PERDOCEO EDUCATION Corp - Quarter Report: 2014 September (Form 10-Q)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark one)

FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2014

OR

FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM                      TO                     

Commission File Number: 0-23245

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  x    No  ¨

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

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

Number of shares of registrant’s common stock, par value $0.01, outstanding as of October 31, 2014: 67,278,590

Table of Contents

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION

FORM  10-Q

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)

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

1

Table of Contents

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF LOSS AND COMPREHENSIVE LOSS

(In thousands, except per share amounts)

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

2

Table of Contents

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In thousands)

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

3

Table of Contents

CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPANY

The colleges, institutions and universities that are part of the Career Education Corporation (“CEC”) family offer high-quality education to a diverse student population in a variety of career-oriented disciplines through online, on-ground and hybrid learning program offerings. In addition to its online offerings, Career Education serves students from campuses throughout the United States offering programs that lead to doctoral, master’s, bachelor’s and associate degrees, as well as to diplomas and certificates.

Our institutions include both universities that provide degree programs through the master or doctoral level and colleges that provide programs through the associate and bachelor level. The University group includes American InterContinental University (“AIU”) and Colorado Technical University (“CTU”)—predominantly serving students online with career-focused degree programs that meet the educational demands of today’s busy adults. The Career Schools group offers career-centered education primarily through ground-based campuses and includes Briarcliffe College, Brooks Institute, Harrington College of Design, Le Cordon Bleu North America (“LCB”), Missouri College and Sanford-Brown Institutes and Colleges (“SBI” and “SBC,” respectively). Through our colleges, institutions and universities, we are committed to providing high-quality education, enabling students to graduate and pursue rewarding career opportunities.

A detailed listing of individual campus locations and web links to Career Education’s colleges, institutions and universities can be found at www.careered.com.

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

2. BASIS OF PRESENTATION

The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, the financial statements do not include all of the information and notes required by GAAP for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments, including normal recurring accruals, considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the quarter and year to date ended September 30, 2014 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2014.

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements presented herein include the accounts of CEC and our wholly-owned subsidiaries (collectively “CEC”). All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated.

We organize our business across five reporting segments: CTU, AIU (comprises University Schools); Career Colleges, Culinary Arts (comprises Career Schools); and Transitional Schools. Campuses included in our Transitional Schools segment are currently being taught out and no longer enroll new students. These campuses employ a gradual teach-out process, enabling them to continue to operate while current students complete their course of study. The results of operations for campuses within the Transitional Schools segment will be reported within continuing operations for all periods presented until they complete their teach-out. During the third quarter of 2014, the Company announced the teach-out of three additional Sanford-Brown campuses: Chicago, Las Vegas and Orlando. These campuses are now included in the Transitional Schools segment. As campuses within Transitional Schools cease operations during 2014, the results of operations for all periods presented will be reflected within discontinued operations. During the third quarter of 2014, the Company completed the teach-out

4

Table of Contents

of three Transitional Schools campuses. As a result, all current and prior periods reflect these campuses as components of discontinued operations. All prior period results have been recast to reflect our reporting segments on a comparable basis.

3. RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

In August 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements—Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. This ASU provides guidance to an organization’s management, intended to define management’s responsibility to evaluate whether there is a substantial doubt about an organization’s ability to continue as a going concern and to provide guidance regarding related footnote disclosure. In connection with preparing financial statements for each annual and interim reporting period, an entity’s management should evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued. Management’s evaluation should be based on relevant conditions and events that are known and reasonably knowable at the date that the financial statements are issued. For all entities, ASU 2014-15 is effective for annual periods and interim periods within those annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016; early adoption is permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of ASU 2014-15 will have on our financial condition, results of operations and disclosures.

In June 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-12, Compensation—Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Accounting for Share-Based Payments When the Terms of an Award Provide That a Performance Target Could Be Achieved after the Requisite Service Period. This ASU standardizes the reporting for these awards by requiring that entities treat these performance targets as a performance condition. As such, the performance target should not be reflected in estimating the grant-date fair value of the award. Compensation cost should be recognized in the period in which it becomes probable that the performance target will be achieved and should represent the compensation cost attributable to the period(s) for which the requisite service has already been rendered. For all entities, ASU 2014-12 is effective for annual periods and interim periods within those annual periods beginning after December 15, 2015; early adoption is permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of ASU 2014-11 will have on our financial condition, results of operations and disclosures.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606). ASU 2014-09 is principles based guidance that can be applied to all contracts with customers, enhancing comparability of revenue recognition practices across entities, industries, jurisdictions and capital markets. The core principle of the guidance is that entities should recognize revenue to depict the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods and services. The guidance details the steps entities should apply to achieve the core principle. For public entities, ASU 2014-09 is effective for annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within that reporting period; early adoption is not permitted. We are currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of ASU 2014-09 will have on our financial condition, results of operations and disclosures.

In April 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-08, Presentation of Financial Statements (Topic 205) and Property, Plant, and Equipment (Topic 360): Reporting Discontinued Operations and Disclosures of Disposals of Components of an Entity. This ASU limits discontinued operations reporting to disposals of components of an entity that represent strategic shifts that have (or will have) a major effect on an entity’s operations and financial results. In addition, the amendments in this ASU require expanded disclosures for discontinued operations as well as for disposals that do not qualify as discontinued operations. For public entities, ASU 2014-08 is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning on or after December 15, 2014. Early adoption is permitted for disposals that have not been reported in financial statements previously issued. We are currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of ASU 2014-08 will have on our financial condition, results of operations and disclosures.

5

Table of Contents

We have evaluated and adopted the guidance of the following ASUs issued by the FASB in 2013; adopting these ASUs did not materially impact the presentation of our financial condition, results of operations and disclosures:

4. DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS

As of September 30, 2014, the results of operations for campuses that have ceased operations or campuses that were sold, and are considered distinct operations as defined under FASB ASC Topic 205 – Presentation of Financial Statements, are presented within discontinued operations. During the third quarter of 2014, we completed the teach-out of three campuses (see Note 2, “Basis of Presentation” of the notes to our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements). All current and prior period financial statements include the results of operations and financial position for these campuses as components of discontinued operations.

Results of Discontinued Operations

A summary of unaudited results of operations for our discontinued operations for the quarters and years to date ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 is as follows (dollars in thousands):

6

Table of Contents

Assets and Liabilities of Discontinued Operations

Assets and liabilities of discontinued operations on our unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 include the following (dollars in thousands):

Remaining Lease Obligations

A number of the campuses that ceased operations have remaining lease obligations that expire over time with the latest expiration in 2020. A liability is recorded representing the fair value of the remaining lease obligation at the time the space is no longer being utilized. Changes in our future remaining lease obligations, which are reflected within current and non-current liabilities of discontinued operations on our unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets, for the quarters and years to date ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, were as follows (dollars in thousands):

7

Table of Contents

5. FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

Investments from our continuing operations consist of the following as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 (dollars in thousands):

In the table above, unrealized holding gains/(losses) as of September 30, 2014 relate to short-term investments that have been in a continuous unrealized gain/(loss) position for less than one year. The table also includes unrealized holding losses, greater than one year, that relate to our long-term investment in a municipal bond, which is an auction rate security (“ARS”). When evaluating our investments for possible impairment, we review factors such as the length of time and extent to which fair value has been less than the cost basis, the financial condition of the investee, and our ability and intent to hold the investment for a period of time that may be sufficient for anticipated recovery in fair value. The unrealized loss attributable to our municipal bond at September 30, 2014 is attributable to the continued lack of activity in the ARS market, exposing this investment to liquidity risk.

Our municipal bonds are comprised of debt obligations issued by states, cities, counties and other governmental entities, which earn federally tax-exempt interest. Our investment in ARS has a stated term to maturity of greater than one year, and as such, we classify our investment in ARS as non-current on our unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets within other assets. An auction can “fail” when the number of sellers of the security exceeds the buyers for that particular auction period. In the event that an auction fails, the interest rate resets at a rate based on a formula determined by the individual security. The ARS for which auctions have failed continues to accrue interest and is auctioned on a set interval until the auction succeeds, the issuer calls the security, or it matures. As of September 30, 2014, we have determined this investment is at risk for impairment due to the nature of the liquidity of the market over the past year. Cumulative unrealized losses as of September 30, 2014 amount to $0.5 million and are reflected within accumulated other comprehensive loss as a component of stockholders’ equity. We believe this impairment is temporary, as we do not intend to sell the investment and it is unlikely we will be required to sell the investment before recovery of its amortized cost basis.

8

Table of Contents

Our non-governmental debt securities primarily consist of corporate bonds and commercial paper. We do not intend to sell our investments in non-governmental debt securities and it is not more likely than not that we will be required to sell these investments before recovery of the amortized cost basis, which may be maturity.

Fair Value Measurements

FASB ASC Topic 820—Fair Value Measurements establishes a three-tier fair value hierarchy, which prioritizes the inputs used in measuring fair value. These tiers include: Level 1, defined as observable inputs such as quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities; Level 2, defined as inputs other than quoted prices in active markets that are either directly or indirectly observable; and Level 3, defined as unobservable inputs in which little or no market data exists, therefore requiring an entity to develop its own assumptions.

As of September 30, 2014, we held investments that are required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis. These investments (available-for-sale) consist of non-governmental debt securities, treasury and federal agencies and municipal bonds that are publicly traded and for which market prices are readily available, and our investment in an ARS. Available for sale securities included in Level 2 are estimated based on observable inputs other than quoted prices in active markets for identical assets and liabilities, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in inactive markets, or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities. During the first quarter of 2014, we reclassified our investments in U.S Treasury bills from Level 1 classification to Level 2. The fair value for these investments was not based on identical assets as of March 31, 2014 which resulted in this reclassification. Our investment in an ARS is categorized as Level 3 and fair value is estimated utilizing a discounted cash flow analysis as of September 30, 2014 which considers, among other items, the collateralization underlying the security investment, the credit worthiness of the counterparty, the timing of expected future cash flows, and the expectation of the next time the security is expected to have a successful auction. The auction event for our ARS investment has failed for multiple years. This security was also compared, when possible, to other observable market data with similar characteristics.

Investments measured at fair value on a recurring basis subject to the disclosure requirements of FASB ASC Topic 820—Fair Value Measurements at September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013 were as follows (dollars in thousands):

The following table presents a rollforward of our assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) as defined in FASB ASC Topic 820 for the year to date ended September 30, 2014 (dollars in thousands):

9

Table of Contents

See Note 8 “Asset Impairments” for further information regarding non-recurring fair value measurements.

Credit Agreement

During the fourth quarter of 2013, we entered into a $70.0 million Amended and Restated Credit Agreement (the “Credit Agreement”). The revolving credit facility under the Credit Agreement is scheduled to mature on June 30, 2016. As of September 30, 2014, there were no outstanding borrowings under the revolving credit facility and we remain in compliance with the covenants of the Credit Agreement. See Note 14 “Subsequent Events” for further information regarding recent amendments to the Credit Agreement.

6. STUDENT RECEIVABLES

Student receivables represent funds owed to us in exchange for the educational services provided to a student. Student receivables are reflected net of an allowance for doubtful accounts and net of deferred tuition revenue. Student receivables, net are reflected on our unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets as components of both current and non-current assets. We do not recognize interest on student receivables; interest is recorded only upon collection.

Generally, a student receivable balance is written off once it reaches greater than 90 days past due. Although we analyze past due receivables, it is not practical to provide an aging of our non-current student receivable balances as a result of the methodology utilized in determining our earned student receivable balances. Student receivables are recognized on our unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets as they are deemed earned over the course of a student’s program and/or term, and therefore cash collections are not applied against specifically dated transactions.

Our standard student receivable allowance estimation methodology considers a number of factors that, based on our collection experience, we believe have an impact on our repayment risk and ability to collect student receivables. Changes in the trends in any of these factors may impact our estimate of the allowance for doubtful accounts. These factors include, but are not limited to: internal repayment history, repayment practices of previous extended payment programs and changes in the current economic, legislative or regulatory environments. These factors are monitored and assessed on a regular basis. Overall, our allowance estimation process for student receivables is validated by trending analysis and comparing estimated and actual performance. The repayment risk associated with student receivables under extended payment plans is generally higher than those not related to extended payment plans; as such, the allowance for doubtful accounts for these student receivables as a percentage of outstanding student receivables is higher.

Student Receivables Under Extended Payment Plans and Recourse Loan Agreements

To assist students in completing their educational programs, we had previously provided extended payment plans to certain students and also had loan agreements with Sallie Mae and Stillwater National Bank and Trust Company (“Stillwater”) which required us to repurchase loans originated by them to our students after a certain period of time. We discontinued providing extended payment plans to students during the first quarter of 2011 and the recourse loan agreements with Sallie Mae and Stillwater ended in March 2008 and April 2007, respectively.

As of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the amount of non-current student receivables under these programs, net of allowance for doubtful accounts and net of deferred tuition revenue, was $4.2 million and $5.2 million, respectively.

Student Receivables Valuation Allowance

Changes in our current and non-current receivables allowance for the quarters and years to date ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 were as follows (dollars in thousands):

10

Table of Contents

Fair Value Measurements

The carrying amount reported in our unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets for the current portion of student receivables approximates fair value because of the nature of these financial instruments as they generally have short maturity periods. It is not practicable to estimate the fair value of the non-current portion of student receivables, since observable market data is not readily available, and no reasonable estimation methodology exists.

7. RESTRUCTURING CHARGES

Reductions in force have been carried out related to the reorganization of our corporate and campus functions to better align with current total student enrollments and decisions made in the current quarter and previous years to teach out a number of campuses, meaning gradually close the campuses through an orderly process. The remaining Transitional campuses that are in the process of teaching out as of September 30, 2014 will cease operations at various dates through 2017.

The following table details the changes in our accrual for severance and related costs associated with these restructuring events for our continuing operations during the quarters and years to date ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 (dollars in thousands):

The current portion of the accrual for severance and related charges was $4.5 million and $2.1 million as of September 30, 2014 and September 30, 2013, respectively, which is recorded within current accrued expenses – payroll and related benefits; the long-term portion of $1.2 million and $1.4 million, respectively, is recorded within other non-current liabilities. In addition, as of September 30, 2014, we have accrued approximately $0.8 million related to retention bonuses that have been offered to certain employees involved in the teach-out process. These amounts will be recorded ratably over the period the employees are retained; $0.2 million was recorded during the quarter ended September 30, 2014.

11

Table of Contents

During the third quarter of 2014, three of our campuses completed their teach-out activities and had remaining lease obligations related to their facilities upon completing their teach-out. The charge recorded during the current quarter related to these discontinued operations was approximately $1.0 million, which represents the net present value of our remaining lease obligation less an estimated amount for sublease income and was recorded within loss from discontinued operations for the current quarter. A number of our teach-out campuses that have not yet closed will have remaining lease obligations following the eventual campus closure, with the longest lease term being through 2021. The total estimated charge related to the remaining lease obligation for these leases, once the campus completes the close process, and adjusted for possible lease buyouts and sublease assumptions is approximately $14 million. The amount related to each campus will be recorded at each campus closure date based on current estimates and assumptions related to the amount and timing of sublease income.

8. ASSET IMPAIRMENTS

Intangible Assets

During the third quarter of 2014, in conjunction with the quarterly review process, we concluded that certain indicators were present which suggested that the Le Cordon Bleu and Sanford-Brown trade names were at risk of their carrying values exceeding their respective fair values as of September 30, 2014. These indicators included, but were not limited to, a decline in cash flows and a decline in actual revenue and earnings as compared to prior projected results. A significant amount of judgment is involved in determining if an indicator of impairment has occurred.

We calculate the fair value of each of our trade names in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 820 – Fair Value Measurement, by utilizing the relief from royalty method under the income approach. The determination of estimated fair value for trade names requires significant estimates and assumptions, and as such, these fair value measurements are categorized as Level 3 as defined in FASB ASC Topic 820. The assumptions utilized in determining the fair values of the Le Cordon Bleu and Sanford-Brown trade names included utilizing projected revenue growth rates, discount rates of approximately 32% for Le Cordon Bleu and 23% for Sanford-Brown, royalty rates of 3.5% and 0.5% for the Le Cordon Bleu and Sanford-Brown trade names, respectively, and terminal growth rates of approximately 2.0% for Le Cordon Bleu and 3.0% for Sanford-Brown. As a result of our assessment, we recorded $1.5 million of trade name impairment charges each for Le Cordon Bleu and Sanford-Brown, resulting in remaining fair values of $18.4 million and $2.4 million as of September 30, 2014 for these trade names, respectively. Due to the inherent uncertainty involved in deriving those estimates, actual results could differ from those estimates. We evaluate the merits of each significant assumption used, both individually and in the aggregate, to determine the fair value for reasonableness. Although we believe our projected future operating results and cash flows and related estimates regarding fair value are based on reasonable assumptions, historically projected operating results and cash flows have not always been achieved. However, for sensitivity purposes, and with all other inputs remaining equal, a 50 basis point change in the royalty rate assumed in the calculation for these trade names would result in a change in the fair values of approximately $4.8 million. A 100 basis point change in the discount rates utilized in the calculation for these trade names would result in a change in the fair values of approximately $0.6 million. We continue to monitor the operating results and revenue projections related to our trade names on a quarterly basis for signs of possible further declines in estimated fair value and trade name impairment.

Property and Equipment

During the third quarter of 2014, we identified indicators of impairment during our strategic plan review process, due to the undiscounted cash flows of certain schools not exceeding the carrying value of the related asset group. As a result, property and equipment was affected by asset impairment charges of approximately $11.3 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2014. The fair value for these assets was determined based upon management’s assumptions regarding an estimated percentage of replacement value for similar assets and estimated salvage values. Because the determination of the estimated fair value of these assets requires significant estimation and assumptions, these fair value measurements are categorized as Level 3 per ASC Topic 820.

12

Table of Contents

9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

An accrual for estimated legal fees and settlements of $6.0 million and $20.3 million at September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, is presented within other current liabilities on our unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. The accrual as of September 30, 2014 reflects a decrease of $0.6 million from the period ended June 30, 2014.

We record a liability when we believe that it is both probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. We evaluate, at least quarterly, developments in our legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that was previously accrued, and make adjustments as appropriate. Significant judgment is required to determine both probability and the estimated amount. We may be unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss due to various reasons, including, among others: (1) if the damages sought are indeterminate; (2) if the proceedings are in early stages; (3) if there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals, motions, or settlements; (4) if there are significant factual issues to be determined or resolved; and (5) if there are novel or unsettled legal theories presented. In such instances, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the ultimate resolution of such matters, including a possible eventual loss, if any.

Litigation

We are, or were, a party to the following legal proceedings that we consider to be outside the scope of ordinary routine litigation incidental to our business. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these matters. An unfavorable outcome of any one or more of these matters could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

Insurance Coverage Litigation

Axis Insurance Company v. Career Education Company, et al. On December 11, 2013, Axis Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, naming the Company and various individuals as defendants in connection with coverage for the recently settled Ross, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, et al. securities class action and shareholder derivative actions that were previously disclosed. Axis sought a declaration of no coverage. On September 29, 2014, the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement that resolves the matter. On October 21, 2014, the Court entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice.

Student Litigation

Abarca v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al. (filed June 3, 2011; 115 plaintiffs); Andrade, et al. v. California Culinary Academy, Inc., et al (filed June 15, 2011; 31 plaintiffs); Aprieto, et al. v. California Culinary Academy (filed August 12, 2011; five plaintiffs); Coleman, et al. v. California Culinary Academy (filed January 18, 2013; two plaintiffs). These four actions are pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court and generally allege: fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract and violation of the repealed California Education Code. Plaintiffs contend that California Culinary Academy (“CCA”) made a variety of misrepresentations to them, primarily oral, during the admissions process. The alleged misrepresentations relate generally to the school’s reputation, the value of the education, the competitiveness of the admissions process, and the students’ employment prospects upon graduation, including the accuracy of statistics published by CCA. The plaintiffs in these actions seek damages, including consequential damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

All of the plaintiffs in these four actions either opted out of or did not fit the class definition in a previously settled class action captioned Amador, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation; Adams, et al. v. California Culinary Academy and Career Education Corporation. None of these four actions are being prosecuted as a class action. All of these cases have been deemed related and have been transferred to the same judge who handled the Amador case.

13

Table of Contents

The parties participated in a mediation session on April 2, 2014. At that time, there were 79 individual plaintiffs remaining who had not previously settled or dismissed their claims. At the mediation, the Company agreed to settle with 77 of the remaining plaintiffs by paying approximately $2.2 million plus an as yet undetermined amount of attorneys’ fees. Accordingly, for the quarter ended September 30, 2014, the Company has a reserve of $3.2 million which is the current estimate of the total amount of the settlement and based on its assessment that the settlement is probable; of which $0.2 million was recorded during the current quarter.

Since the mediation, four additional plaintiffs have dropped out of the settlement. As a result, there are six individuals who elected not to participate in the settlement. The Company has settled three of the six cases for an immaterial amount. If the remaining three cases cannot be settled, they will be set for trial at a later date.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in the future with respect to the three remaining cases, the outcome in those cases is uncertain. Accordingly, we have not recognized any future liability associated with these actions.

Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, California Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc. Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Superior Court State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that CCA materially misrepresented the placement rates of its graduates, falsely stated that admission to the culinary school was competitive and that the school had an excellent reputation among restaurants and other food service providers, represented that the culinary schools were well-regarded institutions producing skilled graduates who employers eagerly hired, and lied by telling students that the school provided graduates with career placement services for life. The plaintiffs or putative class members co-signed the loans for students to attend CCA, some of whom were Amador class members. Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, civil penalties and attorneys’ fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action allegations on October 31, 2013. A hearing on the motions was conducted on March 14, 2014. Thereafter, the Court issued two separate orders granting the motion to strike the class allegations and the motion to dismiss without leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended complaint and/or for reconsideration of the Court’s orders. On May 9, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider its order striking the class allegations and granted plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint as to some, but not all, of plaintiffs’ claims. On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the Court’s ruling with respect to the motion to strike the class allegations. The Court has stayed the case pending a ruling on the appeal.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because, among other things, our potential liability depends on whether a class is certified and, if so, the composition and size of any such class, as well as on an assessment of the appropriate measure of damages if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action.

Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. and Career Education Corporation. On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd.(“WCI”) and the Company as defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief: violation of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Act (“UTPA”) and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege WCI made a variety of misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI’s placement statistics, students’ employment prospects upon graduation from WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved to dismiss certain of plaintiffs’ claims under Oregon’s UTPA; that motion was granted on September 12, 2008. On February 5, 2010, the Court entered a formal Order granting class certification on part

of plaintiff’s UTPA and fraud claims purportedly based on omissions, denying certification of the rest of those

14

Table of Contents

claims and denying certification of the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims. The class consists of students who enrolled at WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1, 2010, excluding those who dropped out or were dismissed from the school for academic reasons.

Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint on December 7, 2010, which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett. Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately 2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI.

On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6, 2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court’s Order and on August 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI’s motion to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the case. The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and we are awaiting the Court’s decision. All proceedings with the trial court have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that have already arisen and that may arise in the future, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because of the inherent difficulty in assessing the appropriate measure of damages and the number of class members who might be entitled to recover damages, if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action.

Vasquez, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation. On June 23, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court entitled Daniel Vasquez and Cherish Herndon v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. and Career Education Corporation. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud, constructive fraud, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs allege improper conduct in connection with the admissions process during the alleged class period. The alleged class is defined as including “all persons who purchased educational services from California School of Culinary Arts, Inc. (“CSCA”), or graduated from CSCA, within the limitations periods applicable to the alleged causes of action (including, without limitation, the period following the filing of the action).” Defendants successfully demurred to the constructive fraud claim and the Court has dismissed it. Defendants also successfully demurred to plaintiffs’ claims based on alleged violations of California’s former Private Postsecondary and Vocational Educational Reform Act of 1989 (“the Reform Act”). Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was denied by the Court on March 6, 2012.

Plaintiffs’ counsel have filed eight separate but related “multiple plaintiff actions” originally involving a total of approximately 1,000 former students entitled Banks, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Abrica v. California School of Culinary Arts; Aguilar, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Alday v. California School of Culinary Arts; Ackerman, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Arechiga, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; Anderson, et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts; and Allen v. California School of Culinary Arts. All eight cases are pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the allegations in these cases are essentially the same as those asserted in the Vasquez class action case. The individual plaintiffs in these cases seek compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution of tuition monies received, attorneys’ fees, costs and injunctive relief. All of these cases have been deemed related to the Vasquez class action and therefore are pending before the same judge who is presiding over the Vasquez case.

On June 15, 2012, pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Vasquez action consolidating all eight of the separate actions referenced above. The complaint was thereafter amended to add additional plaintiffs. As a result of these amendments, there were at one time approximately 1,438 plaintiffs, the majority of whom enrolled between 2003 and 2008 (about 10 of the plaintiffs enrolled in 2009 and 2010).

15

Table of Contents

On June 22, 2012, defendants filed motions to compel arbitration of plaintiffs’ claims. On August 10, 2012, the Court granted the motions with respect to approximately 54 plaintiffs. Nine arbitration demands were filed before the American Arbitration Association, one of which was tried to a final award and eight of which were settled. The remaining plaintiffs’ claims were settled prior to arbitration demands being filed. The total liability for all of these claims was an immaterial amount. Following the resolution of these claims, other settlements, and the voluntary dismissal of certain claims, there were approximately 1,047 remaining plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

The Company and plaintiffs’ counsel have executed an agreement regarding the framework for individual settlements with approximately 950 of the remaining individual plaintiffs. Pursuant to this settlement arrangement, defendants paid $17.5 million to fund the individual plaintiff settlements, attorneys’ fees and administrative costs of the settlement, subject to certain excluded costs which defendants will be separately responsible for. The settlement amounts for each individual plaintiff have been determined by a third party. Of the 954 individuals who participated in the settlement, 948 have accepted offers of settlement as determined by the third party, or offers that are not materially greater than the amounts determined by the third party. Any liability to the six remaining plaintiffs is expected to be an immaterial amount.

Approximately 97 of the remaining plaintiffs are not within the purview of the settlement arrangement described in the preceding paragraph. Because these plaintiffs have not cooperated with their counsel, the Court entered orders allowing their counsel to withdraw. Because they did not thereafter retain new counsel or otherwise participate in the prosecution of their claims, the Court has dismissed all of these individual cases.

False Claims Act

United States of America, ex rel. Melissa Simms Powell, et al. v. American InterContinental University, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Career Education Corp., a Delaware Corporation and John Doe Nos. 1-100. On July 28, 2009, we were served with a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The complaint was originally filed under seal on July 14, 2008 by four former employees of the Dunwoody campus of our American InterContinental University on behalf of themselves and the federal government. On July 27, 2009, the Court ordered the complaint unsealed and we were notified that the U.S. Department of Justice declined to intervene in the action. When the federal government declines to intervene in a False Claims Act action, as it has done in this case, the private plaintiffs (or “relators”) may elect to pursue the litigation on behalf of the federal government and, if they are successful, receive a portion of the federal government’s recovery. The action alleges violations of the False Claims Act and promissory fraud, including allegedly providing false certifications to the federal government regarding compliance with certain provisions of the Higher Education Act and accreditation standards. Relators claim that defendants’ conduct caused the government to pay federal funds to defendants and to make payments to third-party lenders, which the government would not have made if not for defendants’ alleged violation of the law. Relators seek treble damages plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. On July 12, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss for a lack of jurisdiction, the claims related to incentive compensation and proof of graduation. Thus, the only claim that remained pending against defendants was based on relators’ contention that defendants misled the school’s accreditor, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, during the accreditation process. On December 16, 2013, we filed a motion for summary judgment on a variety of substantive grounds. On September 29, 2014, the Court granted our motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in our favor. On October 2, 2014, relators filed a notice of appeal.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because the complaint does not seek a specified amount of damages and it is unclear how damages would be calculated, if we were to be found liable. Moreover, the case presents novel legal issues. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action.

16

Table of Contents

United States of America, ex rel. Brent M. Nelson v. Career Education Corporation, Sanford-Brown, Ltd., and Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc. On April 18, 2013, defendants were served with an amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The original complaint was filed under seal on July 30, 2012 by a former employee of Sanford-Brown College Milwaukee on behalf of himself and the federal government. On February 27, 2013, the Court ordered the complaint unsealed and we were notified that the U.S. Department of Justice declined to intervene in the action. After the federal government declined to intervene in this case, the relator elected to pursue the litigation on behalf of the federal government. If he is successful he would receive a portion of the federal government’s recovery. An amended complaint was filed by the relator on April 12, 2013 and alleges violations of the False Claims Act, including allegedly providing false certifications to the federal government regarding compliance with certain provisions of the Higher Education Act and accreditation standards. Relator claims that defendants’ conduct caused the government to pay federal funds to defendants, and to make payments to third-party lenders, which the government would not have made if not for defendants’ alleged violation of the law. Relator seeks treble damages plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. On June 11, 2013, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case on a variety of grounds. The Court ruled on that motion, dismissing CEC from the case and dismissing several of the relator’s factual claims. On November 27, 2013, Sanford Brown, LTD., and Ultrasound Technical Services, Inc., the remaining Company defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to prior public disclosures of the relator’s alleged claims. On March 17, 2014, the Court granted this motion in part, limiting the timeframe and geographical scope of the relator’s claims. On June 13, 2014, the Court granted the remaining Company defendants’ motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in their favor. On July 9, 2014, relator filed a notice of appeal.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise on appeal, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because the complaint does not seek a specified amount of damages and it is unclear how damages would be calculated, if we were to be found liable. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action.

United States of America, ex rel. Ann Marie Rega v. Career Education Corporation, et al. On May 16, 2014, Relator Ann Marie Rega, a former employee of Sanford-Brown Iselin, filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and almost all of the Company’s individual schools on behalf of herself and the federal government. She alleges claims under the False Claims Act, including allegedly providing false certifications to the federal government regarding compliance with certain provisions of the Higher Education Act and accreditation standards. Relator claims that defendants’ conduct caused the government to pay federal funds to defendants, and to make payments to third-party lenders, which the government would not have made if not for defendants’ alleged violation of the law. Relator seeks treble damages plus civil penalties and attorneys’ fees. Relator failed to comply with the statutory requirement that all False Claims Act cases be filed under seal. On June 16, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice as to relator for failure to file her complaint under seal in accordance with the requirements of the False Claims Act. The motion is fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a ruling from the Court.

Because the matter is in its early stages and because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action because the complaint does not seek a specified amount of damages and it is unclear how damages would be calculated, if we were to be found liable. Moreover, the case presents novel legal issues. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action.

Employment Litigation

Wilson, et al. v. Career Education Corporation. On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former admissions representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The two-count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from our

17

Table of Contents

decision to terminate our Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation (“ARSC”) Plan. In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated admissions representatives who also were affected by termination of the plan. On October 6, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 13, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss in its entirety and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14, 2012. On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the final judgment of the trial court. Briefing was completed on October 30, 2012, and oral argument was held on December 3, 2012. On August 30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling on plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim but reversed and remanded for further proceedings on plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. On September 13, 2013, we filed a petition for rehearing to seek review of the panel’s decision on the breach of contract claim and for certification of question to the Illinois Supreme Court, but the petition was denied.

The case now is on remand to the district court for further proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC’s termination of the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. CEC has answered the complaint, and the parties have commenced fact discovery as to the issue of liability. The Court has ordered the parties to complete fact discovery as to that issue by January 30, 2015. Because the matter is in its early stages and because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss, if any, for this action. Accordingly, we have not recognized any liability associated with this action.

Other Litigation

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

State Investigations

The Attorney General of Connecticut is serving as the point of contact for inquiries received from the attorneys general of the following 16 states: Arkansas, Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington (January 24, 2014); Illinois (December 9, 2011); Tennessee (February 7, 2014), Hawaii (May 28, 2014 ) and New Mexico (May 2014). In addition, the Company has received inquiries from the attorneys general of Florida (November 5, 2010), Massachusetts (September 27, 2012), Colorado (August 27, 2013) and Minnesota (September 18, 2014). The inquiries are civil investigative demands or subpoenas which relate to the investigation by the attorneys general of whether the Company and its schools have complied with certain state consumer protection laws, and generally focus on the Company’s practices relating to the recruitment of students, graduate placement statistics, graduate certification and licensing results and student lending activities, among other matters. Depending on the state, the documents and information sought by the attorneys general in connection with their investigations cover time periods as early as 2006 to the present. The Company intends to cooperate with the states involved with a view towards resolving these inquiries as promptly as possible.

We cannot predict the scope, duration or outcome of these attorney general investigations. At the conclusion of any of these matters, the Company or certain of its schools may be subject to claims of failure to comply with state laws or regulations and may be required to pay significant financial penalties and/or curtail or modify their

18

Table of Contents

operations. Other state attorneys general may also initiate inquiries into the Company or its schools. If any of the foregoing occurs, our business, reputation, financial position, cash flows and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. Based on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential monetary or non-monetary impact these investigations might have on the Company because it is uncertain what remedies, if any, these regulators might ultimately seek in connection with these investigations.

Regulatory Matters

ED Inquiry and HCM1 Status

In December 2011, the U.S. Department of Education (“ED”) advised the Company that it is conducting an inquiry concerning possible violations of ED misrepresentation regulations related to placement rates reported by certain of the Company’s institutions to accrediting bodies, students and potential students. This inquiry stems from the Company’s self-reporting to ED of its internal investigation into student placement determination practices at the Company’s Health Education segment campuses and review of placement determination practices at all of the Company’s other domestic campuses in 2011. The Company has been cooperating with ED in connection with this inquiry. If ED determines that the Company or any of its institutions violated ED misrepresentation regulations with regard to the publication or reporting of placement rates or other disclosures to students or prospective students or finds any other basis in the materials we are providing, ED may revoke, limit, suspend, delay or deny the institution’s or all of the Company’s institutions Title IV eligibility, or impose fines.

In December 2011, ED also moved all of the Company’s institutions from the “advance” method of payment of Title IV Program funds to cash monitoring status (referred to as Heightened Cash Monitoring 1, or HCM1, status). Although the Company’s prior practices substantially conformed to the requirements of this more restrictive method of drawing down students’ Title IV Program funds, if ED finds violations of the HEA or related regulations, ED may impose monetary or program level sanctions, impose some period of delay in the Company’s receipt of Title IV funds or transfer the Company’s schools to the “reimbursement” or Heightened Cash Monitoring 2 (“HCM2”) methods of payment of Title IV Program funds. While on HCM2 status, an institution must disburse its own funds to students, document the students’ eligibility for Title IV Program funds and comply with certain waiting period requirements before receiving such funds from ED, which results in a significant delay in receiving those funds. The process of re-establishing a regular schedule of cash receipts for the Title IV Program funds if ED places our schools on “reimbursement” or HCM2 payment status could take several months, and would require us to fund ongoing operations substantially out of existing cash balances. If our existing cash balances are insufficient to sustain us through this transition period, we would need to pursue other sources of liquidity, which may not be available or may be costly.

OIG Audit

Our schools and universities are also subject to periodic audits by various regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). The OIG audit services division commenced a compliance audit of CTU in June 2010, covering the period July 5, 2009 to May 16, 2010, to determine whether CTU had policies and procedures to ensure that CTU administered Title IV Program and other federal program funds in accordance with applicable federal law and regulation. On January 13, 2012, the OIG issued a draft report identifying three findings, including one regarding the documentation of attendance of students enrolled in online programs and one regarding the calculation of returns of Title IV Program funds arising from student withdrawals without official notice to the institution. CTU submitted a written response to the OIG, contesting these findings, on March 2, 2012. CTU disagreed with the OIG’s proposed determination of what constitutes appropriate documentation or verification of online academic activity during the time period covered by the audit. CTU’s response asserted that this finding was based on the retroactive application of standards adopted as part of the program integrity regulations that first went into effect on July 1, 2011. The OIG final report, along with CTU’s response to the draft report, was forwarded to ED’s Office of Federal Student Aid on September 21, 2012. On October 24, 2012, CTU provided a further response challenging the findings of the

19

Table of Contents

report directly to ED’s Office of Federal Student Aid. As a result of ED’s review of these materials, on January 31, 2013, CTU received a request from ED that it perform two file reviews to determine potential liability on two discrete issues associated with one of the above findings. The first file review relates to any potential aid awarded to students who engaged in virtual classroom attendance activities prior to the official start date of a course and for which no further attendance was registered during the official class term. The second file review relates to students that were awarded and paid Pell funds for enrollment in two concurrent courses, while only registering attendance in one of the two courses. The Company completed these file reviews and provided supporting documentation to ED on April 10, 2013. As of September 30, 2014, the Company has a $0.8 million reserve recorded related to this matter.

10. INCOME TAXES

The components of pretax loss from continuing operations for the quarters and years to date ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 are as follows (dollars in thousands):

The determination of the annual effective tax rate is based upon a number of significant estimates and judgments, including the estimated annual pretax income in each tax jurisdiction in which we operate and the ongoing development of tax planning strategies during the year. In addition, our provision for income taxes can be impacted by changes in tax rates or laws, the finalization of tax audits and reviews, as well as other factors that cannot be predicted with certainty. As such, there can be significant volatility in interim tax provisions.

The following is a summary of our provision for (benefit from) income taxes and effective tax rate from continuing operations (dollars in thousands):

As of December 31, 2013, we reported a total deferred tax valuation allowance of $82.5 million within our condensed consolidated balance sheet. As of September 30, 2014, our total deferred tax valuation allowance was $141.2 million, reflecting an increase of $58.7 million in the current year to date as a result of the inability to record an income tax benefit related to current year losses. After considering both positive and negative evidence related to the likelihood of realization of the deferred tax assets, we have determined that it is necessary to continue to record this valuation allowance against our net deferred tax assets as of September 30, 2014. The effective tax provision for the quarter and year to date ended September 30, 2014 approximates $1.1 million and $3.2 million, respectively.

The cumulative effect of federal and state valuation losses reduced the effective tax rate benefit by 39.3%. The current year tax rate was also impacted by nominal uncertain tax position activity and the recording of discrete items for the recent closure of a federal tax audit for the tax years 2008 through 2012, the net effect of which resulted in a 2.7% effective tax rate.

20

Table of Contents

We estimate that it is reasonably possible that the liability for unrecognized tax benefits for a variety of uncertain tax positions will decrease by up to $1.9 million in the next twelve months as a result of the completion of various tax audits currently in process and the expiration of the statute of limitations in several jurisdictions. The income tax rate for the quarter and year to date ended September 30, 2014 does not take into account the possible reduction of the liability for unrecognized tax benefits. The impact of a reduction to the liability will be treated as a discrete item in the period the reduction occurs. We recognize interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits in tax expense. As of September 30, 2014, we had accrued $2.3 million as an estimate for reasonably possible interest and accrued penalties.

Our tax returns are routinely examined by federal, state, local and foreign tax authorities and these audits are at various stages of completion at any given time. The Internal Revenue Service recently completed its examination of our U.S. income tax returns for the tax years of 2008 through 2012.

11. SHARE-BASED COMPENSATION

Overview of Share-Based Compensation Plans

The Career Education Corporation 2008 Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2008 Plan”) authorizes awards of stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units, deferred stock, performance units, annual incentive awards, and substitute awards, which generally may be settled in cash or shares of our common stock. Any shares of our common stock that are subject to awards of stock options or stock appreciation rights payable in shares will be counted as 1.0 share for each share issued for purposes of the aggregate share limit and any shares of our common stock that are subject to any other form of award payable in shares will be counted as 1.67 shares for each share issued for purposes of the aggregate share limit. As of September 30, 2014, there were approximately 6.1 million shares of common stock available for future share-based awards under the 2008 Plan, which is net of 4.0 million shares issuable upon exercise of outstanding options. This amount does not reflect 0.6 million and 0.1 million shares underlying restricted stock units and deferred stock units, respectively, as of September 30, 2014, which will be settled in shares of our common stock if the vesting conditions are met and thus reduce the common stock available for future share-based awards under the 2008 Plan by the amount vested, multiplied by the applicable factor under the plan. The vesting of all types of equity awards (stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock awards and restricted stock units) is subject to possible acceleration in certain circumstances. Generally, if a plan participant terminates employment for any reason other than by death or disability during the vesting period, the right to unvested equity awards is forfeited.

As of September 30, 2014, we estimate that compensation expense of approximately $6.0 million will be recognized over the next four years for all unvested share-based awards that have been granted to participants, including stock options, shares of restricted stock, restricted stock units and deferred stock units to be settled in shares of stock but excluding restricted stock units to be settled in cash.

Stock Options. The exercise price of stock options and stock appreciation rights granted under each of the plans is equal to the fair market value of our common stock on the date of grant. Employee stock options generally become exercisable 25% per year over a four-year service period beginning on the date of grant and expire ten years from the date of grant. Non-employee directors’ stock options expire ten years from the date of grant and generally become exercisable as follows: one-fourth on the grant date and one-fourth for each of the first through third anniversaries of the grant date. Grants of stock options are generally only subject to the service conditions discussed previously.

21

Table of Contents

Stock option activity during the year to date ended September 30, 2014 under all of our plans was as follows (options in thousands):

Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Units to be Settled in Stock. Restricted stock and restricted stock units to be settled in shares of stock generally become fully vested either three years after the date of grant or 25% per year over a four-year service period beginning on the date of grant. Certain awards to plan participants referred to as “performance-based” are subject to performance conditions that, even if the requisite service period is met, may reduce the number of shares or units of restricted stock that vest at the end of the requisite service period or result in all shares or units being forfeited.

The following table summarizes information with respect to all outstanding restricted stock and restricted stock units to be settled in shares of stock under our plans during the year to date ended September 30, 2014 (shares and units in thousands):

Deferred Stock Units to be Settled in Stock. In the second quarter of 2014 and for the first time since inception of any of our plans, we granted deferred stock units to our non-employee directors. The deferred stock units are to be settled in shares of stock and generally vest one-third per year over a three-year service period beginning on the date of grant. Settlement of the deferred stock units and delivery of the underlying shares of stock to the plan participant does not occur until he or she ceases to provide services to the Company in the capacity of a director, employee or consultant.

The following table summarizes information with respect to all deferred stock units during the year to date ended September 30, 2014 (units in thousands):

22

Table of Contents

Restricted Stock Units to be Settled in Cash. Restricted stock units to be settled in cash generally become fully vested 25% per year over a four-year service period beginning on the date of grant. Cash-settled restricted stock units are recorded as liabilities as the expense is recognized and the fair value for these awards is determined at each period end date with changes in fair value recorded in our statement of loss and comprehensive loss in the current period. Cash-settled restricted stock units are settled with a cash payment for each unit vested equal to the closing price on the vesting date. Cash-settled restricted stock units are not included in common shares reserved for issuance or available for issuance under the 2008 Plan.

The following table summarizes information with respect to all cash-settled restricted stock units during the year to date ended September 30, 2014 (units in thousands):

Upon vesting, based on the conditions set forth in the award agreements, these units will be settled in cash. We valued these units in accordance with the guidance set forth by FASB ASC Topic 718 – Compensation-Stock Compensation and recognized $3.2 million of expense for the year to date 2014 for all cash-settled restricted stock units; of which $0.8 million was recorded during the quarter ended September 30, 2014.

Stock-Based Compensation Expense. Total stock-based compensation expense during the quarter and year to date ended September 30, 2014 and 2013 for all types of awards was as follows (dollars in thousands):

Performance Unit Awards. Performance unit awards granted during 2013 and 2014 are long-term incentive, cash-based awards. Payment of these awards is based upon a calculation of Total Shareholder Return (“TSR”) of CEC as compared to TSR across a specified peer group of our competitors over a three-year performance period ending on December 31, 2015 and 2016, respectively. These awards are recorded as liabilities as the expense is recognized and fair value for these awards is revalued at each period end date with changes in fair value recorded in our statement of loss and comprehensive loss in the current period. A liability of $3.0 million was recorded as of September 30, 2014, which represents the fair value of the liability incurred through September 30, 2014 for these awards; $1.2 million was recorded during the quarter ended September 30, 2014.

12. WEIGHTED AVERAGE COMMON SHARES

Basic net (loss) income per share is calculated by dividing net (loss) income by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period. Diluted earnings per share is computed by dividing net (loss) income by the weighted average number of shares assuming dilution. Dilutive common shares outstanding

23

Table of Contents

is computed using the Treasury Stock Method and reflects the additional shares that would be outstanding if dilutive stock options were exercised and restricted stock and restricted stock units were settled for common shares during the period.

Due to the fact that we reported a loss from continuing operations for the quarters and years to date ended September 30, 2014 and 2013, potential common stock equivalents are excluded from the diluted common shares outstanding calculation. Per FASB ASC Topic 260 – Earnings Per Share, an entity that reports discontinued operations shall use income or loss from continuing operations as the benchmark for calculating diluted common shares outstanding, and as such, we have zero common stock equivalents since these shares would have an anti-dilutive effect on our net loss per share for the quarters and years to date ended September 30, 2014 and 2013.

13. SEGMENT REPORTING

Our segments are determined in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 280—Segment Reporting and are based upon how the Company analyzes performance and makes decisions. Each segment represents a group of postsecondary education providers that offer a variety of degree and non-degree academic programs. These segments are organized by key market segments to enhance brand focus and operational alignment within each segment to more effectively execute our strategic plan. Our reporting segments are described below.

University Schools:

Colorado Technical University (CTU) collectively offers academic programs in the career-oriented disciplines of business studies, information systems and technologies, criminal justice, computer science and engineering, and health sciences in an online, classroom or laboratory setting.

American InterContinental University (AIU) collectively offers academic programs in the career-oriented disciplines of business studies, information technologies, criminal justice and design technologies in an online, classroom or laboratory setting.

Career Schools:

Career Colleges includes Briarcliffe College, Brooks Institute, Harrington College of Design, Missouri College and our Sanford-Brown institutions. The Career Colleges group collectively offers academic programs primarily in the career-oriented discipline of health education complemented by certain programs in business studies and information technology, as well as visual communications, fashion design, photography, interior design, graphic design and video production in a classroom, laboratory or online setting.

Culinary Arts includes our Le Cordon Bleu institutions in North America which collectively offer hands-on educational programs in the career-oriented disciplines of culinary arts and patisserie and baking in the commercial-grade kitchens of Le Cordon Bleu. Le Cordon Bleu also provides online programs in culinary arts and hotel and restaurant management.

Transitional Schools includes our campuses that are currently being taught out.

We evaluate segment performance based on operating results. Adjustments to reconcile segment results to consolidated results are included under the caption “Corporate and Other,” which primarily includes unallocated corporate activity and eliminations.

24

Table of Contents

Summary financial information by reporting segment is as follows (dollars in thousands):

25

Table of Contents