, use, and sharing practices and inform consumers of their personal information rights such as deletion rights, allows consumers to opt out of certain data sharing with third parties, and provides a new cause of action for data breaches. The State of Nevada has also passed a law, which will take effect on October 1, 2019, that amends the state’s online privacy law to allow consumers to submit requests to prevent websites and online service providers (“Operators”) from selling personally identifiable information that Operators collect through a website or online service. Additionally, the Federal Trade Commission and many state attorneys general are interpreting federal and state consumer protection laws to impose standards for the online collection, use, dissemination, and security of data. Each of these privacy, security, and data protection laws and regulations, and any other such changes or new laws or regulations, could impose significant limitations, require changes to our business model or practices, or restrict our use or storage of personal information, which may increase our compliance expenses and make our business more costly or less efficient to conduct. In addition, any such changes could compromise our ability to develop an adequate marketing strategy and pursue our growth strategy effectively, which, in turn, could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

In addition, federal and state governmental authorities continue to evaluate the privacy implications inherent in the use of third-party “cookies” and other methods of online tracking for behavioral advertising and other purposes. The U.S. government has enacted, has considered, or is considering legislation or regulations that could significantly restrict the ability of companies and individuals to utilize online behavioral tracking, such as by regulating the level of consumer notice and consent required before a company can employ cookies or other electronic tracking tools or the use of data gathered with such tools. Additionally, some providers of consumer devices and web browsers have implemented, or announced plans to implement, means to make it easier for Internet users to prevent the placement of cookies or to block other tracking technologies, which could, if widely adopted, result in the use of third-party cookies and other methods of online tracking becoming significantly less effective. The regulation of the use of these cookies and other current online tracking and advertising practices or a loss in our ability to make effective use of services that employ such technologies could increase our costs of operations and limit our ability to acquire new students on cost-effective terms and consequently, materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

If there is new tax treatment of companies engaged in Internet commerce, this may adversely affect the commercial use of our marketing services and our financial results.

Due to the growing budgetary problems facing state and local governments, it is possible that governments might attempt to tax our activities. New or revised tax regulations may subject us to additional sales, income and other taxes. In 2018 the United States Supreme Court ruled that states can tax the sale of goods sold to residents of their respective state. We cannot predict the effect of current or future attempts to impose taxes on commerce over the Internet. New or revised taxes and, in particular, sales or use taxes, would likely increase the cost of doing business online which could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

If our goodwill on our balance sheet arising from the USU Acquisition becomes impaired, it would require us to record a material charge to earnings in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

As a result of our acquisition of USU, we recorded approximately $5 million of goodwill which is currently shown as an asset on our balance sheet at April 30, 2019.  Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) require us to test our goodwill for impairment on an annual basis, or more frequently if indicators for potential impairment exist. The testing required by GAAP involves estimates and judgments by management. Although we believe our assumptions and estimates are reasonable and appropriate, any changes in key assumptions, including a failure to meet business plans or other unanticipated events and circumstances, may affect the accuracy or validity of such estimates. If in the future we determine an impairment exists, we may be required to record a material charge to earnings in our consolidated financial statements during the period in which any impairment of our goodwill is determined.

24

If our assumptions with respect to our long-term accounts receivable prove to be inaccurate, we may be required to take a charge to our accounts receivable and incur a material non-cash charge to earnings.

As a result of the growing acceptance of our monthly payment plans, our long-term accounts receivable balance has grown from $1,315,050 at April 30, 2018 to $3,085,243 at April 30, 2019. The primary component consists of students who make monthly payments over 36 and 39 months. The average student completes their academic program in 30 months, therefore most of the Company’s accounts receivable are short-term. Our ability to collect the sums owed directly by students in contrast to the federal government or other third parties is directly tied to the future ability of students to pay us and their other obligations stemming from a variety of factors  including the impact of an economic decline in the United States, the students’ individual and family financial conditions, including unemployment and under-employment, health issues which affect students, and/or family members and whether students continue with their courses or cease taking courses. While our management, based on its experience, makes assumptions which affect the reserves we take to our long-term accounts receivable, these assumptions may be incorrect and the above or other factors may cause us to increase our reserves and reduce the long-term accounts receivable on our balance sheet. The amount of any future reductions we take may be a non-cash material charge to future earnings.

Because our expansion of our hybrid nursing program requires material capital expenditures, if we do not begin to generate material cash from operations by the end of the fiscal year ending April 30, 2020, we will have to draw down on our remaining line of credit or close a new financing.

While our online businesses have grown as expected, we made a strategic decision to enter the pre-licensure BSN campus nursing business. That business has the potential to generate higher returns than our legacy online businesses but like any new business venture it requires time to generate income and positive cash flow. Further, as we continue to expand the campus business, we will need cash for, among other things, capital improvements and equipment and general working capital and corporate purposes including employees. This may require us to draw on our remaining line of credit and/or close a new financing. There can be no assurances that we will not encounter obstacles which result in our inability to draw on the line of credit, which is with an individual and not a commercial lender. For example, in the event something were to happen to the lender’s principal executive, including disability or death, we may no longer have him as a source of funding nor can we have any assurance that his estate would agree to continue funding under the line of credit. Further additional borrowings under the line of credit will require additional material debt service payments and a new financing will likely result in dilution to our shareholders.

If we are unable to repay our outstanding indebtedness under our senior secured loan agreements, we could lose our business.

Our obligations under the Loan Agreements in the aggregate principal amount of $10 million, entered into in March 2019, are secured by a first priority lien in certain deposit accounts of the Company, all current and future accounts receivable of Aspen University and USU, certain of the deposit accounts of Aspen University and USU and a pledge of all of the outstanding capital stock of Aspen University and USU. As of April 30, 2019, there was a total of $10,000,000 outstanding under the Loan Agreements. The Loan Agreements mature on September 6, 2020, subject to one 12-month extension upon the Company’s option. If an acceleration event occurs under the Loan Agreements, our entire indebtedness under the Loan Agreements will immediately become due and payable and, if we do not have sufficient funds to repay the indebtedness, the lenders would have the right to proceed against the collateral in which we granted a security interest to them.

Risks Related to the Regulation of Our Industry

If we fail to comply with the extensive regulatory requirements for our business, we could face penalties and significant restrictions on our operations, including loss of access to Title IV Program funds.

We are subject to extensive regulation by (1) the federal government through DOE under the Higher Education Act, (2) state regulatory bodies and (3) accrediting agencies recognized by DOE, including DEAC, a “national accrediting agency” recognized by DOE, and WSCUC, a “regional accrediting agency” recognized by DOE. In addition, the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs regulate our participation in the military’s tuition assistance program and the VA’s veterans education benefits program, respectively. The laws, regulations, standards and policies of these agencies cover the vast majority of our operations, including our educational programs, facilities, instructional and administrative staff, administrative procedures, marketing, recruiting, financial operations and financial condition. These regulatory requirements can also affect our ability to add new or expand existing educational programs and to change our corporate structure and ownership.

25

Institutions of higher education that grant degrees, diplomas, or certificates must be authorized by an appropriate state education agency or agencies. In addition, in certain states, as a condition of continued authorization to grant degrees, a school must be accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education. Accreditation is a non-governmental process through which an institution submits to qualitative review by an organization of peer institutions, based on the standards of the accrediting agency and the stated aims and purposes of the institution. Accreditation is also required in order to participate in various federal programs, including tuition assistance programs of the United States Armed Forces and the federal programs of student financial assistance administered pursuant to Title IV of the Higher Education Act. The Higher Education Act and its implementing regulations require accrediting agencies recognized by DOE to review and monitor many aspects of an institution’s operations and to take appropriate action when the institution fails to comply with the accrediting agency’s standards.

Our operations are also subject to regulation due to our participation in Title IV Programs. Title IV Programs, which are administered by DOE, include loans made directly to students by DOE and several grant programs for students with economic need as determined in accordance with the Higher Education Act and DOE regulations. To participate in Title IV Programs, a school must receive and maintain authorization by the appropriate state education agencies, be accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and be certified as an eligible institution by DOE. Our growth strategy is partly dependent on being able to offer financial assistance through Title IV Programs as it may increase the number of potential students who may choose to enroll in our programs.

The laws, regulations, standards, and policies of DOE, state education agencies, and our accrediting agencies change frequently. Recent and impending changes in, or new interpretations of, applicable laws, regulations, standards, or policies, or our noncompliance with any applicable laws, regulations, standards, or policies, could have a material adverse effect on our accreditation, authorization to operate in various states, activities, receipt of funds under tuition assistance programs of the United States Armed Forces, our ability to participate in Title IV Programs, receipt of veterans education benefits funds, or costs of doing business. Findings of noncompliance with these laws, regulations, standards and policies also could result in our being required to pay monetary damages, or subjected to fines, penalties, injunctions, limitations on our operations, termination of our ability to grant degrees, revocation of our accreditation, restrictions on or loss of our access to Title IV Program funds or other censure that could have a material adverse effect on our business.

If we do not maintain authorization in Colorado, Arizona and California, our operations would be curtailed, and we may not grant degrees.

Aspen University is headquartered in Colorado and is authorized by the Colorado Commission on Higher Education to grant degrees, diplomas or certificates. Aspen’s BSN pre-licensure hybrid program is authorized by the Arizona Board, and USU is headquartered in California and is authorized by the California Bureau to grant degrees, diplomas or certificates. If Aspen were to lose its authorization from the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, Aspen would be unable to provide educational services in Colorado and would lose its eligibility to participate in the Title IV Programs. If Aspen were to lose its authorization from the Arizona Board, it would be unable to provide educational services in Arizona. If USU were to lose its authorization from the California Bureau, it would be unable to provide educational services in California and would lose its eligibility to participate in the Title IV Programs.

Our failure to comply with regulations of various states could have a material adverse effect on our enrollments, revenues, and results of operations.

Various states impose regulatory requirements on education institutions operating within their boundaries. Several states assert jurisdiction over online education institutions that have no physical location or other presence in the state but offer education services to students who reside in the state or advertise to or recruit prospective students in the state. State regulatory requirements for online education are inconsistent among states and not well developed in many jurisdictions. As such, these requirements change frequently and, in some instances, are not clear or are left to the discretion of state regulators.

26

State laws typically establish standards for instruction, qualifications of faculty, administrative procedures, marketing, recruiting, financial operations, and other operational matters. To the extent that we have obtained, or obtain in the future, state authorizations or licensure, changes in state laws and regulations and the interpretation of those laws and regulations by the applicable regulators may limit our ability to offer educational programs and award degrees. Some states may also prescribe financial regulations that are different from those of DOE. If we fail to comply with state licensing or authorization requirements, we may be subject to the loss of state licensure or authorization. If we fail to comply with state requirements to obtain licensure or authorization, we may be the subject of injunctive actions or other penalties or fines. Loss of licensure or authorization or the failure to obtain required licensures or authorizations could prohibit us from recruiting or enrolling students in particular states, reduce significantly our enrollments and revenues and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. 

In addition, DOE’s new distance education rule was scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2018. However, on May 25, 2018, the DOE published an announcement in the Federal Register that proposes a two-year delay, until July 1, 2020, of the effective date of the final state authorization of distance education regulations. The new rule requires us to (i) obtain authorization to offer our programs from each state where authorization is required or through participation in a reciprocity agreement, and (ii) provide specific consumer disclosures regarding our educational programs. If we fail to obtain required state authorization to provide postsecondary distance education in a specific state before the effective date for the new distance education rule, we could lose our ability to award Title IV aid to students within that state or be required to refund Title IV funds related to jurisdictions in which we failed to have state authorization. We must be able to document state approval for distance education if requested by DOE. In addition, the consumer disclosures required pursuant to the distance education rule are detailed and include disclosures regarding licensure and certification requirements, state authorization, student complaints, adverse actions by state and accreditation agencies, and refund policies. These disclosure requirements will require a considerable amount of data gathering needed to support such disclosures and will require our institutions to closely track where students enrolled in online programs reside during the course of their studies. These various disclosure requirements could subject us to financial penalties from DOE and heighten the risk of potential federal and private misrepresentation claims. On July 3, 2018, the DOE published a final rule in the Federal Register that implemented a two-year delay, until July 1, 2020, of the effective date of the final state authorization of distance education regulations.

Moreover, in the event we are found not to be in compliance with a state’s new or existing requirements for offering distance education within that state, the state could seek to restrict one or more of our business activities within its boundaries, we may not be able to recruit students from that state, and we may have to cease providing service to students in that state. In addition, a state may impose penalties on an institution for failure to comply with state requirements related to an institution’s activities in a state, including the delivery of distance education to persons in that state.

If our pre-licensure BSN nursing programs fail to have a required minimum pass rate on the NCLEX, it could result in sanctions and could adversely affect our business, results of operations and future growth.

Our pre-licensure BSN nursing degree program must comply with state regulations which require approval from the local nursing board and compliance with local laws and regulations. State nursing boards in the states where we currently have or plan to open pre-licensure nursing campuses require that these nursing programs have a certain minimum pass rate on the relevant National Council Licensure Examination (the “NCLEX”). If the NCLEX pass rate falls below the required minimum for multiple years, our program in a state may be put on probation and ultimately terminated, which would materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and future growth.

If DOE determines that borrowers of federal student loans who attended our institutions have a defense to repayment of their federal student loans based on a state law claim against our institution, our institution’s repayment liability to DOE could have a material adverse effect on our enrollments, revenues and results of operations.

DOE’s BDTR regulations as published on November 1, 2016 and put into effect by court order issued on October 16, 2018, provide borrowers of loans under the Direct Loan program a defense against repayment under certain circumstances outlined in the rule. In the event the borrower’s defense against repayment is successful, DOE has the authority to discharge all or part of the student’s obligation to repay the loan and may require the institution to repay the amount of the loan to which the defense applies.

27

Bases for borrowers to file claims: The regulations set out three grounds for a borrower defense to repayment claim: (1) the student borrower obtained a state or federal court judgment against the institution; (2) the institution failed to perform on a contract with the student; and/or (3) the institution committed a “substantial misrepresentation” on which the borrower reasonably relied to his or her detriment. Claims based on a court judgment or claims to assert a defense against loan payments that are still due can be made any time (with no statute of limitations), while other claims (such as to recoup loan funds already repaid to DOE) must be made within six years.

Claim resolution process: The regulations call for DOE to set up a fact-finding process to resolve claims. The structure includes providing the institution with notice and an opportunity to submit evidence. In addition, DOE has also given itself authority to process claims on a group basis, and to take the initiative to create groups and include borrowers who have not filed a claim. Borrowers who file successful claims may have their loans forgiven in whole or in part, with DOE reserving the right to calculate the amount of forgiveness in various ways.

Recovering funds: For debts relieved for individual borrowers, the regulations give DOE the authority to initiate a proceeding to seek repayment from the institution for any loan amounts forgiven.

Financial Responsibility “Triggers”: The BDTR rule amends the existing financial responsibility regulations to describe numerous operational or financial events that would potentially indicate that the institution will have difficulty meeting its financial or administrative obligations. If one of the enumerated triggering events occur, the institution is required to report to DOE according to the reporting requirements included in the regulation.

For certain of the triggers, DOE will assess the potential liability or fiscal impact reported and recalculate the institution’s composite score.  If the institution’s composite score drops below 1.0, DOE may require the institution to provide additional surety to continue Title IV participation.  The regulations also include “discretionary trigger” events or conditions that institutions must report, and which DOE will review to determine whether they are reasonably likely to have a materially adverse effect on the institution’s fiscal or operational condition.

If based on these events and DOE’s assessment, it is determined that the institution is not financially responsible, DOE will require the institution to become provisionally certified and post a letter of credit in an amount specified, generally at least 10% of the Title IV received in the most recent award year.  In addition, if the institution does not provide the required letter of credit within 45 days of DOE’s request, DOE may offset the institution's future Title IV funds for up to nine months until DOE is able to capture the amount of the letter of credit.

Prohibited mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses and class action waivers: The regulations would prohibit an institution from requiring a student to agree to resolve a borrower defense-related claim (meaning related to the making of a Direct Loan or the educational services for which the Direct Loan was issued) through arbitration, or from waiving the right to join a class action for similar types of claims. If an institution’s contracts currently contain a pre-dispute arbitration provision or a class waiver, the institution will be required to amend the agreement, and for those who already signed an arbitration or class action waiver, provide a specific notice to students, using language provided by DOE.

In addition, institutions are now required to report and provide DOE with arbitral and judicial records when a student files a borrower defense-related claim.

Required warnings to students of new repayment rate and financial responsibility triggers: The BDTR rules include two additional notice provisions.  For for-profit institutions only, institutions will be required to disclose a new form of loan repayment rate in a variety of public materials, to serve as a warning to current and potential students, when the loan repayment rate falls below a “median borrower” rate, determined by DOE. All Title IV institutions would be required to publish a notice to students regarding certain financial responsibility triggering events.  In its March 15, 2019 guidance, DOE indicated that it will not implement either of these provisions until it has conducted consumer testing to determine the best means to delivery these warnings.

If DOE determines that borrowers of Direct Loan program loans who attended Aspen or USU have a defense to repayment of their Direct Loan program loans based on our acts or omissions, the repayment liability to DOE could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

If Aspen or USU were to experience an event that DOE determines is an indication that either institution is not financial responsible, we could be forced to post letter(s) of credit and be moved to provisional certification, both of which could have a material adverse effects on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

28

Additionally, if DOE finalizes the notice requirements currently delayed for consumer testing, and Aspen or USU were required to issue warnings to current and prospective students describing the low repayment rate or triggering event that could have a material adverse effect on our enrollments, revenues, financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.

If we fail to maintain our institutional accreditation, we would lose our ability to participate in the tuition assistance programs of the U.S. Armed Forces and also to participate in Title IV Programs.

Aspen University is accredited by the DEAC, which is a national accrediting agency and USU is accredited by WSCUC, which is a regional accrediting agency. Both DEAC and WSCUC are recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education for Title IV purposes. Accreditation by an accrediting agency that is recognized by the Secretary of Education is required for an institution to become and remain eligible to participate in Title IV Programs as well as in the tuition assistance programs of the United States Armed Forces. The DEAC or WSCUC may impose restrictions on our accreditation or may terminate our accreditation. To remain accredited, we must continuously meet certain criteria and standards relating to, among other things, performance, governance, institutional integrity, educational quality, faculty, administrative capability, resources and financial stability. Failure to meet any of these criteria or standards could result in the loss of accreditation at the discretion of the accrediting agency. The loss of accreditation would, among other things, render our students and us ineligible to participate in the tuition assistance programs of the U.S. Armed Forces or Title IV Programs and have a material adverse effect on our enrollments, revenues and results of operations. In addition, although the loss of accreditation by one school would not necessarily result in the loss of accreditation by the other school, the accreditor may consider the loss of accreditation by one school as a factor in considering the on-going qualification for accreditation of the other school.

Because we participate in Title IV Programs, our failure to comply with the complex regulations associated with Title IV Programs would have a significant adverse effect on our operations and prospects for growth.

Aspen and USU participate in Title IV Programs. Compliance with the requirements of the Higher Education Act and Title IV Programs is highly complex and imposes significant additional regulatory requirements on our operations, which require additional staff, contractual arrangements, systems and regulatory costs. We have a limited demonstrated history of compliance with these additional regulatory requirements. If we fail to comply with any of these additional regulatory requirements, DOE could, among other things, impose monetary penalties, place limitations on our operations, and/or condition or terminate the eligibility of one or both of our schools to receive Title IV Program funds, which would limit our potential for growth and materiality and adversely affect our enrollment, revenues and results of operations. In addition, the failure to comply with the Title IV Program requirements by one institution could increase DOE scrutiny of the other institution and could impact the other institution’s participation in the Title IV Programs.

Because USU is provisionally certified by DOE, we must reestablish our eligibility and certification to participate in the Title IV Programs, and there are no assurances that DOE will recertify us to participate in the Title IV Programs.

An institution generally must seek recertification from DOE at least every six years and possibly more frequently depending on various factors. In certain circumstances, DOE provisionally certifies an institution to participate in Title IV Programs, such as when it is an initial participant in Title IV Programs or has undergone a change in ownership and control.

As mentioned previously, as of May 14, 2019, United States University has been granted provisional approval to participate in the Title IV Programs and has a program participation agreement reapplication date of December 31, 2020. As part of the provisional approval, the DOE informed USU that it must post a letter of credit in the amount of $255,708; this letter will remain in effect for the duration of the provisional approval.

Under provisional certification, an institution must obtain prior DOE approval to add an educational program or make other significant changes and may be subject to closer scrutiny by DOE. In addition, if DOE determines that a provisionally certified institution is unable to meet its responsibilities to comply with the Title IV requirements, DOE may revoke the institution’s certification to participate in the Title IV Programs without advance notice or opportunity to challenge the action. USU expects to be on HCM1, once formal notification is received from the DOE.

29

Subsequent to a compliance audit covering the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015, USU recognized that it had not fully complied with all requirements for calculating and making timely returns of Title IV funds (R2T4). USU was required to post an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of 25% of the 2015 Title IV returns. An irrevocable letter of credit was established in favor of the Secretary of Education in the amount of $71,634 as a result of this finding. In the 2016 compliance audit, USU had a material finding related to the same issue and was required to maintain the irrevocable letter of credit in the same amount. USU will be required to maintain the letter of credit until it has experienced two consecutive audit periods without a repeat finding. As a result of the change of ownership, the previous letter of credit established by USU was replaced by one provided by AGI.

If DOE does not ultimately approve USU’s certification to participate in Title IV Programs, USU students would no longer be able to receive Title IV Program funds, which would have a material adverse effect on our enrollments, revenues and results of operations. In addition, regulatory restraints related to the addition of new programs or substantive change of existing programs or imposition of a letter of credit could impair our ability to attract and retain students and could negatively affect our financial results.

Because DOE may conduct compliance reviews of us, we may be subject to adverse actions and future litigation which could affect our ability to offer Title IV student loans.

Because we operate in a highly regulated industry, we are subject to compliance reviews and claims of non-compliance and lawsuits by government agencies, regulatory agencies, and third parties, including claims brought by third parties on behalf of the federal government. If the results of compliance reviews or other proceedings are unfavorable to us, or if we are unable to defend successfully against lawsuits or claims, we may be required to pay monetary damages or be subject to fines, limitations, loss of Title IV funding, injunctions or other penalties, including the requirement to make refunds. Even if we adequately address issues raised by any compliance review or successfully defend a lawsuit or claim, we may have to divert significant financial and management resources from our ongoing business operations to address issues raised by those reviews or to defend against those lawsuits or claims. Claims and lawsuits brought against us may damage our reputation, even if such claims and lawsuits are without merit.

If the percentage of our revenues derived from Title IV Programs is too high, we could lose our ability to participate in Title IV Programs.

Under the Higher Education Act, an institution is subject to loss of eligibility to participate in the Title IV Programs if, on a cash accounting basis, it derives more than 90% of its fiscal year revenue from Title IV Program funds, for two consecutive fiscal years. This rule is known as the 90/10 rule. Our online programs are well below this threshold due to our monthly payment plans. However, our hybrid campus/online nursing program tuition is too high to justify use of our monthly payment plans.

An institution whose rate exceeds 90% for any single fiscal year is placed on provisional certification for at least two fiscal years and may be subject to other conditions specified by the U.S. Secretary of Education. We must monitor compliance with the 90/10 rule by both Aspen and USU. Failure to comply with the 90/10 rule for one fiscal year may result in restrictions on the amounts of Title IV funds that may be distributed to students; restrictions on expansion; requirements related to letters of credit or any other restrictions imposed by DOE. Additionally, if we fail to comply with the 90/10 rule for two consecutive years, we will be ineligible to participate in Title IV Programs and any disbursements of Title IV Program funds made while ineligible must be repaid to DOE. 

Further, due to scrutiny of the sector, legislative proposals have been introduced in Congress that would revise the requirements of the 90/10 rule to be stricter, including proposals that would reduce the 90% maximum under the rule to 85% and/or prohibit tuition derived from military benefit programs to be considered when determining whether the institution has adequate non-Title IV revenue to meet the requirements of the rule.

30

If our competitors are subject to further regulatory claims and adverse publicity, it may affect our industry and reduce our future enrollment.

We are one of a number of for-profit institutions serving the postsecondary education market. In recent years, regulatory investigations and civil litigation have been commenced against several companies that own for-profit educational institutions. These investigations and lawsuits have alleged, among other things, deceptive trade practices and non-compliance with DOE regulations. These allegations have attracted adverse media coverage and have been the subject of federal and state legislative hearings. Although the media, regulatory and legislative focus has been primarily on the allegations made against specific companies, broader allegations against the overall for-profit school sector may negatively affect public perceptions of other for-profit educational institutions, including Aspen University and USU. In addition, in recent years, reports on student lending practices of various lending institutions and schools, including for-profit schools, and investigations by a number of state attorneys general, Congress and governmental agencies have led to adverse media coverage of postsecondary education. For example, large competitors such as ITT Tech and Corinthian Colleges, sold or shut down their schools due to substantial regulatory investigations and DOE actions. Adverse media coverage regarding other companies in the for-profit school sector or regarding Aspen or USU directly could damage our reputation, could result in lower enrollments, revenues and operating profit, and could have a negative impact on our stock price. Such allegations could also result in increased scrutiny and regulation by DOE, Congress, accrediting bodies, state legislatures or other governmental authorities with respect to all for-profit institutions, including Aspen and USU.

Due to new regulations or congressional action or reduction in funding for Title IV Programs, our future enrollment may be reduced and costs of compliance increased.

The Higher Education Act comes up for reauthorization by Congress approximately every five to six years. When Congress does not act on complete reauthorization, there are typically amendments and extensions of authorization. Additionally, Congress reviews and determines appropriations for Title IV Programs on an annual basis through the budget and appropriations process. There is no assurance that Congress will not in the future enact changes that decrease Title IV Program funds available to students, including students who attend our institutions. Any action by Congress that significantly reduces funding for Title IV Programs or the ability of our schools or students to participate in these programs would require us to arrange for other sources of financial aid and would materially decrease our enrollment. Such a decrease in enrollment would have a material adverse effect on our revenues and results of operations. Congressional action may also require us to modify our practices in ways that could result in increased administrative and regulatory costs and decreased profit margin.

Further, there has been growing regulatory action and investigations of for-profit companies that offer online education. We are not in a position to predict with certainty whether any legislation will be passed by Congress or signed into law in the future. The reallocation of funding among Title IV Programs, material changes in the requirements for participation in such programs, or the substitution of materially different Title IV Programs could reduce the ability of students to finance their education at our institutions and adversely affect our revenues and results of operations.

If our efforts to comply with DOE regulations are inconsistent with how DOE interprets those provisions, either due to insufficient time to implement the necessary changes, uncertainty about the meaning of the rules, or otherwise, we may be found to be in noncompliance with such provisions and DOE could impose monetary penalties, place limitations on our operations, and/or condition or terminate the eligibility of our schools to receive Title IV Program funds. We cannot predict with certainty the effect the new and impending regulatory provisions will have on our business.

31

Because we are subject to sanctions if we fail to calculate correctly and return timely Title IV Program funds for students who stop participating before completing their educational program, our future operating results may be adversely affected.

A school participating in Title IV Programs must correctly calculate the amount of unearned Title IV Program funds that have been disbursed to students who withdraw from their educational programs before completion and must return those unearned funds in a timely manner, generally within 45 days after the date the school determines that the student has withdrawn. Under recently effective DOE regulations, institutions that use the last day of attendance at an academically related activity must determine the relevant date based on accurate institutional records (not a student’s certificate of attendance). For online classes, “academic attendance” means engaging in an academically-related activity, such as participating in class through an online discussion or initiating contact with a faculty member to ask a question; simply logging into an online class does not constitute “academic attendance” for purposes of the return of funds requirements. Under DOE regulations, late return of Title IV Program funds for 5% or more of students sampled in connection with the institution’s annual compliance audit or a program review constitutes material non-compliance. If unearned funds are not properly calculated and timely returned, we may have to repay Title IV funds, post a letter of credit in favor of DOE or otherwise be sanctioned by DOE, which could increase our cost of regulatory compliance and adversely affect our results of operations. This may have an impact on our systems, our future operations and cash flows.

If we fail to demonstrate “financial responsibility,” Aspen and USU may lose their eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs or be required to post a letter of credit in order to maintain eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs.

To participate in Title IV Programs, an eligible institution must satisfy specific measures of financial responsibility prescribed by DOE, or post a letter of credit in favor of DOE and possibly accept other conditions, such as additional reporting requirements or regulatory oversight, on its participation in Title IV Programs. DOE may also apply its measures of financial responsibility to the operating company and ownership entities of an eligible institution and, if such measures are not satisfied by the operating company or ownership entities, require the institution to meet alternative standards for continued participation in the Title IV Programs. Any of these alternative standards would increase our costs of regulatory compliance. If we were unable to meet these alternative standards, we would lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs. If we fail to demonstrate financial responsibility and thus lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs, our students would lose access to Title IV Program funds for use in our institutions, which would limit our potential for growth and adversely affect our enrollment, revenues and results of operations.

If we fail to demonstrate “administrative capability,” we may lose eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs.

DOE regulations specify extensive criteria an institution must satisfy to establish that it has the requisite “administrative capability” to participate in Title IV Programs. If an institution fails to satisfy any of these criteria or comply with any other DOE regulations, DOE may require the repayment of Title IV funds, transfer the institution from the “advance” system of payment of Title IV funds to cash monitoring status or to the “reimbursement” system of payment, place the institution on provisional certification status, or commence a proceeding to impose a fine or to limit, suspend or terminate the participation of the institution in Title IV Programs. If we are found not to have satisfied DOE’s “administrative capability” requirements we could be limited in our access to, or lose, Title IV Program funding, which would limit our potential for growth and adversely affect our enrollment, revenues and results of operations.

Because we rely on a third-party to administer our participation in Title IV Programs, its failure to comply with applicable regulations could cause our schools to lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs.

We rely on third-party assistance to comply with the complex administration of participation in Title IV Programs for each of our schools. A third party assists us with administration of our participation in Title IV Programs, and if it does not comply with applicable regulations, we may be liable for its actions and we could lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs. In addition, if the third-party servicer is no longer able to provide the services to us, we may not be able to replace it in a timely or cost-efficient manner, or at all, and we could lose our ability to comply with the requirements of Title IV Programs, which would limit our potential for growth and adversely affect our enrollment, revenues and results of operation.

32

If we pay impermissible commissions, bonuses or other incentive payments to individuals involved in recruiting, admissions or financial aid activities, we will be subject to sanctions.

A school participating in Title IV Programs may not provide any commission, bonus or other incentive payment based, directly or indirectly, on success in enrolling students or securing financial aid to any person involved in student recruiting or admission activities or in making decisions regarding the awarding of Title IV Program funds. If we pay a bonus, commission, or other incentive payment in violation of applicable DOE rules, we could be subject to sanctions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. The incentive payment rule and related uncertainty as to how it will be interpreted also may influence our approach, or limit our alternatives, with respect to employment policies and practices and consequently may affect negatively our ability to recruit and retain employees, and as a result our business could be materially and adversely affected.

In addition, the GAO has issued a report critical of DOE’s enforcement of the incentive payment rule, and DOE has undertaken to increase its enforcement efforts. If DOE determines that an institution violated the incentive payment rule, it may require the institution to modify its payment arrangements to DOE’s satisfaction. DOE may also fine the institution or initiate action to limit, suspend, or terminate the institution’s participation in the Title IV Programs. DOE may also seek to recover Title IV funds disbursed in connection with the prohibited incentive payments. In addition, third parties may file “qui tam” or “whistleblower” suits on behalf of DOE alleging violation of the incentive payment provision. Such suits may prompt DOE investigations. Particularly in light of the uncertainty surrounding the incentive payment rule, the existence of, the costs of responding to, and the outcome of, qui tam or whistleblower suits or DOE investigations could have a material adverse effect on our reputation causing our enrollments to decline and could cause us to incur costs that are material to our business, among other things. As a result, our business could be materially and adversely affected.

If their student loan default rates are too high, our schools may lose eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs.

The DOE regulations provide that an institution’s participation in Title IV Programs ends when historical default rates reach a certain level in a single year or for a number of years. Because of our limited experience enrolling students who are participating in these programs, we have limited historical default rate information. Relatively few students are expected to enter the repayment phase in the near term, which could result in defaults by a few students having a relatively large impact on our default rate. If Aspen University or USU loses its eligibility to participate in Title IV Programs because of high student loan default rates, our students would no longer be eligible to use Title IV Program funds in our institution, which would significantly reduce our enrollments and revenues and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

If either institutional accrediting agency loses recognition by the U.S. Secretary of Education or we fail to maintain institutional accreditation for Aspen and USU, we may lose our ability to participate in Title IV Programs.

Increased regulatory scrutiny of accrediting agencies and their accreditation of universities is likely to continue. While Aspen University and USU are each accredited by a DOE-recognized accrediting body, if the DOE were to limit, suspend, or terminate either accreditor’s recognition that institution could lose its ability to participate in the Title IV Programs. If we were unable to rely on accreditation in such circumstances, among other things, our students and our institution would be ineligible to participate in the Title IV Programs, and such consequence would have a material adverse effect on enrollments, revenues and results of operations. In addition, increased scrutiny of accrediting agencies by the Secretary of Education in connection with the DOE’s recognition process may result in increased scrutiny of institutions by accrediting agencies.

Furthermore, based on continued scrutiny of the for-profit education sector, it is possible that accrediting bodies will respond by adopting additional criteria, standards and policies that are intended to monitor, regulate or limit the growth of for-profit institutions like Aspen and USU. Actions by, or relating to, an accredited institution, including any change in the legal status, form of control, or ownership/management of the institution, any significant changes in the institution’s financial position, or any significant growth or decline in enrollment and/or programs, could open up an accredited institution to additional reviews by the applicable accreditor.

33

If we fail to comply with DOE’s substantial misrepresentation rules, it could result in sanctions against our schools.

The DOE may take action against an institution in the event of substantial misrepresentation by the institution concerning the nature of its educational programs, its financial charges or the employability of its graduates. The DOE has expanded the activities that constitute a substantial misrepresentation. Under the DOE regulations, an institution engages in substantial misrepresentation when the institution itself, one of its representatives, or an organization or person with which the institution has an agreement to provide educational programs, marketing, advertising, or admissions services, makes a substantial misrepresentation directly or indirectly to a student, prospective student or any member of the public, or to an accrediting agency, a state agency, or to the Secretary of Education. The regulations define misrepresentation as any false, erroneous or misleading statement, and they define a misleading statement as any statement that has the likelihood or tendency to deceive or confuse. The regulations define substantial misrepresentation as any misrepresentation on which the person to whom it was made could reasonably be expected to rely, or has reasonably relied, to the person’s detriment. If the DOE determines that an institution has engaged in substantial misrepresentation, the DOE may revoke an institution’s program participation agreement, impose limitations on an institution’s participation in the Title IV Programs, deny participation applications made on behalf of the institution, or initiate a proceeding against the institution to fine the institution or to limit, suspend or termination the institution’s participation in the Title IV Programs. We expect that there could be an increase in our industry of administrative actions and litigation claiming substantial misrepresentation, which at a minimum would increase legal costs associated with defending such actions, and as a result our business could be materially and adversely affected.

If we fail to comply with DOE’s credit hour requirements, it could result in sanctions against our schools.

The DOE has defined “credit” hour for Title IV purposes. The credit hour is used for Title IV purposes to define an eligible program and an academic year and to determine enrollment status and the amount of Title IV aid that an institution may disburse in a payment period. The regulations define credit hour as an institutionally established equivalency that reasonably approximates certain specified time in class and out of class and an equivalent amount of work for other academic activities. The final regulations also require institutional accreditors to review an institution’s policies, procedures, and administration of policies and procedures for assignment of credit hours. An accreditor must take appropriate actions to address an institution’s credit hour deficiencies and to notify the DOE if it finds systemic noncompliance or significant noncompliance in one or more programs. The DOE has indicated that if it finds an institution to be out of compliance with the credit hour definition for Title IV purposes, it may require the institution to repay the amount of Title IV awarded under the incorrect assignment of credit hours and, if it finds significant overstatement of credit hours, it may fine the institution or limit, suspend, or terminate its participation in Title IV Programs, as a result of which our business could be materially and adversely affected.

The U.S. Congress continues to examine the for-profit postsecondary education sector which could result in legislation or additional DOE rulemaking that may limit or condition Title IV Program participation of proprietary schools in a manner that may materially and adversely affect our business.

In recent years, the U.S. Congress has increased its focus on for-profit education institutions, including with respect to their participation in the Title IV Programs, and has held hearings regarding such matters. In addition, the GAO released a series of reports following undercover investigations critical of for-profit institutions. We cannot predict the extent to which, or whether, these hearings and reports will result in legislation, further rulemaking affecting our participation in Title IV Programs, or more vigorous enforcement of Title IV requirements. Additionally, the DOE recently created a special unit for the purpose of monitoring publicly traded for-profit educational institutions. Moreover, political consideration could result in a reduction of Title IV funding. To the extent that any laws or regulations are adopted that limit or condition Title IV Program participation of proprietary schools or the amount of federal student financial aid for which proprietary school students are eligible, our business could be materially and adversely affected.

Failure to comply with the federal campus safety and security reporting requirements as implemented by DOE would result in sanctions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operation.

We must comply with certain campus safety and security reporting requirements as well as other requirements in the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act of 1990 (the “Clery Act”), as amended by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. The Clery Act requires an institution to report to DOE and disclose in its annual security report, for the three most recent calendar years, statistics concerning the number of certain crimes that occurred within the institution’s so-called “Clery geography.” Failure to comply with the Clery Act requirements or regulations promulgated by DOE could result in fines or suspension or termination of our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, could lead to litigation, or could harm our reputation, each of which could, in turn, have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

34

Other Risks

Due to factors beyond our control, our stock price may be volatile.

Any of the following factors could affect the market price of our common stock:

In the past, following periods of volatility in the market price of a company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been instituted. A securities class action suit against us could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s time and attention, which would otherwise be used to benefit our business.

Because we may issue preferred stock without the approval of our shareholders and have other anti-takeover defenses, it may be more difficult for a third-party to acquire us and could depress our stock price.

Our Board of Directors (the “Board”) may issue, without a vote of our shareholders, one or more additional series of preferred stock that have more than one vote per share. This could permit our Board to issue preferred stock to investors who support us and our management and give effective control of our business to our management. Additionally, issuance of preferred stock could block an acquisition resulting in both a drop in our stock price and a decline in interest of our common stock. This could make it more difficult for shareholders to sell their common stock. This could also cause the market price of our common stock shares to drop significantly, even if our business is performing well.

As a result of the limited number of shares in the public float, we believe that major financial institutions including mutual funds and large hedge funds may be reluctant to purchase shares of our common stock.

We have a relatively low number of shares in the public float, and our common stock does not normally trade actively. Our Chief Executive Officer believes, partly based upon conversations with potential mutual funds and large hedge funds that some major financial institutions are unable to purchase our common stock due to the lack of public float and since their minimum size purchase would likely cause an artificial rise in our common stock price. Unless our public float increases, we believe our stock price will be adversely affected.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS.

None.

35

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

We lease approximately 88,600 square feet of office and classroom space in the Phoenix metro area, San Diego, New York, Denver and Moncton, New Brunswick Canada. Our lease cost for the fiscal year ending April 30, 2019 was $2,278,642.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

From time-to-time, we may be involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of our operations in the normal course of business. As of the date of this report, except as discussed below, we are not aware of any other pending or threatened lawsuits that could reasonably be expected to have a material effect on the results of our operations and there are no proceedings in which any of our directors, officers or affiliates, or any registered or beneficial shareholder, is an adverse party or has a material interest adverse to our interest.

On February 11, 2013, Higher Education Management Group, Inc. (“HEMG”) and Mr. Patrick Spada sued the Company, certain senior management members and our directors in state court in New York seeking damages arising principally from (i) allegedly false and misleading statements in the filings with the SEC and DOE where the Company disclosed that HEMG and Mr. Spada borrowed $2.2 million without Board authority, (ii) the alleged breach of an April 2012 agreement whereby the Company had agreed, subject to numerous conditions and time limitations, to purchase certain shares of the Company from HEMG, and (iii) alleged diminution to the value of HEMG’s shares of the Company due to Mr. Spada’s disagreement with certain business transactions the Company engaged in, all with Board approval. On November 8, 2013, the state court in New York granted the Company’s motion to dismiss nearly all of the claims. On December 10, 2013, the Company answered an amended complaint filed by HEMG and Mr. Spada in April 2013.

On December 10, 2013, the Company also filed a series of counterclaims against HEMG and Mr. Spada in the same state court of New York. By order dated August 4, 2014, the New York court denied HEMG and Spada’s motion to dismiss the fraud counterclaim the Company asserted against them.

The litigation has been stayed since HEMG’s 2015 bankruptcy filing.

While the Company has been advised by its counsel that HEMG’s and Spada’s claims in the New York lawsuit is baseless, the Company cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the case. Defending the lawsuit maybe expensive and will require the expenditure of time which could otherwise be spent on the Company’s business. While unlikely, if Mr. Spada’s and HEMG’s claims in the New York litigation were to be successful, the damages the Company could pay could potentially be material.

In November 2014, the Company and Aspen University sued HEMG seeking to recover sums due under two 2008 Agreements where Aspen University sold course materials to HEMG in exchange for long-term future payments. On September 29, 2015, the Company and Aspen University obtained a default judgment in the amount of $772,793. This default judgment precipitated the bankruptcy petition discussed in the next paragraph.

On October 15, 2015, HEMG filed bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 7. As a result, the remaining claims and Aspen’s counterclaims in the New York lawsuit are currently stayed. The bankrupt estate’s sole asset consists of 208,000 shares of AGI common stock. The principal creditors are AGI which holds the judgment and has several other claims. During the fiscal year ended April 30, 2019, the Court reduced Aspen’s unsecured claim to $888,632. The other primary claimant is a secured creditor which alleges it is owed a principal amount of $1,200,000. AGI alleges that because HEMG, a Nevada corporation, had failed to pay annual fees to Nevada it lacked the legal authority to create a security interest.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES.

Not applicable.

36

PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES.

Our stock trades on The Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “ASPU”. Prior to June 24, 2019 our stock traded on The Nasdaq Capital Market and prior to August 2, 2017, our stock traded on the OTCQB.  

The last reported sale price of our common stock as reported by Nasdaq on July 8, 2019 was $4.28. As of that date, we had 150 record holders. A substantially greater number of holders of our common stock are “street name” or beneficial holders, whose shares are held of record by banks, brokers, and other financial institutions.

Dividend Policy

We have not paid cash dividends on our common stock and do not plan to pay such dividends in the foreseeable future. Our Board will determine our future dividend policy on the basis of many factors, including results of operations, capital requirements, and general business conditions.

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities

On April 10, 2019, the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Executive Committee”) approved a grant to a consultant of the Company and such consultant’s designated affiliate of a total of 25,000 shares of the Company’s restricted common stock in exchange for services. Of these restricted shares, 5,000 shares were deemed vested as of the date of the grant and the remaining 20,000 shares vest quarterly over a one-year period.

In addition, on April 10, 2019, the Executive Committee approved a grant to a member of the Company’s Advisory Board of five-year warrants to purchase 50,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $4.89 per share, which shall vest annually over a three-year period beginning one year from the grant date, subject to continued service on the Company’s Advisory Board.

Both awards were exempt from registration pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 506(b) promulgated thereunder.

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA.

Not applicable.

37

ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS.

You should read the following discussion in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements, which are included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations contain forward-looking statements that reflect our plans, estimates, and beliefs. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to these differences include those discussed in the Risk Factors contained herein.

Company Overview

AGI is an educational technology holding company.  AGI has three subsidiaries, Aspen University, ANI and USU. On March 13, 2012, the Company acquired Aspen University. On December 1, 2017, the Company acquired USU.

AGI leverages its education technology infrastructure and expertise to allow its two universities, Aspen University and United States University, to deliver on the vision of making college affordable again. Because we believe higher education should be a catalyst to our students’ long-term economic success, we exert financial prudence by offering affordable tuition that is one of the greatest values in higher education.  AGI’s primary focus relative to future growth is to target the high growth nursing profession, as today 81% of all students across both universities are degree-seeking nursing students.

In March 2014, Aspen University unveiled a monthly payment plan available to all students across every online degree program offered by the university. The monthly payment plan is designed so that students will make one payment per month, and that monthly payment is applied towards the total cost of attendance (tuition and fees, excluding textbooks). The monthly payment plan offers online associate and bachelor students the opportunity to pay their tuition and fees at $250/month, online master’s students $325/month, and online doctoral students $375/month, interest free, thereby giving students a monthly payment option versus taking out a federal financial aid loan.

USU began offering monthly payment plans in the summer of 2017. Today, monthly payment plans are available for the online RN to BSN program ($250/month), online MBA/M.A.Ed/MSN programs ($325/month), and the online hybrid Masters of Nursing-Family Nurse Practitioner (“FNP”) program ($375/month). Effective August 2019, new student enrollments for USU’s FNP monthly payment plan will be offered a $9,000 two-year payment plan ($375/month x 24 months) designed to pay for the first year’s pre-clinical courses only (approximate cost of $9,000). The second academic year in which students complete their clinical courses (approximate cost of $18,000) will be required to be funded through conventional payment methods (either cash, private loans, corporate tuition reimbursement or federal financial aid).

Since 1993, Aspen University has been nationally accredited by the DEAC, a national accrediting agency recognized by the DOE. In February 2019, the DEAC informed Aspen University that it had renewed its accreditation for five years to January 2024.

Since 2009, USU has been regionally accredited by WSCUC.

Both universities are qualified to participate under the Higher Education Act and the Federal student financial assistance programs (Title IV, HEA programs).

AGI Student Population Overview*

AGI’s total active student body (includes both Aspen University and USU) grew 27% year-over-year from 7,057 to 8,932. Of the 8,932 total active students at both universities, 81% or 7,213 are degree-seeking Nursing students.

Aspen University’s total active degree-seeking student body grew 20% year-over-year from 6,500 to 7,784. Aspen’s School of Nursing grew 28% year-over-year, from 4,807 to 6,164 active students, which includes 396 active students in the BSN Pre-Licensure program in Phoenix, AZ.

USU’s total active degree-seeking student body grew sequentially from 961 to 1,148 students or a sequential increase of 19%. Of the 1,148 total active students at USU, 970 or 84% are enrolled in the MSN-FNP degree program.

38

* Note: “Active Degree-Seeking Students” are defined as degree-seeking students who were enrolled in a course during the quarter reported or are registered for an upcoming course.

AGI New Student Enrollments

AGI delivered 1,560 new student enrollments for the fiscal fourth quarter, a 23% increase year-over-year. Aspen University accounted for 1,243 new student enrollments (includes 113 Doctoral enrollments and 186 Pre-licensure BSN AZ campus enrollments). USU accounted for 317 new student enrollments (primarily MSN-Family Nurse Practitioner (“FNP”) enrollments), a 79% increase year-over-year. Enrollments for Aspen University’s Pre-Licensure BSN program increased 92% sequentially as the university began accepting enrollments for prerequisite students taking online courses in anticipation of entering the HonorHealth final two-year core campus program targeted to launch this upcoming September.

Below is a table reflecting unconditional acceptance new student enrollments for the past five quarters:

———————

¹Includes prerequisite students for HonorHealth Campus and students registered for upcoming start dates awaiting financial clearance.

In terms of enrollment center staffing, the Aspen (Nursing + Other) unit was staffed with 48 Enrollment Advisors (EAs), Aspen Doctoral (5), Aspen Pre-Licensure BSN (5) and USU (14). Note that enrollment center staffing on a year-over-year basis increased by 10 EAs across its two newest business units; USU and Aspen’s Pre-Licensure BSN program, while the Aspen (Nursing + Other) and Aspen (Doctoral) staffing decreased year-over-year by one EA in each unit, respectively.

Throughout the 2019 fiscal year just ended, the Company has focused the majority of its growth resources on these two newest business units as the Company has materially higher LTV’s (see ‘Marketing Efficiency Ratio Analysis’ section). By maintaining a relatively flat monthly spend rate ($375,000 - $430,000) and EA staffing plan (45 – 50 EAs) since January 2018 in its Aspen Nursing + Other unit, this allowed the Company to achieve Adjusted EBITDA positive results earlier than expected. However, the Company is planning to increase its EA staffing in its Aspen Nursing + Other unit by 10-20% starting in the summer months and as a result expects year-over-year enrollments to increase during the current fiscal year.

Monthly Payment Programs Overview

Aspen offers two monthly payment programs, a monthly payment plan in which students make payments every month over a fixed period depending on the degree program, and a monthly installment plan in which students pay three monthly installments (day 1, day 31 and day 61 after the start of each course).

39

Aspen University students paying tuition and fees through a monthly payment method grew by 19% year-over-year, from 4,532 to 5,404. Those 5,404 students paying through a monthly payment method represent 69% of Aspen University’s total active student body. The total contractual value of Aspen University’s monthly payment plan students now exceeds $40 million which currently delivers monthly recurring tuition cash payments exceeding $1,200,000.

USU students paying tuition and fees through a monthly payment method grew from 602 to 758 students sequentially. Those 758 students paying through a monthly payment method represent 66% of USU’s total active student body. The total contractual value of United States University’s monthly payment plan students now exceeds $10 million which currently delivers monthly recurring tuition cash payments exceeding $200,000.

Marketing Efficiency Ratio (MER) Analysis

AGI has developed a marketing efficiency ratio to continually monitor the performance of its business model.

Cost per Enrollment (CPE)

The Cost per Enrollment measures the advertising investment spent in a given six month period, divided by the number of new student enrollments achieved in that given six month period, in order to obtain an average CPE for the period measured.

Revenue per Enrollment (RPE)

The Revenue per Enrollment takes each quarterly cohort of new degree-seeking student enrollments, and measures the amount of earned revenue including tuition and fees to determine the average RPE for the cohort measured. For the later periods of a cohort, we have used reasonable projections based off of historical results to determine the amount of revenue we will earn in later periods of the cohort.

The current Marketing Efficiency Ratio (MER = revenue-per-enrollment or LTV/cost-per-enrollment or CAC) for our four degree units is reflected in the below table:

———————

²Based on 6-month rolling average

³LTV for USU’s MSN-FNP Program

⁴Based on 3-month rolling average

⁵Preliminary LTV estimate for Aspen’s Pre-Licensure BSN Program

Bookings Analysis (FY’2018 v. FY’2019)

In the charts below, we have provided a full-year comparison of enrollments and bookings from fiscal year 2018 to fiscal year 2019. Note that the Company’s enrollments rose 36% year-over-year, however, the bookings increased 90% year-over-year.

Growing enrollments by 36% year-over-year yet achieving a 90% increase in bookings translates to a 39% average revenue per unit/enrollment (ARPU) increase year-over-year. This result is why the Company focused its growth spending on these three new business units during fiscal year 2019.

40

* Note: “Bookings” are defined by multiplying LTV by new student enrollments for each operating unit. “Average Revenue Per User or (ARPU)” is defined by dividing total bookings by total enrollments.

ASPEN UNIVERSITY’S PRE-LICENSURE BSN HYBRID (ONLINE/ON-CAMPUS) DEGREE PROGRAM

In July 2018, Aspen University through ANI began its Pre-Licensure Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) degree program at its initial campus in Phoenix, Arizona. As a result of overwhelming demand in the Phoenix metro, in January 2019 Aspen began offering both day (July, November, March semesters) and evening/weekend (January, May, September semesters) programs, equaling six semester starts per year. Moreover, in September 2018, Aspen entered into a memorandum of understanding to open a second campus in the Phoenix metro area in partnership with HonorHealth (the initial semester at HonorHealth is currently targeted to begin in September 2019).

Aspen’s innovative hybrid (online/on-campus) program allows most of the credits to be completed online (83 of 120 credits or 69%), with pricing offered at Aspen’s current low tuition rates of $150/credit hour for online general education courses and $325/credit hour for online core nursing courses. For students with no prior college credits, the total cost of attendance is less than $50,000.

Aspen’s Pre-Licensure BSN program is offered as a full-time, three-year (nine semester) program that is specifically designed for students who do not currently hold a state nursing license and have no prior nursing experience. Aspen is admitting students into one of two program components: (1) a pre-professional nursing component for students that have less than the required 41 general education credits completed (Year 1), and (2) the nursing core component for students that ready to participate in the competitive evaluation process for entry (Years 2-3).

New student enrollments for Aspen University’s Pre-Licensure BSN program increased from 97 to 186 or 92% sequentially, as in the fiscal fourth quarter the university began accepting enrollments for prerequisite students taking online courses in anticipation of entering the HonorHealth final two-year nursing core component of the program targeted to launch this upcoming September. Aspen University ended the fiscal year with 396 active students in its Pre-Licensure BSN program.

The Company has been carefully tracking the persistence rates of the first BSN Pre-Licensure cohort of students that began in July 2018. Of the 127 students that entered into the final 2-year nursing core program with all general education courses completed, 123 remain active in the program three semesters later, which represents a 3% attrition rate to date so we are currently modeling less than a 10% attrition rate for this cohort. Additionally, today we have an additional 273 students in the first-year pre-requisite phase of the program and we’re comfortable at this time predicting a two-thirds matriculation rate in this cohort that will successfully complete their 41 first-year credits and thereby enter the final two-year core clinical  As a result, we expect that our Aspen University BSN Pre-Licensure business will deliver the highest LTV’s among all degree programs offered by the Company, and that the LTV per enrollment for the program will be approximately $30,000.

41

The first quarter of fiscal year 2020 (ending July 31, 2019) will mark the completion of the first year of Aspen’s inaugural campus in Phoenix, AZ. Revenues in this first campus are expected to rise to approximately 7% - 8% of the Company’s revenues for the first quarter of fiscal year 2020. The Company expects this inaugural campus to  be profitable in the current first fiscal quarter of fiscal year 2020.

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES AND MONTHLY PAYMENT PLAN

Since the inception of the monthly payment plan in the spring of 2014, the accounts receivable balance, both short-term and long-term, has grown from a net number of $649,890 at April 30, 2014 to a net number of $13,741,713 at April 30, 2019. This growth could be portrayed as the engine of the monthly payment plan. The attractive aspect of being able to pay for a degree over a fixed period of time has fueled the growth of this plan and, as a result, the increase of the accounts receivable balance.

Each student’s receivable account is different depending on how many classes a student takes each period. If a student takes two classes each eight-week period while paying $250, $325 or $375 a month, that student’s account receivable balance will rise accordingly. The converse is true also. A student who takes courses at a slower pace, even taking time off between eight-week terms, could have a balance due to them. It is much more likely however that a student participating in the monthly payment plan will have an accounts receivable balance, as the majority of students complete their degree program of study prior to the completion of the fixed monthly payment plan.

The common thread is the actual monthly payment, which functions as a retail installment contract with no interest that each student commits to pay over a fixed number of months. If a student stops paying, that person can no longer register for a class. If a student decides to withdraw from the university, their account will be settled, either through collection of their balance or disbursement of the amount owed them. Aspen University students paying tuition and fees through a monthly payment method grew by 19% year-over-year, from 4,532 to 5,404. Those 5,404 students paying through a monthly payment method represent 69% of Aspen University’s total active student body.

USU students paying tuition and fees through a monthly payment method grew from 602 to 758 students sequentially. Those 758 students paying through a monthly payment method represent 66% of USU’s total active student body.

Relationship Between Accounts Receivable and Revenue

The gross accounts receivable balance for any period is the net effect of the following three factors:

1. Revenue;

2. Cash receipts, and;

3. The net change in deferred revenue.

All three factors equally determine the gross accounts receivable. If one quarter experiences particularly high cash receipts, the gross accounts receivable will go down. The same effect if cash receipts are lower or if there are significant changes in either of the other factors.

Simply looking at the change in revenue does not translate into an equally similar change in gross accounts receivable. The relative change in cash and the deferral must also be considered. For net accounts receivable, the changes in the reserve must also be considered. Any additional reserve or write-offs will influence the balance.

As it is a straight mathematical formula for both gross accounts receivable and net accounts receivable, and most of the information is public, one can reasonably calculate the two non-public pieces of information, namely the cash receipts in gross accounts receivable and the write-offs in net accounts receivable.

For revenue, the quarterly change is primarily billings and the net impact of deferred revenue. The deferral from the prior quarter or year is added to the billings and the deferral at the end of the period is subtracted from the amount billed. The total deferred revenue at the end of every period is reflected in the liability section of the balance sheet. Deferred revenue can vary for many reasons, but seasonality and the timing of the class starts in relation to the end of the quarter will cause changes in the balance.

42

As mentioned in the accounts receivable section, the change in revenue cannot be compared to the change in accounts receivable. Revenue does not have the impact of cash received whereas accounts receivable does. Depending on the month and the amount of cash received, it is likely that revenue or accounts receivable will increase at a rate different from the other. The impact of cash is easy to substantiate as it agrees to deposits in our bank accounts.

At April 30, 2019, the allowance for doubtful accounts was $1,247,031 which represents 8.3% of the gross accounts receivable balance of $14,988,744, the sum of both short-term and long-term receivables.

The Introduction of Long-Term Accounts Receivable

When a student signs up for the monthly payment plan, there is a contractual amount that the Company can expect to earn over the life of the student’s program. This contractual amount cannot be recorded as an account receivable as the student does have the option to stop attending. As a student takes a class, revenue is earned over that eight-week class. Some students accelerate their program, taking two classes every eight-week period, and as we discussed, that increases the student’s accounts receivable balance. If any portion of that balance will be paid in a period greater than 12 months, that portion is reflected as long-term accounts receivable. At April 30, 2019 and 2018, those balances are $3,085,243 and $1,315,050, respectively.

As a result of the growing acceptance of our monthly payment plans, our long-term accounts receivable balance has grown from $1,315,050 at April 30, 2018 to $3,085,243 at April 30, 2019. The primary component consist of students who make monthly payments over 36 and 39 months. The average student completes their academic program in 24 months, therefore most of the Company’s accounts receivable are short-term.

Here is a graphic of both short-term and long-term receivables, as well as contractual value:

Seasonality Briefing and Revenue Guidance

As Aspen University continues to scale its traditional online Nursing student body, seasonality in that unit has become more pronounced. As previously disclosed, the Company’s first fiscal quarter (May – July) is the seasonal low point because it falls during the summer months and therefore our primarily working professional students tend to take less courses during that quarter relative to the other three fiscal quarters.

By way of example, in Q4 fiscal 2018 (quarter ending April 30, 2018), Aspen University’s revenues were $6,167,367. In the following quarter (Q1 fiscal 2019), revenues sequentially declined 4% or $234,081 to $5,933,286. The following quarter (Q2 fiscal 2019), revenues rose sequentially by 11% or $650,883 to $6,584,169.

The Company expects a similar seasonality effect with Aspen University’s online degree program to occur in the first quarter of the current 2020 fiscal year. Consequently, Aspen University online degree program revenues are expected to decline in Q1 relative to Q4, however as a result of the growing revenue contribution from USU and AU’s pre-licensure BSN campus program, overall Company revenues are expected to be at least $10 million for the 2020 first fiscal quarter.

43

Results of Operations

For the Year Ended April 30, 2019 Compared with the Year Ended April 30, 2018

*Note that the USU acquisition closed on December 1, 2017, therefore year-over-year comparatives include only five months of USU in the 2018 Period.

Revenue

Revenue from operations for the year ended April 30, 2019 (“2019 Period”) increased to $34,025,418 from $22,021,512 for the year ended April 30, 2018 (“2018 Period”), an increase of $12,003,906 or 55%.

Aspen University’s revenues increased 27% year-over-year in its traditional post-licensure online nursing + other degree programs; and Aspen University’s Pre-Licensure BSN program delivered approximately 4% of the company’s revenues following its first campus launching in Phoenix in July 2018.

USU contributed approximately 20% of the total revenues for the full fiscal year.

Cost of Revenues (exclusive of amortization)

The Company’s cost of revenues consists of instructional costs and services and marketing and promotional costs.

Instructional Costs and Services

Instructional costs and services for the 2019 Period rose to $6,880,668 from $4,424,991 for the 2018 Period, an increase of $2,455,677 or 55%.

Aspen University instructional costs and services represented 18% of Aspen University revenues for the 2019 period, while USU instructional costs and services equaled 29% of USU revenues for the 2019 period.

Marketing and Promotional

Marketing and promotional costs for the 2019 Period were $9,096,550 compared to $5,428,828 for the 2018 Period, an increase of $3,667,722 or 68%.

Aspen University marketing and promotional expenses represented 24% of Aspen University revenues for the 2019 Period, while USU marketing and promotional expenses equaled 24% of USU revenues for the 2019 period.

AGI corporate marketing expenses equaled $852,904 for the 2019 Period compared to $201,190 for the 2018 Period, an increase of $651,714 or 324%. The AGI corporate marketing increase was a result of the initiation of an outside sales force in early calendar year 2018.

Gross profit fell to 51% of revenues or $17,299,195 for the 2019 Period from 53% of revenues or $11,636,809 for the 2018 Period.

Aspen University gross profit represented 55% of Aspen University revenues for the 2019 Period, while USU gross profit equaled 47% of USU revenues for the 2019 Period.

Costs and Expenses

General and Administrative

General and administrative costs for the 2019 Period were $24,987,828 compared to $16,328,580 during the 2018 Period, an increase of $8,659,248 or 53%.

Aspen University general and administrative costs represented 47% of Aspen University revenues for the 2019 Period, while USU general and administrative costs equaled 88% of USU revenues for the 2019 Period. It is anticipated that USU’s general and administrative expenses as a percent of revenues will decline over time as USU’s revenues increase.

44

Aspen Group, Inc. general and administrative costs which are included in the above amount for the 2019 Period equaled approximately $6.14 million, including corporate employees in the NY corporate office, IT, rent, non-cash AGI stock based compensation, and professional fees (legal, accounting, and IR).

Depreciation and Amortization

Depreciation and amortization costs for the 2019 Period increased to $2,170,098 from $1,092,283 for the 2018 Period, an increase of $1,077,815 or 99%. The increase in depreciation expense is mainly due to the depreciation of intangible assets acquired with USU.  Additionally, Aspen has begun making capital investments in the ground campus business and that will cause depreciation expense to continue to increase in the near future.

Other (Expense)

Other expense, net for the 2019 Period decreased to ($168,491) from ($1,807,891) in the 2018 Period, a decrease of $1,639,400 or 91%. The other expenses in the 2018 period consists primarily of expenses associated with the early repayment in April 2018 of the $7,500,000 credit facility with Runway Growth Credit Fund.

Income Taxes

Income taxes expense (benefit) for the comparable years was $0 as Aspen Group experienced operating losses in both periods. As management made a full valuation allowance against the deferred tax assets stemming from these losses, there was no tax benefit recorded in the statement of operations in both periods.

Net Loss

Net loss for 2019 Period was ($9,278,217) as compared to ($7,061,061) for the 2018 Period, an increase in the loss of $2,217,156 or approximately 31%.  The primary reason for the increased loss was that USU is operating at a loss and it had a full year of operation in the 2019 Period but only a partial year of operation in the 2018 Period.  

Aspen University generated approximately $1.9 million of net income for the 2019 period, while USU experienced a net loss of approximately ($3.77) million for the 2019 period.

AGI corporate incurred $7.41 million of operating expenses for the 2019 period, including $0.44 million interest expense.

For the Quarter Ended April 30, 2019 Compared with the Quarter Ended April 30, 2018

Revenue

Revenue from operations for the quarter ended April 30, 2019 (“2019 Quarter”) increased to $10,214,143 from $7,225,029 for the quarter ended April 30, 2018 (“2018 Quarter”), an increase of $2,989,114 or 41%.

Aspen University’s revenues in the 2019 Quarter increased 18% year-over-year in its traditional post-licensure online nursing + other degree programs. Aspen University’s Pre-Licensure BSN program delivered approximately 5% of the Company’s revenues following its first campus launching in Phoenix in July, 2018.

USU contributed approximately 24% of the total revenues for the 2019 Quarter.

Cost of Revenues (exclusive of amortization)

The Company’s cost of revenues consists of instructional costs and services and marketing and promotional costs.

Instructional Costs and Services

Instructional costs and services for the 2019 Quarter rose to $1,974,846 or 19% of revenues from $1,531,173 or 21% of revenues for the 2018 Quarter, an increase of $443,673 or 29%.

Aspen University instructional costs and services represented 17% of Aspen University revenues for the 2019 quarter, while USU instructional costs and services equaled 25% of USU revenues during the 2019 quarter.

45

Marketing and Promotional

Marketing and promotional costs for the 2019 Quarter were $2,337,486 or 23% of revenues compared to $2,039,832 or 28% of revenues for the 2018 Quarter, an increase of $297,654 or 15%.

Aspen University marketing and promotional costs represented 21% of Aspen University revenues for the 2019 Quarter, while USU marketing and promotional costs equaled 19% of USU revenues for the 2019 Quarter.

AGI corporate marketing expenses equaled $201,190 for the 2019 Quarter compared to $247,835 for the 2018 Quarter, a decrease of $46,645 or 19%.

Gross profit rose to 56% of revenues or $5,683,536 for the 2019 Quarter from 49% of revenues or $3,506,254 for the 2018 Quarter.

Aspen University gross profit represented 58% of Aspen University revenues for the 2019 Quarter, while USU gross profit equaled 55% of USU revenues during the 2019 Quarter.

Costs and Expenses

General and Administrative

General and administrative costs for the 2019 Quarter were $6,669,767 compared to $5,353,495 during the 2018 Quarter, an increase of $1,316,272 or 25%.

Aspen University general and administrative costs which are included in the above amount represented 43% of Aspen University revenues for the 2019 Quarter, while USU general and administrative costs equaled 65% of USU revenues for the 2019 Quarter. As a percentage of revenue, the AU percentage is higher than the previous year’s 4^th quarter percentage of 27%.  In the 2018 Quarter a full year adjustment was made moving expenses from the subsidiary to the parent causing the variance between the two quarters.

AGI’s general and administrative costs for the 2019 Quarter which is included in the above amount equaled approximately $1.73 million, including corporate employees in the NY corporate office, IT, rent, non-cash AGI stock based compensation, and professional fees (legal, accounting, and IR).

Depreciation and Amortization

Depreciation and amortization costs for the 2019 Quarter increased to $592,634 from $460,314 for the 2018 Quarter, an increase of $132,320 or 29%. The increase in depreciation expense is mainly due to the depreciation of intangible assets acquired with USU.  Additionally, Aspen has begun making capital investments in the Phoenix campus and that will cause depreciation expense to continue to increase in the near future.

Other Income (Expense)

Other income, net for the 2019 Quarter decreased to $(249,333) from ($1,504,701) in the 2018 Quarter, a decrease of $1,255,368 or 83%. The other expenses in the 2018 period consists primarily expenses associated with the payoff of the $7,500,000 credit facility.

Income Taxes

Income taxes expense (benefit) for the comparable years was $0 as Aspen Group experienced operating losses in both periods. As management made a full valuation allowance against the deferred tax assets stemming from these losses, there was no tax benefit recorded in the statement of operations in both periods.

Operating Income and Loss

Aspen University generated $1.1 million of operating income for the 2019 Quarter, USU experienced an operating loss of ($0.51) million during the 2019 Quarter, while AGI corporate incurred $2.2 million of total expenses for the 2019 Quarter.

46

Net Loss

Net loss applicable to shareholders was ($1,609,923) or net loss per share of $(0.09) for the 2019 Quarter as compared to ($3,664,486) for the 2018 Quarter, a decrease in the loss of $2,054,563.

Non-GAAP – Financial Measures

The following discussion and analysis includes both financial measures in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP, as well as non-GAAP financial measures. Generally, a non-GAAP financial measure is a numerical measure of a company’s performance, financial position or cash flows that either excludes or includes amounts that are not normally included or excluded in the most directly comparable measure calculated and presented in accordance with GAAP. Non-GAAP financial measures should be viewed as supplemental to, and should not be considered as alternatives to net income, operating income, and cash flow from operating activities, liquidity or any other financial measures. They may not be indicative of the historical operating results of Aspen Group nor are they intended to be predictive of potential future results. Investors should not consider non-GAAP financial measures in isolation or as substitutes for performance measures calculated in accordance with GAAP.

Our management uses and relies on EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA, which are non-GAAP financial measures. We believe that both management and shareholders benefit from referring to the following non-GAAP financial measures in planning, forecasting and analyzing future periods. Our management uses these non-GAAP financial measures in evaluating its financial and operational decision making and as a means to evaluate period-to-period comparison. Our management recognizes that the non-GAAP financial measures have inherent limitations because of the described excluded items.

Aspen Group defines Adjusted EBITDA as earnings (or loss) from continuing operations before the items in the table below including non-recurring charges of $497,300 in 2019 and $764,253 in 2018. Adjusted EBITDA is an important measure of our operating performance because it allows management, investors and analysts to evaluate and assess our core operating results from period-to-period after removing the impact of items of a non-operational nature that affect comparability.

We have included a reconciliation of our non-GAAP financial measures to the most comparable financial measure calculated in accordance with GAAP. We believe that providing the non-GAAP financial measures, together with the reconciliation to GAAP, helps investors make comparisons between the Company and other companies. In making any comparisons to other companies, investors need to be aware that companies use different non-GAAP measures to evaluate their financial performance. Investors should pay close attention to the specific definition being used and to the reconciliation between such measure and the corresponding GAAP measure provided by each company under applicable SEC rules.

The following table presents a reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to Net loss allocable to common shareholders, a GAAP financial measure:

47

Aspen University generated $3.9 million of Adjusted EBITDA for the 2019 Period and $1.8 million of Adjusted EBITDA for the 2019 Quarter.

USU experienced an Adjusted EBITDA loss of $(2.2) million during the 2019 Period and an Adjusted EBITDA loss of $(0.1) million during the 2019 Quarter.

Aspen Group corporate incurred $7.0 million of operating expenses to the $(4.1) million Aspen Group Adjusted EBITDA loss for the 2019 Period and $(1.6) million of operating expenses to the $72,935 Adjusted EBITDA result for the 2019 Quarter.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

A summary of our cash flows is as follows:

Net Cash Used in Operating Activities

Net cash used in operating activities during the 2019 Period totaled ($10,216,014) and resulted primarily from the net loss of($9,278,217), offset by $4,380,549 in non-cash items and a $5,318,346 decrease in operating assets and liabilities. The most significant item change in operating assets and liabilities was an increase in accounts receivable of $6,477,948 which is primarily attributed to the growth in revenues from students paying through the monthly payment plan. The most significant non-cash items were depreciation and amortization expense of $2,170,098 and stock-based compensation expense of $1,190,385.

Net cash used in operating activities during the 2018 Period totaled ($5,609,935) and resulted primarily from the net loss of ($7,061,061) and a net change in operating assets and liabilities of ($1,704,389), both offset by non-cash items of $3,212,898. The most significant change in operating assets and liabilities was an increase of $3,360,277 in accounts receivable reflecting the expansion of the monthly payment plan. The most significant non-cash item was $1,092,283 in Depreciation and Amortization.

Net Cash Used in Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities during the 2019 Period totaled ($2,623,043) mostly attributed to investments in the purchase of property and equipment as we build up our campuses in Arizona.

Net cash used in investing activities during the 2018 Period totaled ($3,521,325), reflecting primarily fixed asset purchases of $1,836,618 and the cash paid for the acquisition totaling $2,589,719.

Net Cash Provided By Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities during the 2019 Period totaled $8,003,744 which reflects the early repayment of the remaining outstanding principal of the Convertible Note, issued in connection with the USU acquisition, offset by the proceeds from the senior secured term loans.

Net cash provided by financing activities during the 2018 Period totaled $21,178,108, reflecting primarily net proceeds of equity offerings, totaling approximately $20.8 million.

48

Liquidity

The Company had cash of $5,500,000  on July 9, 2019, including $448,400 of restricted cash. This included the proceeds of the Term Loan, which was funded in March 2019. In addition to its cash, the Company also had access to the $5 million Revolving Credit Facility, which is unused. The Company has sufficient cash resources to meet its working capital needs for at least the next 12 months.

Our cash balances are kept liquid to support our growing infrastructure needs. The majority of our cash is concentrated in large financial institutions.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

In response to financial reporting release FR-60, Cautionary Advice Regarding Disclosure About Critical Accounting Policies, from the SEC, we have selected our more subjective accounting estimation processes for purposes of explaining the methodology used in calculating the estimate, in addition to the inherent uncertainties pertaining to the estimate and the possible effects on our financial condition. There were no material changes to our principal accounting estimates during the period covered by this report.

Revenue Recognition and Deferred Revenue

Revenue consisting primarily of tuition and fees derived from courses taught by Aspen online as well as from related educational resources that Aspen provides to its students, such as access to our online materials and learning management system. Tuition revenue is recognized pro-rata over the applicable period of instruction. Aspen maintains an institutional tuition refund policy, which provides for all or a portion of tuition to be refunded if a student withdraws during stated refund periods. Certain states in which students reside impose separate, mandatory refund policies, which override Aspen’s policy to the extent in conflict. If a student withdraws at a time when a portion or none of the tuition is refundable, then in accordance with its revenue recognition policy, Aspen recognizes as revenue the tuition that was not refunded. Since Aspen recognizes revenue pro-rata over the term of the course and because, under its institutional refund policy, the amount subject to refund is never greater than the amount of the revenue that has been deferred, under Aspen’s accounting policies revenue is not recognized with respect to amounts that could potentially be refunded. Aspen’s educational programs have starting and ending dates that differ from its fiscal quarters. Therefore, at the end of each fiscal quarter, a portion of revenue from these programs is not yet earned and is therefore deferred. Aspen also charges students annual fees for library, technology and other services, which are recognized over the related service period. Deferred revenue represents the amount of tuition, fees, and other student payments received in excess of the portion recognized as revenue and it is included in current liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. Other revenue may be recognized as sales occur or services are performed.

Accounts Receivable and Allowance for Doubtful Accounts Receivable

All students are required to select both a primary and secondary payment option with respect to amounts due to Aspen for tuition, fees and other expenses. The most common payment option for Aspen’s students is personal funds or payment made on their behalf by an employer. In instances where a student selects financial aid as the primary payment option, he or she often selects personal cash as the secondary option. If a student who has selected financial aid as his or her primary payment option withdraws prior to the end of a course but after the date that Aspen’s institutional refund period has expired, the student will have incurred the obligation to pay the full cost of the course. If the withdrawal occurs before the date at which the student has earned 100% of his or her financial aid, Aspen will have to return all or a portion of the Title IV funds to the DOE and the student will owe Aspen all amounts incurred that are in excess of the amount of financial aid that the student earned and that Aspen is entitled to retain. In this case, Aspen must collect the receivable using the student’s second payment option.

For accounts receivable from students, Aspen records an allowance for doubtful accounts for estimated losses resulting from the inability, failure or refusal of its students to make required payments, which includes the recovery of financial aid funds advanced to a student for amounts in excess of the student’s cost of tuition and related fees. Aspen determines the adequacy of its allowance for doubtful accounts using a general reserve method based on an analysis of its historical bad debt experience, current economic trends, and the aging of the accounts receivable and student status. Aspen applies reserves to its receivables based upon an estimate of the risk presented by the age of the receivables and student status. Aspen writes off accounts receivable balances at the time the balances are deemed uncollectible. Aspen continues to reflect accounts receivable with an offsetting allowance as long as management believes there is a reasonable possibility of collection.

49

For accounts receivable from primary payors other than students, Aspen estimates its allowance for doubtful accounts by evaluating specific accounts where information indicates the customers may have an inability to meet financial obligations, such as bankruptcy proceedings and receivable amounts outstanding for an extended period beyond contractual terms. In these cases, Aspen uses assumptions and judgment, based on the best available facts and circumstances, to record a specific allowance for those customers against amounts due to reduce the receivable to the amount expected to be collected. These specific allowances are re-evaluated and adjusted as additional information is received. The amounts calculated are analyzed to determine the total amount of the allowance. Aspen may also record a general allowance as necessary.

Direct write-offs are taken in the period when Aspen has exhausted its efforts to collect overdue and unpaid receivables or otherwise evaluate other circumstances that indicate that Aspen should abandon such efforts.

Business Combinations

We include the results of operations of businesses we acquire from the date of the respective acquisition. We allocate the purchase price of acquisitions to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed at fair value. The excess of the purchase price of an acquired business over the amount assigned to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed is recorded as goodwill. We expense transaction costs associated with business combinations as incurred.

Goodwill and Intangibles

Goodwill represents the excess of purchase price over the fair market value of assets acquired and liabilities assumed from Educacion Significativa, LLC. Goodwill has an indefinite life and is not amortized. Goodwill is tested annually for impairment.

Intangible assets represent both indefinite lived and definite lived assets. Accreditation and regulatory approvals and Trade name and trademarks are deemed to have indefinite useful lives and accordingly are not amortized but are tested annually for impairment. Student relationships and curriculums are deemed to have definite lives and are amortized accordingly.

Related Party Transactions

See Note 13 to the consolidated financial statements included herein for additional description of related party transactions that had a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Off Balance Sheet Arrangements

We do not engage in any activities involving variable interest entities or off-balance sheet arrangements.

New Accounting Pronouncements

See Note 13 to our consolidated financial statements included herein for discussion of recent accounting pronouncements.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward Looking Statements

This report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 including statements regarding the effect of bookings on future revenue, attrition rates from the three programs AGI is focusing on, the future effect of seasonality on our operating results, expected income from Aspen University’s inaugural campus, our expected future revenues, expected continued increase in our depreciation expense, projections with respect to our marketing efficiency ratio, and liquidity.  All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this report, including statements regarding our future financial position, liquidity, business strategy and plans and objectives of management for future operations, are forward-looking statements. The words “believe,” “may,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “should,” “plan,” “could,” “target,” “potential,” “is likely,” “will,” “expect” and similar expressions, as they relate to us, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy and financial needs.

The results anticipated by any or all of these forward-looking statements might not occur. Important factors, uncertainties and risks that may cause actual results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements are contained in the Risk Factors contained in Item 1A. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as the result of new information, future events or otherwise. For more information regarding some of the ongoing risks and uncertainties of our business, see the Risk Factors and our other filings with the SEC.

50

ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK.

Not applicable.

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA.

The financial statements and the other information required by this Item can be found beginning on page F-1.

ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.

Not applicable.

ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures. Our management carried out an evaluation, with the participation of our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, required by Rule 13a-15 or 15d-15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) or 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act. Based on their evaluation, our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures are effective as of the end of the period covered by this report to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms and is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting.  Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Exchange Act). Our management, under the supervision and with the participation of our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of the end of the period covered by this report. In making this assessment, our management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsor Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control-Integrated Framework as issued in 2013. In evaluating our information technology controls, management also used components of the framework contained in the Control Objectives for Information and Related Technology, which was developed by the Information Systems Audit and Control Association’s IT Governance Institute, as a complement to the COSO internal control framework. Based on these evaluations, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective based on these criteria.

Our internal control over financial reporting is a process designed under the supervision of our Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of our financial statements for external reporting purposes in accordance with GAAP. 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.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with policies or procedures may deteriorate.

The Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, Salberg & Company, PA, audited the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. Salberg & Company, PA has issued an audit report with respect to our internal control over financial reporting, which appears in Part IV, Item 15 of this Report on Form 10-K.

Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) or 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act that occurred during the period covered by this report that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION.

None.

51

PART III

ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to our Proxy Statement for the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be filed with the SEC within 120 days of the fiscal year ended April 30, 2019.

Our Board of Directors has adopted a Code of Ethics applicable to all officers, directors and employees, which is available on our website (http://ir.aspen.edu/governance-docs) under "Corporate Governance." We intend to satisfy the disclosure requirement under Item 5.05 of Form 8-K regarding amendment to, or waiver from, a provision of our Code of Ethics and by posting such information on our website at the address and location specified above.

ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.

The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to our Proxy Statement for the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be filed with the SEC within 120 days of the fiscal year ended April 30, 2019.

ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS.

The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to our Proxy Statement for the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be filed with the SEC within 120 days of the fiscal year ended April 30, 2019.

ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE.

The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to our Proxy Statement for the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be filed with the SEC within 120 days of the fiscal year ended April 30, 2019.

ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES.

The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to our Proxy Statement for the 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be filed with the SEC within 120 days of the fiscal year ended April 30, 2019.

52

PART IV

ITEM 15. EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES.

ITEM 16. FORM 10-K SUMMARY.

Not applicable.

53

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.

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.

54

Aspen Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Index to Consolidated Financial Statements

F-1

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of:

Aspen Group, Inc.

Opinions on the Financial Statements and Internal Control over Financial Reporting

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Aspen Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of April 30, 2019 and 2018, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended April 30, 2019, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “consolidated financial statements”). We also have audited the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of April 30, 2019, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the Company as of April 30, 2019 and 2018, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended April 30, 2019, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also, in our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of April 30, 2019, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework (2013) issued by COSO.

Basis for Opinion

The Company’s management is responsible for these consolidated financial statements, 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 Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s consolidated financial statements and an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud, and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects.

2295 NW Corporate Blvd., Suite 240 • Boca Raton, FL 33431-7328

Phone: (561) 995-8270 • Toll Free: (866) CPA-8500 • Fax: (561) 995-1920

www.salbergco.com • info@salbergco.com

Member National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts • Registered with the PCAOB

Member CPAConnect with Affiliated Offices Worldwide • Member AICPA Center for Audit Quality

F-2

Our audits of the consolidated financial statements included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the consolidated financial statements. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.

Definition and Limitations of Internal Control over Financial Reporting

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of consolidated financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s 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 consolidated 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 company’s assets that could have a material effect on the consolidated financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

/s/ Salberg & Company, P.A.

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2012

SALBERG & COMPANY, P.A.

Boca Raton, Florida

July 9, 2019

F-3

ASPEN GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(Continued)

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

F-4

ASPEN GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (CONTINUED)

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

F-5

ASPEN GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS