Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	CONTINGENCIES Litigation, Legal and Other Matters. The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to complaints and administrative proceedings and are defendants in various civil lawsuits that have arisen in the ordinary course of their businesses, including contract disputes; actions alleging negligence, libel, defamation, invasion of privacy; trademark, copyright and patent infringement; U.S. False Claims Act (False Claims Act) violations; violations of applicable wage and hour laws; and statutory or common law claims involving current and former students and employees. Although the outcomes of the legal claims and proceedings against the Company cannot be predicted with certainty, based on currently available information, management believes that there are no existing claims or proceedings that are likely to have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, based on currently available information, management believes it is reasonably possible that future losses from existing and threatened legal, regulatory and other proceedings in excess of the amounts recorded could reach approximately $45 million. During 2014, certain Kaplan subsidiaries were subject to unsealed cases filed by former employees that include, among other allegations, claims under the False Claims Act relating to eligibility for Title IV funding. The U.S. government declined to intervene in all cases, and, as previously reported, court decisions either dismissed the cases in their entirety or narrowed the scope of their allegations. The remaining case is captioned United States of America ex rel. Carlos Urquilla-Diaz et al. v. Kaplan University et al. (unsealed March 25, 2008). On August 17, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a series of rulings in the Diaz case, which included three separate complaints: Diaz, Wilcox and Gillespie. The court dismissed the Wilcox complaint in its entirety; dismissed all False Claims Act allegations in the Diaz complaint, leaving only an individual employment claim; and dismissed in part the Gillespie complaint, thereby limiting the scope and time frame of its False Claims Act allegations regarding compliance with the U.S. Federal Rehabilitation Act. On October 31, 2012, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the Company as to the sole remaining employment claim in the Diaz complaint. On July 16, 2013, the court likewise entered summary judgment in favor of the Company on all remaining claims in the Gillespie complaint. Diaz and Gillespie each appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. Arguments on both appeals were heard on February 3, 2015. On March 11, 2015, the appellate court issued a decision affirming the lower court’s dismissal of all of Gillespie’s claims. The appellate court also dismissed three of the four Diaz claims, but reversed and remanded on Diaz’s claim that incentive compensation for admissions representatives was improperly based solely on enrollment counts. Kaplan filed an answer to Diaz’s amended complaint on September 11, 2015. Kaplan filed a motion to dismiss Diaz’s claims, and a hearing was held on December 17, 2015. On March 24, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. Discovery in the case closed in January 2017. Kaplan filed a motion for summary judgment on February 21, 2017. Summary judgment was granted in full and entered on July 13, 2017. Diaz filed a notice of appeal in September 2017 and filed his initial brief. Kaplan filed a response brief in the third quarter of 2018. In April 2019, the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment in full. On September 3, 2015, Kaplan sold to ECA substantially all of the assets of KHE nationally accredited on-ground Title IV eligible schools (KHE Campuses). The transaction included the transfer of certain real estate leases that were guaranteed by Kaplan. As part of the transaction, Kaplan retained liability for, among other things, obligations arising under certain lease guarantees. ECA is currently in receivership and has terminated all of its higher education operations other than the New England College of Business (NECB). The receiver has repudiated all of ECA’s real estate leases not connected to NECB. Although ECA is required to indemnify Kaplan for any amounts Kaplan must pay due to ECA’s failure to fulfill its obligations under real estate leases guaranteed by Kaplan, ECA’s financial situation and the existence of secured and unsecured creditors make it unlikely that Kaplan will recover from ECA. In the second half of 2018, the Company recorded an estimated $17.5 million in losses on guarantor lease obligations in connection with this transaction in other non-operating expense. The Company continues to monitor the status of these obligations and there was no significant change to estimated losses in the first quarter of 2019. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), a department of the U.K. government responsible for the collection of taxes, has raised assessments against the Kaplan U.K. Pathways business for Value Added Tax (VAT) relating to 2017 and earlier years, which have been paid by Kaplan. In September 2017, in a case captioned Kaplan International Colleges UK Limited v. The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Kaplan challenged these assessments. The Company believes it has met all requirements under U.K. VAT law and expects to recover the £16.1 million receivable related to the assessments and subsequent payments that have been paid. Following a hearing held in January 2019, before the First Tier Tax Tribunal, all issues related to EU law in the case were referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union. If the Company does not prevail in this case, a pre-tax charge of £16.1 million will be recorded to operating expense in the Company’s condensed consolidated statement of operations. In March 2018, HMRC issued new VAT guidance indicating a change of policy in relation to certain aspects of a cost sharing exemption that could impact the U.K. Pathways business adversely if this guidance were to become law. As of March 31, 2019, this guidance had not been incorporated into U.K. law. If Kaplan is not successful in preserving a valid exemption under U.K. VAT law, the U.K. Pathways business would incur additional VAT expense in the future. Department of Education (ED) Program Reviews. The ED has undertaken program reviews at various KHE locations. On February 23, 2015, the ED began a program review assessing KU’s administration of its Title IV and Higher Education Act programs during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 award years. In 2018, Kaplan contributed the institutional assets and operations of KU to Purdue Global, and the university became Purdue Global, under the ownership and control of Purdue University. However, Kaplan retains liability for any financial obligations the ED might impose under this program review and that are the result of actions taken during the time that Kaplan owned the institution. On September 28, 2018, the ED issued a Preliminary Program Report (Preliminary Report). This Preliminary Report is not final, and the ED may change the findings in the final report. None of the initial findings in the Preliminary Report carries material financial liability. Although the program review technically covers only the 2013–2015 award years, the ED included a review of the treatment of student financial aid refunds for students who withdrew from a program prior to completion in 2017–2018. KHE cannot predict the outcome of this review, when it will be completed, whether any final findings of non-compliance with financial aid program or other requirements will impact KHE’s operations, or what liability or other limitations the ED might place on KHE or Purdue Global as a result of this review. There are also two open program reviews at campuses that were part of the KHE Campuses business prior to its sale in 2015 to ECA. The ED’s final reports on the program reviews at former KHE Broomall, PA, and Pittsburgh, PA, locations are pending. KHE retains responsibility for any financial obligations resulting from these program reviews. The Company does not expect the open program reviews to have a material impact on KHE; however, the results of open program reviews and their impact on Kaplan’s operations are uncertain.

CONTINGENCIES

Litigation, Legal and Other Matters. The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to complaints and administrative proceedings and are defendants in various civil lawsuits that have arisen in the ordinary course of their businesses, including contract disputes; actions alleging negligence, libel, defamation, invasion of privacy; trademark, copyright and patent infringement; U.S. False Claims Act (False Claims Act) violations; violations of applicable wage and hour laws; and statutory or common law claims involving current and former students and employees. Although the outcomes of the legal claims and proceedings against the Company cannot be predicted with certainty, based on currently available information, management believes that there are no existing claims or proceedings that are likely to have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. However, based on currently available information, management believes it is reasonably possible that future losses from existing and threatened legal, regulatory and other proceedings in excess of the amounts recorded could reach approximately $45 million.

During 2014, certain Kaplan subsidiaries were subject to unsealed cases filed by former employees that include, among other allegations, claims under the False Claims Act relating to eligibility for Title IV funding. The U.S. government declined to intervene in all cases, and, as previously reported, court decisions either dismissed the cases in their entirety or narrowed the scope of their allegations. The remaining case is captioned United States of America ex rel. Carlos Urquilla-Diaz et al. v. Kaplan University et al. (unsealed March 25, 2008). On August 17, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida issued a series of rulings in the Diaz case, which included three separate complaints: Diaz, Wilcox and Gillespie. The court dismissed the Wilcox complaint in its entirety; dismissed all False Claims Act allegations in the Diaz complaint, leaving only an individual employment claim; and dismissed in part the Gillespie complaint, thereby limiting the scope and time frame of its False Claims Act allegations regarding compliance with the U.S. Federal Rehabilitation Act. On October 31, 2012, the court entered summary judgment in favor of the Company as to the sole remaining employment claim in the Diaz complaint. On July 16, 2013, the court likewise entered summary judgment in favor of the Company on all remaining claims in the Gillespie complaint. Diaz and Gillespie each appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit. Arguments on both appeals were heard on February 3, 2015. On March 11, 2015, the appellate court issued a decision affirming the lower court’s dismissal of all of Gillespie’s claims. The appellate court also dismissed three of the four Diaz claims, but reversed and remanded on Diaz’s claim that incentive compensation for admissions representatives was improperly based solely on enrollment counts. Kaplan filed an answer to Diaz’s amended complaint on September 11, 2015. Kaplan filed a motion to dismiss Diaz’s claims, and a hearing was held on December 17, 2015. On March 24, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. Discovery in the case closed in January 2017. Kaplan filed a motion for summary judgment on February 21, 2017. Summary judgment was granted in full and entered on July 13, 2017. Diaz filed a notice of appeal in September 2017 and filed his initial brief. Kaplan filed a response brief in the third quarter of 2018. In April 2019, the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment in full.

On September 3, 2015, Kaplan sold to ECA substantially all of the assets of KHE nationally accredited on-ground Title IV eligible schools (KHE Campuses). The transaction included the transfer of certain real estate leases that were guaranteed by Kaplan. As part of the transaction, Kaplan retained liability for, among other things, obligations arising under certain lease guarantees. ECA is currently in receivership and has terminated all of its higher education operations other than the New England College of Business (NECB). The receiver has repudiated all of ECA’s real estate leases not connected to NECB. Although ECA is required to indemnify Kaplan for any amounts Kaplan must pay due to ECA’s failure to fulfill its obligations under real estate leases guaranteed by Kaplan, ECA’s financial situation and the existence of secured and unsecured creditors make it unlikely that Kaplan will recover from ECA. In the second half of 2018, the Company recorded an estimated $17.5 million in losses on guarantor lease obligations in connection with this transaction in other non-operating expense. The Company continues to monitor the status of these obligations and there was no significant change to estimated losses in the first quarter of 2019.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), a department of the U.K. government responsible for the collection of taxes, has raised assessments against the Kaplan U.K. Pathways business for Value Added Tax (VAT) relating to 2017 and earlier years, which have been paid by Kaplan. In September 2017, in a case captioned Kaplan International Colleges UK Limited v. The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Kaplan challenged these assessments. The Company believes it has met all requirements under U.K. VAT law and expects to recover the £16.1 million receivable related to the assessments and subsequent payments that have been paid. Following a hearing held in January 2019, before the First Tier Tax Tribunal, all issues related to EU law in the case were referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union. If the Company does not prevail in this case, a pre-tax charge of £16.1 million will be recorded to operating expense in the Company’s condensed consolidated statement of operations.

In March 2018, HMRC issued new VAT guidance indicating a change of policy in relation to certain aspects of a cost sharing exemption that could impact the U.K. Pathways business adversely if this guidance were to become law. As of March 31, 2019, this guidance had not been incorporated into U.K. law. If Kaplan is not successful in preserving a valid exemption under U.K. VAT law, the U.K. Pathways business would incur additional VAT expense in the future.

Department of Education (ED) Program Reviews. The ED has undertaken program reviews at various KHE locations.

On February 23, 2015, the ED began a program review assessing KU’s administration of its Title IV and Higher Education Act programs during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 award years. In 2018, Kaplan contributed the institutional assets and operations of KU to Purdue Global, and the university became Purdue Global, under the ownership and control of Purdue University. However, Kaplan retains liability for any financial obligations the ED might impose under this program review and that are the result of actions taken during the time that Kaplan owned the institution. On September 28, 2018, the ED issued a Preliminary Program Report (Preliminary Report). This Preliminary Report is not final, and the ED may change the findings in the final report. None of the initial findings in the Preliminary Report carries material financial liability. Although the program review technically covers only the 2013–2015 award years, the ED included a review of the treatment of student financial aid refunds for students who withdrew from a program prior to completion in 2017–2018. KHE cannot predict the outcome of this review, when it will be completed, whether any final findings of non-compliance with financial aid program or other requirements will impact KHE’s operations, or what liability or other limitations the ED might place on KHE or Purdue Global as a result of this review.

There are also two open program reviews at campuses that were part of the KHE Campuses business prior to its sale in 2015 to ECA. The ED’s final reports on the program reviews at former KHE Broomall, PA, and Pittsburgh, PA, locations are pending. KHE retains responsibility for any financial obligations resulting from these program reviews.

The Company does not expect the open program reviews to have a material impact on KHE; however, the results of open program reviews and their impact on Kaplan’s operations are uncertain.