10-Q 1 bpi033117form10-q.htm FORM 10-Q Document


UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
(Mark One)
 
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017
or
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from________________to________________
Commission File Number: 001-34272
___________________________________________________________________________

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
____________________________________________________________________________
Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
59-3551629
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)

8620 Spectrum Center Blvd.
San Diego, CA 92123
(Address, including zip code, of principal executive offices)

(858) 668-2586
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
____________________________________________________________________________

None
(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)
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 ☒    No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ☒    No ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer ☐
Accelerated filer ☒
Non-accelerated filer ☐
(Do not check if a
smaller reporting company)
Smaller reporting company ☐
Emerging growth company ☐
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐    No ☒
The total number of shares of common stock outstanding as of April 27, 2017, was 28,787,076.




BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
FORM 10-Q
INDEX
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


2


PART I—FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1.  Financial Statements.
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
(Unaudited)
(In thousands, except par value)
 
As of
March 31, 2017
 
As of
December 31, 2016
ASSETS
 
 
 
Current assets:
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents
$
164,733

 
$
307,802

Restricted cash
20,182

 
24,533

Investments
31,803

 
49,434

Accounts receivable, net
32,925

 
26,457

Prepaid expenses and other current assets
23,386

 
23,467

Total current assets
273,029

 
431,693

Property and equipment, net
12,206

 
12,218

Goodwill and intangibles, net
16,593

 
17,419

Deferred income taxes
1,300

 

Other long-term assets
1,942

 
2,046

Total assets
$
305,070

 
$
463,376

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
 
 
 
Current liabilities:
 
 
 
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
$
67,203

 
$
77,866

Deferred revenue and student deposits
71,795

 
74,666

Total current liabilities
138,998

 
152,532

Rent liability
13,370

 
16,508

Other long-term liabilities
13,408

 
13,630

Total liabilities
165,776

 
182,670

Commitments and contingencies (see Note 13)

 

Stockholders' equity:
 
 
 
Preferred stock, $0.01 par value:
 
 
 
20,000 shares authorized; zero shares issued and outstanding at both March 31, 2017, and December 31, 2016

 

Common stock, $0.01 par value:
 
 
 
300,000 shares authorized; 64,395 issued and 28,766 outstanding at March 31, 2017; 64,035 issued and 46,478 outstanding at December 31, 2016
644

 
641

Additional paid-in capital
196,569

 
195,854

Retained earnings
431,150

 
421,281

Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)

 
(1
)
Treasury stock, 35,629 and 17,557 shares at cost at March 31, 2017, and December 31, 2016, respectively
(489,069
)
 
(337,069
)
Total stockholders' equity
139,294

 
280,706

Total liabilities and stockholders' equity
$
305,070

 
$
463,376

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


3


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income (Loss)
(Unaudited)
(In thousands, except per share amounts)

 
Three Months Ended March 31,
 
2017
 
2016
Revenue
$
129,490

 
$
133,002

Costs and expenses:
 
 

Instructional costs and services
63,039

 
69,586

Admissions advisory and marketing
44,762

 
51,677

General and administrative
12,027

 
13,455

Legal settlement expense

 
13,874

Restructuring and impairment charges

 
709

Total costs and expenses
119,828

 
149,301

Operating income (loss)
9,662

 
(16,299
)
Other income, net
443

 
683

Income (loss) before income taxes
10,105

 
(15,616
)
Income tax expense (benefit)
236

 
(5,504
)
Net income (loss)
$
9,869

 
$
(10,112
)
Income (loss) per share:
 
 
 
Basic
$
0.23

 
$
(0.22
)
Diluted
$
0.23

 
$
(0.22
)
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding used in computing income (loss) per share:
 
 
 
Basic
42,100

 
45,933

Diluted
42,997

 
45,933

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


4


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss)
(Unaudited)
(In thousands)

 
Three Months Ended March 31,
 
2017
 
2016
Net income (loss)
$
9,869

 
$
(10,112
)
Other comprehensive income, net of tax:
 
 
 
     Unrealized gains on investments
1

 
165

Comprehensive income (loss)
$
9,870

 
$
(9,947
)
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.



5


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity
(Unaudited)
(In thousands)

 
Common Stock
 
Additional
Paid-in
Capital
 
Retained
Earnings
 
Accumulated Other
Comprehensive (Loss) Income
 
Treasury
Stock
 
 
 
Shares
 
Par Value
 
Total
Balance at December 31, 2015
63,407

 
$
634

 
$
188,863

 
$
451,321

 
$
(99
)
 
$
(337,069
)
 
$
303,650

Stock-based compensation

 

 
2,298

 

 

 

 
2,298

Exercise of stock options
178

 
2

 
136

 

 

 

 
138

Excess tax benefit of option exercises and restricted stock, net of tax shortfall

 

 
336

 

 

 

 
336

Stock issued under stock incentive plan, net of shares held for taxes
233

 
2

 
(1,605
)
 

 

 

 
(1,603
)
Net loss

 

 

 
(10,112
)
 

 

 
(10,112
)
Unrealized gains on investments, net of tax

 

 

 

 
165

 

 
165

Balance at March 31, 2016
63,818

 
$
638

 
$
190,028

 
$
441,209

 
$
66

 
$
(337,069
)
 
$
294,872


 
Common Stock
 
Additional
Paid-in
Capital
 
Retained
Earnings
 
Accumulated Other
Comprehensive (Loss) Income
 
Treasury
Stock
 
 
 
Shares
 
Par Value
 
Total
Balance at December 31, 2016
64,035

 
$
641

 
$
195,854

 
$
421,281

 
$
(1
)
 
$
(337,069
)
 
$
280,706

Stock-based compensation

 

 
900

 

 

 

 
900

Exercise of stock options
139

 
1

 
1,298

 

 

 

 
1,299

Stock issued under stock incentive plan, net of shares held for taxes
221

 
2

 
(1,483
)
 

 

 

 
(1,481
)
Stock repurchase

 

 

 

 

 
(152,000
)
 
(152,000
)
Net income

 

 

 
9,869

 

 

 
9,869

Unrealized gains on investments, net of tax

 

 

 

 
1

 

 
1

Balance at March 31, 2017
64,395

 
$
644

 
$
196,569

 
$
431,150

 
$

 
$
(489,069
)
 
$
139,294

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


6


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
(Unaudited)
(In thousands)
 
Three Months Ended March 31,
 
2017
 
2016
Cash flows from operating activities:
 
 
 
Net income (loss)
$
9,869

 
$
(10,112
)
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash used in operating activities:
 
 
 
Provision for bad debts
9,294

 
9,619

Depreciation and amortization
2,388

 
3,729

Amortization of premium/discount
20

 
(51
)
Deferred income taxes
(1,284
)
 

Stock-based compensation
900

 
2,298

Excess tax benefit of option exercises

 
(336
)
Write-off or impairment of student loans receivable

 
141

Net (gain) loss on marketable securities
(76
)
 
(19
)
Loss on disposal or impairment of fixed assets
66

 

Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
 
 
 
Accounts receivable
(15,762
)
 
(19,633
)
Prepaid expenses and other current assets
81

 
(5,336
)
Student loans receivable

 
320

Other long-term assets
102

 
157

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
(10,872
)
 
7,470

Deferred revenue and student deposits
(2,872
)
 
(6,367
)
Other liabilities
(3,373
)
 
(2,348
)
   Net cash used in operating activities
(11,519
)
 
(20,468
)
Cash flows from investing activities:
 
 
 
Capital expenditures
(1,293
)
 
(291
)
Purchases of investments
(37
)
 
(20,156
)
Capitalized costs for intangible assets
(114
)
 
(227
)
Maturities of investments
17,725

 

   Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities
16,281

 
(20,674
)
Cash flows from financing activities:
 
 
 
Proceeds from exercise of stock options
1,299

 
138

Excess tax benefit of option exercises

 
336

Tax withholdings on issuance of stock awards
(1,481
)
 
(1,603
)
Repurchase of common stock
(152,000
)
 

   Net cash used in financing activities
(152,182
)
 
(1,129
)
Net decrease in cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash
(147,420
)
 
(42,271
)
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at beginning of period
332,335

 
306,830

Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at end of period
$
184,915

 
$
264,559

 
 
 
 
Supplemental disclosure of non-cash transactions:
 
 
 
Purchase of equipment included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities
$
209

 
$

Issuance of common stock for vested restricted stock units
$
3,785

 
$
4,073

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


7



BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)


1. Nature of Business
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, the “Company”), incorporated in 1999, is a provider of postsecondary education services. Its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Ashford University® and University of the RockiesSM, are regionally accredited academic institutions. Ashford University offers associate’s, bachelor’s and master’s programs, and University of the Rockies offers master’s and doctoral programs.
2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Principles of Consolidation
The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Bridgepoint Education, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries. Intercompany transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
Unaudited Interim Financial Information
The condensed consolidated financial statements of the Company have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, these financial statements do not include all of the information and footnotes required by GAAP for complete annual financial statements and should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 7, 2017. In the opinion of management, the condensed consolidated financial statements include all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments, considered necessary to present a fair statement of the Company’s condensed consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows as of and for the periods presented.
Operating results for any interim period are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the full year. The year-end condensed consolidated balance sheet data was derived from audited financial statements, but does not include all disclosures required by GAAP for complete annual financial statements.
Use of Estimates
The preparation of the condensed consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts in the condensed consolidated financial statements. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Reclassifications
Certain reclassifications have been made to the prior years’ financial statements to conform to the current year presentation. During 2016, the Company adopted Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2016-18, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230) and reclassified certain restricted cash amounts for the period ended March 31, 2016 within the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows. These reclassifications had no effect on previously reported results of operations or retained earnings. The following table provides a reconciliation of cash and cash equivalents, and restricted cash reported within the condensed consolidated balance sheets to the amounts shown in the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows.
 
As of
March 31, 2017
 
As of
December 31, 2016
Cash and cash equivalents
$
164,733

 
$
307,802

Restricted cash
20,182

 
24,533

Total cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash
$
184,915

 
$
332,335



8



BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)

Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), which supersedes the revenue recognition requirements in Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 605, Revenue Recognition. This literature is based on the principle that revenue is recognized to depict the transfer of 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 or services. The accounting guidance also requires additional disclosure regarding the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows arising from customer contracts, including significant judgments and changes in judgments and assets recognized from costs incurred to obtain or fulfill a contract. ASU 2014-09 can be adopted using one of two retrospective application methods. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), Deferral of the Effective Date, which defers the effective date of ASU 2014-09 by one year, to fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017. The Company currently expects to adopt ASU 2014-09 and related topics in its first quarter of 2018, and is evaluating which transition approach to use. During the fourth quarter of 2016, the Company completed an initial evaluation of its existing revenue streams based upon the new standards, and the Company continues to evaluate the impact the adoption of ASU 2014-09 will have on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. The Company has not determined the effect of the update on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, but will do so throughout this fiscal year.
Additionally, the FASB issued various updates affecting the guidance in ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606). The effective dates and transition requirements for each of the following updates are the same as those described for ASU 2014-09 noted above. In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-08, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net). This update relates to when another party, along with the entity, is involved in providing a good or service to a customer. ASC Topic 606 requires an entity to determine whether the nature of its promise is to provide that good or service to the customer (i.e., the entity is a principal) or to arrange for the good or service to be provided to the customer by another party (i.e., the entity is an agent). In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-10, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing. This update clarifies ASC Topic 606 with respect to the identification of performance obligations and the licensing implementation guidance. The update does not change the core principle of the guidance in ASC Topic 606. In May 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-12, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606): Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients. This update addresses narrow-scope improvements to the guidance on collectibility, noncash consideration and completed contracts at transition. The update provides a practical expedient for contract modifications at transition and an accounting policy election related to the presentation of sales taxes and other similar taxes collected from customers. In December 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-20 Technical Corrections and Improvements to Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers. The updates in ASU 2016-20 affect narrow aspects of the guidance issued in ASU 2014-09.
In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842). Under the new guidance, lessees will be required to recognize the following for all leases (with the exception of short-term leases) at the lease commencement date: (i) a lease liability, which is a lessee’s obligation to make lease payments arising from a lease, measured on a discounted basis; and (ii) a right-of-use asset, which is an asset that represents the lessee’s right to use, or control the use of, a specified asset for the lease term. Under the new guidance, lessor accounting is largely unchanged. The new lease guidance simplifies the accounting for sale and leaseback transactions primarily because lessees must recognize lease assets and lease liabilities. Lessees will no longer be provided with a source of off-balance sheet financing. Public companies should apply the amendments in ASU 2016-02 for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early application is permitted. Lessees (for capital and operating leases) and lessors (for sales-type, direct financing and operating leases) must apply a modified retrospective transition approach for leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements. The modified retrospective approach would not require any transition accounting for leases that expired before the earliest comparative period presented. Lessees and lessors may not apply a full retrospective transition approach. The Company continues to evaluate the impact the adoption of ASU 2016-02 will have on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.


9



BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting. The update includes multiple provisions intended to simplify various aspects of the accounting for share-based payments. While aimed at reducing the cost and complexity of the accounting for share-based payments, the amendments are expected to significantly impact net income, income per share and the statement of cash flows. Implementation and administration may present challenges for companies with significant share-based payment activities. ASU 2016-09 is effective for public companies for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within those fiscal years. The Company adopted this update as of January 1, 2017. The adoption of ASU 2016-09 did not have a material impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.
In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-04, Intangibles - Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment. The update simplifies the measurement of goodwill by eliminating Step 2 from the goodwill impairment test. The annual or interim goodwill impairment test is performed by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount. An impairment charge should be recognized for the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit’s fair value. The update also eliminates the requirements for any reporting unit with a zero or negative carrying amount to perform a qualitative assessment and, if it fails that qualitative test, to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test. An entity still has the option to perform the qualitative assessment for a reporting unit to determine if the quantitative impairment test is necessary. The update should be applied on a prospective basis. For public companies, the update is effective for any annual or interim goodwill impairment tests in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019. Early adoption is permitted for interim or annual goodwill impairment tests performed on testing dates after January 1, 2017. Due to the simplification of the methodology, the Company has early adopted ASU 2017-04 as of January 1, 2017, and there was no impact on the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements based upon the adoption.
3. Restructuring and Impairment Charges
In prior years, the Company implemented various restructuring plans to better align its resources with its business strategy. The related restructuring charges are recorded in the restructuring and impairment charges line item on the Company’s condensed consolidated statements of income (loss). For the three months ended March 31, 2017, the Company did not recognize any amounts as restructuring charges, whereas for the three months ended March 31, 2016 these charges were $0.7 million.
The Company closed Ashford University’s residential campus in Clinton, Iowa in 2016. With this closure, ground-based Ashford University students were provided opportunities to continue to pursue their degrees as reflected in their respective student transfer agreements. The Company previously recorded restructuring charges relating to future cash expenditures for student transfer agreements. For the three months ended March 31, 2017, no changes were made to the amount recorded.
During the three months ended March 31, 2017, the Company did not recognize any restructuring charges relating to severance costs for wages and benefits. During the three months ended March 31, 2016, the Company recognized $0.7 million as restructuring charges relating to severance costs for wages and benefits.
The Company previously vacated or consolidated properties in Denver and San Diego and reassessed its obligations on non-cancelable leases. During the three months ended March 31, 2017, the Company did not recognize any restructuring charges relating to lease exit and other costs. During the three months ended March 31, 2016, the Company recorded $25,000 as restructuring charges relating to lease exit and other costs.
The following table summarizes the amounts recorded in the restructuring and impairment charges line item on the Company’s condensed consolidated statements of income (loss) for each of the periods presented (in thousands):


10



BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)

 
Three Months Ended March 31,
 
2017
 
2016
Student transfer agreement costs
$

 
$
(15
)
Severance costs

 
699

Lease exit and other costs

 
25

Total restructuring and impairment charges
$

 
$
709

The following table summarizes the changes in the Company's restructuring liability by type during the three months ended March 31, 2017 (in thousands):
 
Student Transfer Agreement Costs
 
Severance Costs
 
Lease Exit and Other Costs
 
Total
Balance at December 31, 2016
$
1,592

 
$
567

 
$
18,457

 
$
20,616

Restructuring and impairment charges

 

 

 

Payments

 
(547
)
 
(3,669
)
 
(4,216
)
Balance at March 31, 2017
$
1,592

 
$
20

 
$
14,788

 
$
16,400

The restructuring liability amounts are recorded within the (i) accounts payable and accrued liabilities account, (ii) rent liability account and (iii) other long-term liabilities account on the condensed consolidated balance sheets.
4. Investments
The following tables summarize the fair value information for investments as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively (in thousands):
 
As of March 31, 2017
 
Level 1
 
Level 2
 
Level 3
 
Total
Mutual funds
$
1,801

 
$

 
$

 
$
1,801

Corporate notes and bonds

 
5,002

 

 
5,002

Certificates of deposit

 
25,000

 

 
25,000

Total
$
1,801

 
$
30,002

 
$

 
$
31,803

 
As of December 31, 2016
 
Level 1
 
Level 2
 
Level 3
 
Total
Mutual funds
$
1,688

 
$

 
$

 
$
1,688

Corporate notes and bonds

 
22,746

 

 
22,746

Certificates of deposit

 
25,000

 

 
25,000

Total
$
1,688

 
$
47,746

 
$

 
$
49,434

The tables above include mutual funds, which are considered Level 1 investments and consist of investments relating to the Company’s deferred compensation plan. The tables above also include amounts related to investments classified as other investments, such as certificates of deposit, which are carried at amortized cost. The amortized cost of such other investments approximated fair value at each balance sheet date. The assumptions used in these fair value estimates are considered other observable inputs and therefore these investments are categorized as Level 2 investments under the accounting guidance. The Company’s Level 2 investments are valued using readily available pricing sources that utilize market observable inputs, including the current interest rate for similar types of instruments. There were no transfers between level categories for our investments during the periods presented. The Company also holds money market securities, which are recorded in the cash


11



BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)

and cash equivalents line item on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets that are classified as Level 1 securities.
The following tables summarize the differences between amortized cost and fair value of investments as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively (in thousands):
 
March 31, 2017
 
 
 
 
 
Gross unrealized
 
 
 
Maturities
 
Amortized Cost
 
Gain
 
Loss
 
Fair Value
Short-term
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Corporate notes and bonds
1 year or less
 
5,001

 
1

 

 
5,002

Certificates of deposit
1 year or less
 
25,000

 

 

 
25,000

Total
 
 
$
30,001

 
$
1

 
$

 
$
30,002

The above table does not include $1.8 million of mutual funds as of March 31, 2017, which are recorded as trading securities.
 
December 31, 2016
 
 
 
 
 
Gross unrealized
 
 
 
Maturities
 
Amortized Cost
 
Gain
 
Loss
 
Fair Value
Short-term
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Corporate notes and bonds
1 year or less
 
22,747

 
2

 
(3
)
 
22,746

Certificates of deposit
1 year or less
 
25,000

 

 

 
25,000

Total
 
 
$
47,747

 
$
2

 
$
(3
)
 
$
47,746

The above table does not include $1.7 million of mutual funds as of December 31, 2016, which are recorded as trading securities.
The Company records changes in unrealized gains and losses on its investments during the period in the accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) line item on the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheets. For the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company recorded net unrealized gains of $1,000 and $165,000, respectively, in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). There was no tax effect on net unrealized gains for the three months ended March 31, 2017 or 2016, respectively.
There were no reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) during either the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016.
5. Accounts Receivable, Net
Accounts receivable, net, consists of the following (in thousands):
 
As of
March 31, 2017
 
As of
December 31, 2016
Accounts receivable
$
50,724

 
$
42,611

Less allowance for doubtful accounts
(17,799
)
 
(16,154
)
Accounts receivable, net
$
32,925

 
$
26,457

As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, there was an immaterial amount of accounts receivable with a payment due date of greater than one year.


12



BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)

The following table presents the changes in the allowance for doubtful accounts for accounts receivable for the periods indicated (in thousands):
 
Beginning
Balance
 
Charged to
Expense
 
Deductions(1)
 
Ending
Balance
Allowance for doubtful accounts receivable:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the three months ended March 31, 2017
$
(16,154
)
 
$
9,294

 
$
(7,649
)
 
$
(17,799
)
For the three months ended March 31, 2016
$
(10,114
)
 
$
9,545

 
$
(202
)
 
$
(19,457
)
(1)
Deductions represent accounts written off, net of recoveries.
6. Other Significant Balance Sheet Accounts
Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets
Prepaid expenses and other current assets consists of the following (in thousands):
 
As of
March 31, 2017
 
As of
December 31, 2016
Prepaid expenses
$
8,229

 
$
7,160

Prepaid licenses
5,478

 
5,183

Income tax receivable
5,289

 
7,432

Prepaid insurance
996

 
1,291

Interest receivable
64

 
142

Insurance recoverable
1,152

 
1,027

Other current assets
2,178

 
1,232

Total prepaid expenses and other current assets
$
23,386

 
$
23,467

Property and Equipment, Net
Property and equipment, net, consists of the following (in thousands):
 
As of
March 31, 2017
 
As of
December 31, 2016
Furniture and office equipment
$
42,349

 
$
41,528

Software
12,016

 
11,979

Leasehold improvements
4,468

 
4,332

Vehicles
22

 
22

Total property and equipment
58,855

 
57,861

Less accumulated depreciation
(46,649
)
 
(45,643
)
Total property and equipment, net
$
12,206

 
$
12,218

For the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, depreciation expense was $1.4 million and $2.4 million, respectively.


13



BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)

Goodwill and Intangibles, Net
Goodwill and intangibles, net, consists of the following (in thousands):
 
March 31, 2017
Definite-lived intangible assets:
Gross Carrying Amount
 
Accumulated Amortization
 
Net Carrying Amount
Capitalized curriculum costs
$
21,267

 
$
(18,028
)
 
$
3,239

Purchased intangible assets
15,850

 
(5,063
)
 
10,787

     Total definite-lived intangible assets
$
37,117

 
$
(23,091
)
 
$
14,026

Goodwill and indefinite-lived intangibles
 
 
 
 
2,567

Total goodwill and intangibles, net
 
 
 
 
$
16,593

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
December 31, 2016
Definite-lived intangible assets:
Gross Carrying Amount
 
Accumulated Amortization
 
Net Carrying Amount
Capitalized curriculum costs
$
21,153

 
$
(17,397
)
 
$
3,756

Purchased intangible assets
15,850

 
(4,754
)
 
11,096

     Total definite-lived intangible assets
$
37,003

 
$
(22,151
)
 
$
14,852

Goodwill and indefinite-lived intangibles
 
 
 
 
2,567

Total goodwill and intangibles, net
 
 
 
 
$
17,419

For the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, amortization expense was $0.9 million and $1.3 million, respectively. The following table summarizes the estimated remaining amortization expense as of each fiscal year ended below (in thousands):
Year Ended December 31,
 
 
Remainder of 2017
$
2,434

2018
2,405

2019
1,648

2020
1,352

2021
1,252

Thereafter
4,935

Total future amortization expense
$
14,026



14



BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)

Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities consists of the following (in thousands):
 
As of
March 31, 2017
 
As of
December 31, 2016
Accounts payable
$
2,354

 
$
4,519

Accrued salaries and wages
6,744

 
8,967

Accrued bonus
2,737

 
5,087

Accrued vacation
9,662

 
9,313

Accrued litigation and fees
8,041

 
13,946

Accrued expenses
19,312

 
15,793

Rent liability
15,247

 
17,232

Accrued insurance liability
3,106

 
3,009

Total accounts payable and accrued liabilities
$
67,203

 
$
77,866

Deferred Revenue and Student Deposits
Deferred revenue and student deposits consists of the following (in thousands):
 
As of
March 31, 2017
 
As of
December 31, 2016
Deferred revenue
$
27,458

 
$
21,733

Student deposits
44,337

 
52,933

Total deferred revenue and student deposits
$
71,795

 
$
74,666

Other Long-Term Liabilities
Other long-term liabilities consists of the following (in thousands):
 
As of
March 31, 2017
 
As of
December 31, 2016
Uncertain tax positions
$
8,261

 
$
8,216

Student transfer agreement costs
592

 
630

Other long-term liabilities
4,555

 
4,784

Total other long-term liabilities
$
13,408

 
$
13,630

7. Credit Facilities
The Company has issued letters of credit that are collateralized with cash in the aggregate amount of $8.4 million, which is included as restricted cash as of March 31, 2017.
As part of its normal business operations, the Company is required to provide surety bonds in certain states in which the Company does business. The Company has entered into a surety bond facility with an insurance company to provide such bonds when required. As of March 31, 2017, the Company’s total available surety bond facility was $3.5 million and the surety had issued bonds totaling $3.3 million on the Company’s behalf under such facility.


15



BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)

8. Lease Obligations
Operating Leases
The Company leases certain office facilities and office equipment under non-cancelable lease arrangements that expire at various dates through 2023. The office leases contain certain renewal options. Rent expense under non-cancelable operating lease arrangements is accounted for on a straight-line basis and totaled $3.6 million and $5.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.
The following table summarizes the future minimum rental payments under non-cancelable operating lease arrangements in effect at March 31, 2017 (in thousands):
Year Ended December 31,
 
 
Remainder of 2017
$
27,019

2018
31,400

2019
20,833

2020
9,503

2021
5,112

Thereafter
1,949

Total minimum payments
$
95,816

9. Income (Loss) Per Share
Basic income (loss) per share is calculated by dividing net income (loss) available to common stockholders for the period by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period.
Diluted income (loss) per share is calculated by dividing net income (loss) available to common stockholders for the period by the sum of (i) the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period, plus (ii) potentially dilutive securities outstanding during the period, if the effect is dilutive. Potentially dilutive securities for the periods presented include stock options, unvested restricted stock units (“RSUs”) and unvested performance stock units (“PSUs”).
The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted income (loss) per share for the periods indicated (in thousands, except per share data):
 
Three Months Ended March 31,
 
2017
 
2016
Numerator:
 
 
 
Net income (loss)
$
9,869

 
$
(10,112
)
Denominator:
 
 
 
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding
42,100

 
45,933

Effect of dilutive options and stock units
897

 

Diluted weighted average number of common shares outstanding
42,997

 
45,933

Income (loss) per share:
 
 
 
Basic
$
0.23

 
$
(0.22
)
Diluted
$
0.23

 
$
(0.22
)


16



BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)

During periods in which the Company reports a net loss, basic and diluted loss per share are the same. The following table sets forth the number of stock options, RSUs and PSUs, excluded from the computation of diluted income (loss) per share for the periods indicated below because their effect was anti-dilutive (in thousands):
 
Three Months Ended March 31,
 
2017
 
2016
Stock options
3,245

 
4,510

RSUs and PSUs
14

 
921

During the first quarter of 2017, the Company repurchased approximately 18.1 million shares of the Company’s common stock for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $150.0 million. For additional information regarding this share repurchase, see Part II, Item 2, “Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds.”
10. Stock-Based Compensation
The Company recorded $0.9 million and $2.3 million of stock-based compensation expense for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The related income tax benefit was $0.3 million and $0.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.
During the three months ended March 31, 2017, the Company granted 0.4 million RSUs at a grant date fair value of $10.44 and 0.4 million RSUs vested. During the three months ended March 31, 2016, the Company granted 0.4 million RSUs at a grant date fair value of $10.59 and 0.4 million RSUs vested.
During the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company did not grant any performance-based or market-based PSUs and no performance-based or market-based PSUs vested.
During the three months ended March 31, 2017, the Company granted 0.3 million stock options at a grant date fair value of $4.76 and 0.1 million stock options were exercised. During the three months ended March 31, 2016, the Company granted 0.4 million stock options at a grant date fair value of $4.99 and 0.2 million stock options were exercised.
As of March 31, 2017, there was unrecognized compensation cost of $11.1 million related to unvested stock options, RSUs and PSUs.
11. Income Taxes
The Company uses the asset-liability method to account for taxes. Under this method, deferred income tax assets and liabilities result from temporary differences between the tax basis of assets and liabilities and their reported amounts in the condensed consolidated financial statements that will result in income and deductions in future years.
The Company recognizes deferred tax assets if realization of such assets is more-likely-than-not. In order to make this determination, the Company evaluates a number of factors including the ability to generate future taxable income from reversing taxable temporary differences, forecasts of financial and taxable income or loss, and the ability to carryback certain operating losses to refund taxes paid in prior years. The cumulative loss incurred over the three-year period ended March 31, 2017 constituted significant negative objective evidence against the Company’s ability to realize a benefit from its federal deferred tax assets. Such objective evidence limited the ability of the Company to consider in its evaluation certain subjective evidence such as the Company’s projections for future growth. On the basis of its evaluation, the Company determined that its deferred tax assets were not more-likely-than-not to be realized and that a valuation allowance against its deferred tax assets should continue to be maintained as of March 31, 2017. However, the Company is recognizing a portion of its deferred tax assets to the extent that the Company believes deferred tax assets are available to refund taxes payable in 2017 through tax loss carrybacks.
The Company determines the interim income tax provision by applying the estimated effective income tax rate expected to be applicable for the full fiscal year to income before income taxes for the period. In determining the full year estimate, the


17



BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)

Company does not include the estimated impact of unusual and/or infrequent items, which may cause significant variations in the customary relationship between income tax expense and income before income taxes.
The Company’s effective income tax rate for the three months ended March 31, 2017 was 2.3%, which included discrete items related to uncertain tax positions.
At both March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company had $20.2 million of gross unrecognized tax benefits, of which $13.2 million, would impact the effective income tax rate if recognized. It is reasonably possible that the total amount of the unrecognized tax benefit will change during the next 12 months; however, the Company does not expect any potential change to have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial position in the next year.
The Company is currently under Internal Revenue Service audit examinations of the Company’s income and payroll tax returns for the years 2013 through 2015.
The Company’s tax returns are being audited by the California Franchise Tax Board for the years 2008 through 2012. The Company was notified by the Franchise Tax Board in March 2017 that they are continuing to challenge the Company’s filing position. The Company continues to work toward resolution, and based on all available information the Company has accrued for any uncertain tax positions that may be addressed in the audit.
The Company’s tax returns are being audited by the Oregon Department of Revenue for the years 2012 through 2014. In January 2017, the Oregon Department of Revenue issued Notices of Deficiencies, which were appealed by the Company.
The Company is also subject to various other state audits. With respect to all open audits, the Company does not expect any significant adjustments to amounts already provided for in the condensed consolidated financial statements for the period ended March 31, 2017.
12. Regulatory
The Company is subject to extensive regulation by federal and state governmental agencies and accrediting bodies. In particular, the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (the “Higher Education Act”), and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Department of Education (the “Department”) subject the Company to significant regulatory scrutiny on the basis of numerous standards that institutions of higher education must satisfy in order to participate in the various federal student financial aid programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act.
Ashford University is regionally accredited by WASC Senior College and University Commission (“WSCUC”) and University of the Rockies is regionally accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (“HLC”).
Department of Education Open Program Review of Ashford University
On July 7, 2016, Ashford University was notified by the Department that an off-site program review had been scheduled to assess Ashford’s administration of the Title IV programs in which it participates. The program review commenced on July 25, 2016 and covered students identified in the 2009-2012 calendar year data previously provided by Ashford University to the Department in response to a request for information received from the Multi-Regional and Foreign School Participation Division of the Department’s Office of Federal Student Aid (the “FSA”) on December 10, 2015, but may be expanded if appropriate. On December 9, 2016, the Department informed Ashford that it intended to continue the program review on-site at Ashford. The on-site program review commenced on January 23, 2017 and initially covers the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 award years, but may be expanded if appropriate.
WSCUC Accreditation of Ashford University
In July 2013, WSCUC granted Initial Accreditation to Ashford University for five years, until July 15, 2018. In December 2013, Ashford effected its transition to WSCUC accreditation and designated its San Diego, California facilities as its main campus and its Clinton, Iowa campus as an additional location. As part of a continuing monitoring process, Ashford hosted a visiting team from WSCUC in a special visit in April 2015. In July 2015, Ashford received an Action Letter from WSCUC outlining the findings arising out of its visiting team's special visit. The Action Letter stated that the WSCUC visiting team


18



BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)

found substantial evidence that Ashford continues to make sustained progress in all six areas recommended by WSCUC in 2013. As part of its institutional review process, WSCUC will conduct a comprehensive review of Ashford scheduled to commence with an off-site review in spring 2018, followed by an on-site review in fall 2018.
Licensure by California BPPE
To be eligible to participate in Title IV programs, an institution must be legally authorized to offer its educational programs by the states in which it is physically located. In connection with its transition to WSCUC accreditation, Ashford University designated its San Diego, California facilities as its main campus for Title IV purposes and submitted an Application for Approval to Operate an Accredited Institution to the State of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (the “BPPE”) on September 10, 2013.
In April 2014, the application was granted, and Ashford University was approved by the BPPE to operate in California until July 15, 2018. As a result, the university is subject to laws and regulations applicable to private, postsecondary educational institutions located in California, including reporting requirements related to graduation, employment and licensing data, certain changes of ownership and control, faculty and programs, and student refund policies. Ashford also remains subject to other state and federal student employment data reporting and disclosure requirements.
The BPPE is required to conduct compliance inspections for each of its approved institutions. On October 12, 2016, the BPPE conducted a compliance inspection of Ashford University. Ashford worked with the BPPE to resolve any issues identified in connection with the compliance inspection, and subsequently received a letter from the BPPE dated March 14, 2017 stating that the BPPE’s investigation revealed that Ashford demonstrated compliance with the regulations in question and that the matter has been closed.
Substantial Misrepresentation
The Higher Education Act prohibits an institution participating in Title IV programs from engaging in substantial misrepresentation regarding the nature of its educational programs, its financial charges or the employability of its graduates. Under the Department’s rules, a “misrepresentation” is any false, erroneous or misleading statement an institution, one of its representatives or any ineligible institution, organization or person with whom the institution has an agreement to provide educational programs or marketing, advertising, recruiting, or admissions services makes directly or indirectly to a student, prospective student or any member of the public, or to an accrediting agency, a state agency or the Department. The Department’s rules define a “substantial misrepresentation” as any misrepresentation on which the person to whom it was made could reasonably be expected to rely, or has reasonably relied, to that person’s detriment. For-profit educational institutions are also subject to the general deceptive practices jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”).
On December 10, 2015, Ashford University received a request for information from the Multi-Regional and Foreign School Participation Division of the FSA for (i) advertising and marketing materials provided to prospective students regarding the transferability of certain credit, (ii) documents produced in response to the August 10, 2015 Civil Investigative Demand from the CFPB related to the CFPB’s investigation to determine whether for-profit postsecondary education companies or other unnamed persons have engaged in or are engaging in unlawful acts or practices related to the advertising, marketing or origination of private student loans, (iii) certain documents produced in response to subpoenas and interrogatories issued by the Attorney General of the State of California (the “CA Attorney General”) and (iv) records created between 2009 and 2012 related to the disbursement of certain Title IV funds. The FSA is investigating representations made by Ashford University to potential and enrolled students, and has asked the Company and Ashford to assist in its assessment of Ashford’s compliance with the prohibition on substantial misrepresentations. The Company and Ashford University intend to provide the FSA with their full cooperation with a view toward demonstrating the compliant nature of their practices.
As discussed above, the Department is currently conducting a program review to assess Ashford University’s administration of the Title IV programs in which it participates, which covers in part students identified in the 2009-2012 calendar year data provided by Ashford to the Department in response to the FSA’s December 10, 2015 request for information.


19



BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)

If the Department determines that one of the Company’s institutions has engaged in substantial misrepresentation, the Department may (i) revoke the institution’s program participation agreement, if the institution is provisionally certified, (ii) impose limitations on the institution’s participation in Title IV programs, if the institution is provisionally certified, (iii) deny participation applications made on behalf of the institution or (iv) initiate proceedings to fine the institution or to limit, suspend or terminate the participation of the institution in Title IV programs. Because Ashford University is provisionally certified, if the Department determined that Ashford has engaged in substantial misrepresentation, the Department may take the actions set forth in clauses (i) and (ii) above in addition to any other actions taken by the Department.
GI Bill Benefits
On May 20, 2016, the Company received a letter from the Iowa Department of Education (the “Iowa DOE”) indicating that, as a result of the planned closure of Ashford University’s residential campus in Clinton, Iowa, the Iowa State Approving Agency (the “ISAA”) would no longer continue to approve Ashford’s programs for GI Bill benefits after June 30, 2016, and recommending Ashford seek approval through the State Approving Agency of jurisdiction for any location that meets the definition of a “main campus” or “branch campus”. Ashford University began the process of applying for approval through the State Approving Agency in California (“CSAAVE”), and the Company subsequently disclosed that on June 20, 2016 it received a second letter from the Iowa DOE indicating that the Iowa DOE had issued a stay of the ISAA’s withdrawal of approval of Ashford’s programs for GI Bill benefits effective immediately until the earlier of (i) 90 days from June 20, 2016 or (ii) the date on which CSAAVE completed its review and issued a decision regarding the approval of Ashford in California. Ashford received communication from CSAAVE indicating that additional information and documentation would be required before Ashford’s application could be considered for CSAAVE approval. Ashford subsequently withdrew the CSAAVE application and continued working with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Iowa DOE and the ISAA to obtain continued approval of Ashford’s programs for GI Bill benefits and to prevent any disruption of educational benefits to Ashford’s veteran students.
On September 15, 2016, in response to a Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed by Ashford University, the Iowa District Court for Polk County entered a written order (the “Order”) staying the Iowa DOE’s announced intention to withdraw the approval of Ashford as a GI Bill eligible institution until the entry of a final and appealable order and judgment in the action. Pursuant to the Order, the ISAA will continue to approve Ashford’s programs for GI Bill benefits until such final and appealable order has been entered.
13. Commitments and Contingencies
Litigation
From time to time, the Company is a party to various lawsuits, claims and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. When the Company becomes aware of a claim or potential claim, it assesses the likelihood of any loss or exposure. In accordance with authoritative guidance, the Company records loss contingencies in its financial statements only for matters in which losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Where a range of loss can be reasonably estimated with no best estimate in the range, the Company records the minimum estimated liability. If the loss is not probable or the amount of the loss cannot be reasonably estimated, the Company discloses the nature of the specific claim if the likelihood of a potential loss is reasonably possible and the amount involved is material. The Company continuously assesses the potential liability related to the Company’s pending litigation and revises its estimates when additional information becomes available. Below is a list of material legal proceedings to which the Company or its subsidiaries is a party.
Compliance Audit by the Department’s Office of the Inspector General
In January 2011, Ashford University received a final audit report from the Department’s Office of Inspector General (the “OIG”) regarding the compliance audit commenced in May 2008 and covering the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. The audit covered Ashford University’s administration of Title IV program funds, including compliance with regulations governing institutional and student eligibility, awards and disbursements of Title IV program funds, verification of awards and returns of unearned funds during that period, and compensation of financial aid and recruiting personnel during the period May 10, 2005 through June 30, 2009.


20



BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)

The final audit report contained audit findings, in each case for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007, which are applicable to award year 2006-2007. Each finding was accompanied by one or more recommendations to the FSA. Ashford University provided the FSA a detailed response to the OIG’s final audit report in February 2011. In June 2011, in connection with two of the six findings, the FSA requested that Ashford University conduct a file review of the return to Title IV fund calculations for all Title IV recipients who withdrew from distance education programs during the 2006-2007 award year. The institution cooperated with the request and supplied the information within the time frame required.
Ashford University received a final audit determination on February 22, 2017 from the Department that was dated February 14, 2017. The determination maintained that Ashford University owed the Department $0.3 million as a result of incorrect refund calculations and refunds that were not made or were made late, and that Ashford ensure it properly enforces its policies and is in compliance with regulations related to disbursement of Title IV funds. The Department closed or required no further action on all other prior OIG findings. Ashford University made the required payment to the Department during the three months ended March 31, 2017 and the matter is now concluded.
New York Attorney General Investigation of Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
In May 2011, the Company received from the Attorney General of the State of New York (the “NY Attorney General”) a subpoena relating to the NY Attorney General’s investigation of whether the Company and its academic institutions have complied with certain New York state consumer protection, securities and finance laws. Pursuant to the subpoena, the NY Attorney General has requested from the Company and its academic institutions documents and detailed information for the time period March 17, 2005 to present. The Company is cooperating with the investigation and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.
North Carolina Attorney General Investigation of Ashford University
In September 2011, Ashford University received from the Attorney General of the State of North Carolina (the “NC Attorney General”) an Investigative Demand relating to the NC Attorney General’s investigation of whether the university’s business practices complied with North Carolina consumer protection laws. Pursuant to the Investigative Demand, the NC Attorney General has requested from Ashford University documents and detailed information for the time period January 1, 2008 to present. Ashford University is cooperating with the investigation and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.
California Attorney General Investigation of For-Profit Educational Institutions
In January 2013, the Company received from the Attorney General of the State of California (the “CA Attorney General”) an Investigative Subpoena relating to the CA Attorney General’s investigation of for-profit educational institutions. Pursuant to the Investigative Subpoena, the CA Attorney General requested documents and detailed information for the time period March 1, 2009 to present. On July 24, 2013, the CA Attorney General filed a petition to enforce certain categories of the Investigative Subpoena related to recorded calls and electronic marketing data. On September 25, 2013, the Company reached an agreement with the CA Attorney General to produce certain categories of the documents requested in the petition and stipulated to continue the hearing on the petition to enforce from October 3, 2013 to January 9, 2014. On January 13, 2014 and June 19, 2014, the Company received additional Investigative Subpoenas from the CA Attorney General each requesting additional documents and information for the time period March 1, 2009 through the current date.
Representatives from the Company met with representatives from the CA Attorney General’s office on several occasions to discuss the status of the investigation, additional information requests, and specific concerns related to possible unfair business practices in connection with the Company’s recruitment of students and debt collection practices. The parties continue to discuss a potential resolution involving injunctive relief, other non-monetary remedies and a payment to the CA Attorney General. The Company currently estimates that a reasonable range of loss for this matter is between $8.0 million and $20.0 million. The Company has accrued an expense of $8.0 million related to this matter, which represents its current best estimate of the cost of resolution of this matter.


21



BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)

Massachusetts Attorney General Investigation of Bridgepoint Education, Inc. and Ashford University
On July 21, 2014, the Company and Ashford University received from the Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts (the “MA Attorney General”) a Civil Investigative Demand (the “MA CID”) relating to the MA Attorney General’s investigation of for-profit educational institutions and whether the university’s business practices complied with Massachusetts consumer protection laws. Pursuant to the MA CID, the MA Attorney General has requested from the Company and Ashford University documents and information for the time period January 1, 2006 to present. The Company is cooperating with the investigation and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.
Securities & Exchange Commission Subpoena of Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
On July 22, 2014, the Company received from the SEC a subpoena relating to certain of the Company’s accounting practices, including revenue recognition, receivables and other matters relating to the Company’s previously disclosed intention to restate its financial statements for fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and revise its financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012, and the prior revision of the Company’s financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. Pursuant to the subpoena, the SEC has requested from the Company documents and detailed information for the time period January 1, 2009 to present.
On May 18, 2016, the Company received a second subpoena from the SEC seeking additional information from the Company, including information with respect to the accrual disclosed by the Company in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2016 with respect to the potential joint resolution of investigations by the CA Attorney General and the CFPB (the “CAAG/CFPB Investigations”), the Company’s scholarship and institutional loan programs and any other extensions of credit made by the Company to students, and student enrollment and retention at the Company’s academic institutions. Pursuant to the subpoena, the SEC has requested from the Company documents and detailed information for, in the case of the CAAG/CFPB Investigations, the periods at issue in such investigations, in the case of the Company’s scholarship and institutional loan programs and related matters, the period from January 1, 2011 to the present, and for all other matters, the period from January 1, 2014 to the present.
The Company is cooperating with the SEC and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time. As a result, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and accordingly has not accrued any liability associated with this action.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Subpoena of Bridgepoint Education, Inc. and Ashford University
On August 10, 2015, the Company and Ashford University received from the CFPB Civil Investigative Demands related to the CFPB’s investigation to determine whether for-profit postsecondary education companies or other unnamed persons have engaged in or are engaging in unlawful acts or practices related to the advertising, marketing or origination of private student loans. The Company and Ashford University provided documents and other information to the CFPB and the CFPB attended several meetings with representatives from the Company and the CA Attorney General’s office to discuss the status of both investigations, additional information requests, and specific concerns related to possible unfair business practices in connection with the Company’s recruitment of students and debt collection practices.
All of the parties met again in the spring of 2016 to discuss the status of the investigations and explore a potential joint resolution involving injunctive relief, other non-monetary remedies and a payment to the CA Attorney General and the CFPB. On September 7, 2016, the Company consented to the issuance of a Consent Order (the “Consent Order”) by the CFPB in full resolution of the CFPB’s allegations stemming from the Civil Investigative Demands. The Consent Order includes payment by the Company of $8.0 million in penalties to the CFPB and approximately $5.0 million to be used for restitution to students who incurred debt from student loans made by the Company’s institutions, and forgiveness by the Company of approximately $18.6 million of outstanding institutional loan debt. The Consent Order also outlines certain compliance actions the Company must undertake, including that the Company must require certain students to utilize the CFPB’s Electronic Financial Impact Platform before enrolling in one of the Company’s institutions, the Company must implement a compliance plan designed to ensure its institutional loan program complies with the terms of the Consent Order, and the Company must submit reports describing its compliance with the Consent Order to the CFPB at designated times and upon request by the CFPB. The institutional loan


22



BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)

programs were discontinued by the Company’s institutions before the CFPB investigation began. As of March 31, 2017, the amount accrued related to this matter was paid in full.
Department of Justice Civil Investigative Demand
On July 7, 2016, the Company received from the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) a Civil Investigative Demand (the “DOJ CID”) related to the DOJ's investigation concerning allegations that the Company may have misstated Title IV refund revenue or overstated revenue associated with private secondary loan programs and thereby misrepresented its compliance with the 90/10 rule of the Higher Education Act. Pursuant to the DOJ CID, the DOJ has requested from the Company documents and information for fiscal years 2011-2014. The Company is cooperating with the DOJ and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time. As a result, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and accordingly has not accrued any liability associated with this action.
Securities Class Action
Zamir v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et al.
On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company’s business, operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company’s improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess collectability of funds owed by students. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30, 2014 and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys’ fees. On July 15, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel.
On September 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a substantially similar amended complaint that asserts a putative class period stemming from March 12, 2013 to May 30, 2014. The amended complaint also names Patrick Hackett, Adarsh Sarma, Warburg Pincus & Co., Warburg Pincus LLC, Warburg Pincus Partners LLC, and Warburg Pincus Private Equity VIII, L.P. as additional defendants. On November 24, 2015, all defendants filed motions to dismiss. On July 25, 2016, the Court granted the motions to dismiss and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss on October 24, 2016, which was granted by the Court with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on April 19, 2017 and the defendants intend to file a third motion to dismiss. The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. Based on information available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated with this action.
Shareholder Derivative Actions
In re Bridgepoint, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Action
On July 24, 2012, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in California Superior Court by Alonzo Martinez. In the complaint, the plaintiff asserts a derivative claim on the Company’s behalf against certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint is captioned Martinez v. Clark, et al. and generally alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of candor, good faith and loyalty, wasted corporate assets and were unjustly enriched. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary relief and disgorgement on behalf of the Company, as well as other equitable relief and attorneys’ fees. On September 28, 2012, a substantially similar shareholder derivative complaint was filed in California Superior Court by David Adolph-Laroche. In the complaint, the plaintiff asserts a derivative claim on the Company’s behalf against certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint is captioned Adolph-Laroche v. Clark, et al. and generally alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of candor, good faith and loyalty, wasted corporate assets and were unjustly enriched.
On October 11, 2012, the Adolph-Laroche action was consolidated with the Martinez action and the case is now captioned In re Bridgepoint, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Action. A consolidated complaint was filed on December 18, 2012 and the defendants filed a motion to stay the case while the underlying securities class action is pending. The motion was granted by the


23



BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) (Continued)

Court on April 11, 2013. A status conference was held on October 10, 2013, during which the Court ordered the stay continued for the duration of discovery in the underlying securities class action, but permitted the plaintiff to receive copies of any discovery responses served in the underlying securities class action. The stay was lifted following the settlement of the underlying securities class action and all defendants filed demurrers on October 3, 2016, which are currently pending with the Court.
Reardon v. Clark, et al.
On March 18, 2015, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego. The complaint asserts derivative claims on the Company’s behalf against certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint is captioned Reardon v. Clark, et al. and generally alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of candor, good faith and loyalty, wasted corporate assets and were unjustly enriched. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary relief and disgorgement, as well as other equitable relief and attorneys’ fees. Pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, on May 27, 2015, the Court ordered the case stayed during discovery in the underlying Zamir securities class action, but permitted the plaintiff to receive copies of any discovery conducted in the underlying Zamir securities class action.
Larson v. Hackett, et al.
On January 19, 2017, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego. The complaint asserts derivative claims on the Company's behalf against certain of its current and former officers and directors. The complaint is captioned Larson v. Hackett, et al. and generally alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of candor, good faith and loyalty, wasted corporate assets and were unjustly enriched. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary relief and disgorgement, as well as other equitable relief and attorneys’ fees. The parties have not yet responded to the complaint, but will most likely seek to have the case dismissed or stayed during discovery in the underlying Zamir securities class action.
Nieder v. Ashford University, LLC
On October 4, 2016, Dustin Nieder filed a purported class action against Ashford University in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego. The complaint is captioned Dustin Nieder v. Ashford University, LLC and generally alleges various wage and hour claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wages and failure to provide rest and meal breaks. The lawsuit seeks back pay, the cost of benefits, penalties and interest on behalf of the putative class members, as well as other equitable relief and attorneys' fees. The Company filed an answer denying the claims and the case is currently in discovery. The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. Based on information available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated with this action.


24


Item 2.  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
The following Management’s Discussions and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations should be read in conjunction with our condensed consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto included in Part I, Item 1 of this report. For additional information regarding our financial condition and results of operations, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included in Part II, Item 7 of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Form 10-K”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 7, 2017 , as well as our consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto included in Part II, Item 8 of the Form 10-K.
Unless the context indicates otherwise, in this report the terms “Bridgepoint,” “the Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Bridgepoint Education, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its wholly owned and indirect subsidiaries.
Forward-Looking Statements
This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). All statements other than statements of historical fact may be forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements may include, among others, statements regarding future events, future financial and operating results, strategies, expectations, the competitive environment, regulation and the availability of financial resources, including, without limitation, statements regarding:
Ashford University’s ability to continue to operate an accredited institution subject to the requirements of the State of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education;
our ability to comply with the extensive and continually evolving regulatory framework applicable to us and our institutions, including Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (the “Higher Education Act”), and its implementing regulations, the gainful employment rules and regulations, the “defense to repayment” regulations, state laws and regulatory requirements, and accrediting agency requirements;
projections, predictions and expectations regarding our business, financial position, results of operations and liquidity, and enrollment trends at our institutions;
expectations regarding the effect of the closure of Ashford University’s residential campus in Clinton, Iowa on our business;
our ability to obtain continued approval of Ashford’s programs for GI Bill benefits through the Iowa State Approving Agency (the “ISAA”) and to prevent any disruption of educational benefits to Ashford’s veteran students;
new initiatives focused on student success and academic quality;
changes in our student fee structure;
expectations regarding the adequacy of our cash and cash equivalents and other sources of liquidity for ongoing operations;
expectations regarding investment in online and other advertising and capital expenditures;
our anticipated seasonal fluctuations in results of operations;
management’s goals and objectives; and
other similar matters that are not historical facts.
Forward-looking statements may generally be identified by the use of words such as “may,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “predicts,” “potential,” “continue,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “future,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “estimates” and similar expressions, as well as statements in the future tense.
Forward-looking statements should not be interpreted as a guarantee of future performance or results and will not necessarily be accurate indications of the times at or by which such performance or results will be achieved. Forward-looking statements are based on information available at the time such statements are made and the current good faith beliefs, expectations and assumptions of management regarding future events. Such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties


25


that could cause actual performance or results to differ materially from those expressed in or suggested by the forward-looking statements. For a discussion of some of these risks and uncertainties, see Part II, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” as well as the discussion of such risks and uncertainties contained in our other filings with the SEC, including the Form 10-K.
All forward-looking statements in this report are qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements included in this report, and you should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this report. We assume no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect actual results or any changes in our assumptions or expectations or any other factors affecting such forward-looking statements, except to the extent required by applicable securities laws. If we do update or revise one or more forward-looking statements, no inference should be drawn that we will make additional updates with respect to those or other forward-looking statements.
Overview
We are a provider of postsecondary education services through our regionally accredited academic institutions, Ashford University® and University of the RockiesSM. Ashford University offers associate’s, bachelor’s and master’s programs, and University of the Rockies offers master’s and doctoral programs. As of March 31, 2017, our academic institutions offered approximately 1,200 courses and approximately 80 degree programs. We are also focused on providing innovative new technologies to improve the way students learn, such as Constellation®, our proprietary learning platform, and the mobile applications offered by our institutions.
Key operating data
In evaluating our operating performance, our management focuses in large part on our revenue and operating income (loss) and period-end enrollment at our academic institutions. The following table, which should be read in conjunction with our condensed consolidated financial statements included in Part I, Item I of this report, presents our key operating data for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016 (in thousands, except for enrollment data):
 
Three Months Ended March 31,
 
2017
 
2016
Consolidated Statement of Income (Loss) Data:
 
Revenue
$
129,490

 
$
133,002

Operating income (loss)
$
9,662

 
$
(16,299
)
 
 
 
 
Consolidated Other Data:
 
 
 
Period-end enrollment (1)
 
 
 
Online
46,322

 
50,427

Campus-based
61

 
387

Total
46,383

 
50,814

(1)
We define period-end enrollment as the number of active students on the last day of the financial reporting period. A student is considered active if the student has attended a class within the prior 15 days or is on an institutionally-approved break not to exceed 45 days, unless the student has graduated or provided notice of withdrawal.
Key enrollment trends
Enrollment at our academic institutions decreased 8.7% to 46,383 students at March 31, 2017 as compared to 50,814 students at March 31, 2016. Enrollment decreased by 2.9% since the end of the preceding fiscal year, from 45,087 students at December 31, 2016 to 46,383 students at March 31, 2017.
We believe the decline in enrollment over the past few years is partially attributable to a general weakening in the overall industry due to increased regulatory scrutiny, and has also been caused by the initiatives our institutions have put in place to help raise academic quality and improve student outcomes. In addition, we believe total enrollment has also been impacted by recent changes in our marketing channels.


26


Trends and uncertainties regarding revenue and continuing operations
We continue to focus our efforts on stabilizing and restarting enrollment growth. We launched new program offerings in 2016 and plan to continue launching additional new program offerings in 2017 to help achieve the goal of stabilizing and restarting enrollment growth. One area in which we continue to experience positive enrollment trends is within our Leadership Development Grant program. This corporate partnership program provides companies with the opportunity to allow their employees to pursue and complete a college degree without incurring any student debt. While this program remains relatively small compared to our total enrollment, it continues to expand.
Restructuring and impairment charges
In July 2015, we committed to the implementation of a plan to close Ashford University’s residential campus in Clinton, Iowa during the second quarter of 2016. With this closure, the ground-based Ashford University students were provided opportunities to continue to pursue their degrees as reflected in their respective student transfer agreements. We have also implemented various other restructuring plans to better align our resources with our business strategy. The related restructuring charges have primarily been comprised of (i) charges related to the write-off of certain fixed assets and assets abandoned, (ii) student transfer agreement costs, (iii) severance costs related to headcount reductions and (iv) estimated lease losses related to facilities vacated or consolidated. These charges have been recorded in the restructuring and impairment charges line item on our condensed consolidated statements of income (loss).
For information regarding the restructuring and impairment charges recorded, refer to Note 3, “Restructuring and Impairment Charges” to our condensed consolidated financial statements included in Part I, Item 1 of this report.
Valuation allowance
We recognize deferred tax assets if realization of such assets is more likely than not. In order to make this determination, we evaluate factors including the ability to generate future taxable income from reversing taxable temporary differences, forecasts of financial and taxable income or loss, and the ability to carryback certain operating losses to refund taxes paid in prior years. The cumulative loss incurred over the three-year period ended March 31, 2017 constituted significant negative objective evidence against our ability to realize a benefit from our federal deferred tax assets. Such objective evidence limited our ability to consider in our evaluation other subjective evidence such as our projections for future growth. On the basis of our evaluation, we determined that our deferred tax assets were not more-likely-than-not to be realized and that a valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets should continue to be maintained as of March 31, 2017. However, we are recognizing a portion of our deferred tax assets to the extent that we believe deferred tax assets are available to refund taxes payable in 2017 through tax loss carrybacks.
Liquidity and capital resources and anticipated capital expenditures
We finance our operating activities and capital expenditures primarily through cash on hand and cash provided by operating activities. At March 31, 2017, we had cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and investments totaling $216.7 million and no long-term debt. For the year ending December 31, 2017, we expect capital expenditures to be approximately $6.0 million. Based on our current level of operations, we believe that our cash flows from operating activities and our existing cash and cash equivalents will provide adequate funds for ongoing operations, planned capital expenditures and working capital requirements for at least the next 12 months. However, changes could occur that would consume our available capital resources before that time. Our capital requirements depend on numerous factors, including our ability to continue to generate revenue. There can be no assurance that additional funding, if necessary, will be available to us on favorable terms, if at all.
Recent Regulatory Developments
Negotiated Rulemaking and Other Executive Action
In April 2016, the U.S. Department of Education (the “Department”) drafted a set of standards clarifying the information accreditors must submit, including the format in which information should be submitted, when notifying federal officials about actions taken against schools they accredit. The Department accepted public comments on the proposed standards through June 6, 2016, and plans to publish a final rule to be effective in July 2017.
On April 22, 2016, the Department issued a Dear Colleague Letter to federally recognized accrediting agencies regarding the flexibility those agencies have in differentiating their reviews of institutions and programs. The Department’s letter


27


encourages accrediting agencies to use that flexibility to focus monitoring and resources on student achievement and problematic institutions or programs. The Department also encourages regional accreditors, such as WSCUC and HLC, to consider adding the use of quantitative measures, in addition to the qualitative measures of student achievement already utilized, in reviewing institutions’ processes for evaluating and validating student learning, and to consider licensing and placement rates in its accreditation of institutions that offer applied, professional and occupational programs.
On December 16, 2016, the Department released final regulations to clarify state authorization requirements for postsecondary institutions offering distance education that participate in federal student loan programs, as required by the Higher Education Act. Among other things, the final regulations (i) require institutions offering distance education or correspondence courses to be authorized by each state in which they enroll students, if such authorization is required by the state, (ii) require institutions to document the state process for resolving student complaints regarding distance education programs, (iii) require public and individualized disclosures to enrolled and prospective students in distance education programs, including disclosures regarding adverse actions taken against the institution, the institution’s refund policies and whether each of the institution’s programs meet applicable state licensure or certification requirements, and (iv) require institutions to explain to students the consequences of moving to a state where the school is not authorized, which could include loss of eligibility for federal student aid. The final regulations recognize authorization through participation in a state authorization reciprocity agreement, as long as the agreement does not prevent a state from enforcing its own consumer laws. The final regulations are scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2018.
Gainful Employment
On October 31, 2014, the Department published gainful employment regulations impacting programs required to prepare graduates for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. Almost all academic programs offered by Title IV-participating private sector institutions of higher education must prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. The gainful employment regulations became effective July 1, 2015, with certain disclosure requirements that became effective in early 2017.
The gainful employment regulations have a framework with three components:
Certification: Institutions must certify that each of their gainful employment programs meet state and federal licensure, certification and accreditation requirements.
Accountability Measures: To maintain Title IV eligibility, gainful employment programs will be required to meet minimum standards for the debt burden versus the earnings of their graduates.
Pass: Programs whose graduates have annual loan payments less than 8% of total earnings or less than 20% of discretionary earnings.
Zone: Programs whose graduates have annual loan payments between 8% and 12% of total earnings or between 20% and 30% of discretionary earnings.
Fail: Programs whose graduates have annual loan payments greater than 12% of total earnings and greater than 30% of discretionary earnings.
Programs that fail in two out of any three consecutive years or are in the Zone for four consecutive years will be disqualified from participation in the Title IV programs.
Transparency: Institutions will be required to make public disclosures regarding the performance and outcomes of their gainful employment programs. The disclosures will include information such as costs, earnings, debt and completion rates.
The accountability measures will typically weigh a calculated debt burden from graduates who completed their studies three and four years prior to the measuring academic year and earnings from the most recent calendar year prior to the conclusion of the measuring academic year. Thus for the 2014-2015 academic year, the two-year cohort will include graduates from the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 academic years and earnings for these graduates from calendar year 2014.
On October 20, 2016, we received draft debt-to-earnings rates and certain underlying data from the Department for the first gainful employment measurement year, and on January 8, 2017 we received our institutions’ final debt-to-earnings rates for


28


the first gainful employment measurement year. Based on the final rates, none of our programs were determined to fail, two of our current programs were determined to be in the zone and one additional program that was discontinued prior to the issuance of the gainful employment regulations was determined to be in the zone. These results are significant given the framework discussed above, as a program would be disqualified from participation in Title IV programs only if it were to fail for two out of three consecutive years, or either fail or be in the zone for three out of four consecutive years. The gainful employment regulations contemplate a transition period in the first several years to afford institutions the opportunity to make changes to their programs and retain Title IV eligibility. We continue to review the information provided by the Department to understand the potential impact of the gainful employment regulations on our programs, and we will continue to evaluate options related to new programs or adjustments to current programs that could help mitigate the potential adverse consequences of the regulations.
Defense to Repayment
On June 8, 2015, the Department announced processes that will be established to assist students who may have been the victims of fraud in gaining relief under the “defense to repayment” provisions of the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program regulations. Rarely used in the past, the defense to repayment provisions currently in effect allow a student to assert as a defense against repayment of federal direct loans any commission of fraud or other violation of applicable state law by the school related to such loans or the educational services for which the loans were provided.
On June 16, 2016, the Department published proposed regulations regarding borrower defense to repayment and related matters, and on October 28, 2016, the Department published its final regulations with an effective date of July 1, 2017. The new regulations allow a borrower to assert a defense to repayment on the basis of a substantial misrepresentation, any other misrepresentation in cases where certain other factors are present, a breach of contract or a favorable nondefault contested judgment against a school for its act or omission relating to the making of the borrower’s loan or the provision of educational services for which the loan was provided. In addition, the financial responsibility standards contained in the new regulations establish the conditions or events that trigger the requirement for an institution to provide the Department with financial protection in the form of a letter of credit or other security against potential institutional liabilities. Triggering conditions or events include, among others, certain state, federal or accrediting agency actions or investigations, and in the case of publicly traded companies, receipt of certain warnings from the SEC or the applicable stock exchange, or the failure to timely file a required annual or quarterly report with the SEC. The new regulations also prohibit schools from requiring that students agree to settle future disputes through arbitration.
For additional information regarding the regulatory environment and related risks, see Part I, Item 1, “Business” and Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” of the Form 10-K.
Seasonality
Our operations are generally subject to seasonal trends. While we enroll students throughout the year, our fourth quarter revenue generally is lower than other quarters due to the holiday break in December. We generally experience a seasonal increase in new enrollments in August and September of each year when most other colleges and universities begin their fall semesters.
Critical Accounting Policies and Use of Estimates
The critical accounting policies and estimates used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements are described in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Critical Accounting Policies and Use of Estimates” included in Part II, Item 7 of the Form 10-K. There were no material changes to these critical accounting policies and estimates during the three months ended March 31, 2017.
The Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012
During the three months ended March 31, 2017, Santander Asset Management Investment Holdings Limited (“SAMIH”) engaged in certain activities that are subject to disclosure pursuant to Section 219 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 and Section 13(r) of the Exchange Act. These activities are disclosed in Exhibit 99.1 to this report. Affiliates of Warburg Pincus, LLC (i) beneficially own more than 10% of our outstanding common stock and are members of our board of directors and (ii) beneficially own more than 10% of the equity interests of and have the right to designate members of the board of directors of SAMIH. We will be required to separately file with the SEC, concurrently with this report,


29


a notice that such activities have been disclosed in this report, which notice must also contain the information required by Section 13(r) of the Exchange Act.
Results of Operations
The following table sets forth our condensed consolidated statements of income (loss) data as a percentage of revenue for each of the periods indicated:
 
Three Months Ended March 31,
 
2017
 
2016
Revenue
100.0
%
 
100.0
 %
Costs and expenses:
 
 
 
Instructional costs and services
48.7

 
52.3

Admissions advisory and marketing
34.6

 
38.9

General and administrative
9.3

 
10.1

Legal settlement expense

 
10.4

Restructuring and impairment charges

 
0.5

Total costs and expenses
92.6

 
112.2

Operating income (loss)
7.4

 
(12.2
)
Other income, net
0.3

 
0.5

Income (loss) before income taxes
7.7

 
(11.7
)
Income tax expense (benefit)
0.2

 
(4.1
)
Net income (loss)
7.5
%
 
(7.6
)%
Three Months Ended March 31, 2017 Compared to Three Months Ended March 31, 2016
Revenue. Our revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2017 was $129.5 million, representing a decrease of $3.5 million, or 2.6%, as compared to revenue of $133.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016. The decrease between periods was primarily due to the 8.7% decrease in ending student enrollment at our academic institutions, from 50,814 students at March 31, 2016 to 46,383 students at March 31, 2017. The average weekly enrollment during the three months ended March 31, 2017 decreased to 46,358 students from 50,279 students during the three months ended March 31, 2016, or by 7.8%, which resulted in a decrease in tuition revenue of approximately $5.2 million. The decrease in tuition revenue between periods was inclusive of the tuition increase of approximately 2.9%, effective April 1, 2016, which resulted in an increase in revenue of approximately $1.4 million.
Instructional costs and services. Our instructional costs and services for the three months ended March 31, 2017 were $63.0 million, representing a decrease of $6.6 million, or 9.4%, as compared to instructional costs and services of $69.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016. Specific decreases between periods primarily include decreases in corporate support services of $1.7 million, instructor fees of $1.4 million, direct compensation (including financial aid processing fees) of $1.4 million, facilities costs of $1.2 million, bad debt of $0.3 million, and consulting and professional fees of $0.3 million. Instructional costs and services decreased as a percentage of revenue to 48.7% for the three months ended March 31, 2017, as compared to 52.3% for the three months ended March 31, 2016. The decrease of 3.6% as a percentage of revenue primarily included decreases in corporate support services of 1.1%, facilities costs of 0.9%, instructor fees of 0.9% and direct compensation (including financial aid processing fees) of 0.6%. As a percentage of revenue, bad debt expense was 7.2% for each of the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016.
Admissions advisory and marketing. Our admissions advisory and marketing expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2017 were $44.8 million, representing a decrease of $6.9 million, or 13.4%, as compared to admissions advisory and marketing expenses of $51.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016. Specific factors contributing to the overall decrease between periods were decreases in selling compensation of $4.4 million, facilities costs of $2.0 million, advertising costs of $1.7 million and information technology costs of $1.0 million, partially offset by an increase in corporate support services of $1.9 million. As a percentage of revenue, our admissions advisory and marketing expenses decreased to 34.6% for


30


the three months ended March 31, 2017, as compared to 38.9% for the three months ended March 31, 2016. The decrease of 4.3% as a percentage of revenue was primarily due to decreases in selling compensation of 2.9%, facilities costs of 1.4%, advertising costs of 0.9% and information technology costs of 0.7%, partially offset by an increase in corporate support services of 1.4%.
General and administrative. Our general and administrative expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2017 were $12.0 million, representing a decrease of $1.5 million, or 11.4%, as compared to general and administrative expenses of $13.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016. The decrease between periods was primarily due to decreases in administrative compensation of $2.0 million and facilities costs of $0.7 million, partially offset by an increase in professional fees of $1.4 million. Our general and administrative expenses decreased as a percentage of revenue to 9.3% for the three months ended March 31, 2017, as compared to 10.1% for the three months ended March 31, 2016. The decrease of 0.8% as a percentage of revenue was primarily due to decreases in administrative compensation of 1.3%, facilities of 0.5% and corporate support services of 0.3%, partially offset by increases in professional fees of 1.1% and information technology costs of 0.2%.
Legal settlement expense. For the three months ended March 31, 2017, we had no expenses for the cost of resolution of the previously disclosed civil investigative demands from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, nor the previously disclosed investigative subpoenas from the Attorney General of the State of California. The expenses for these matters for the three months ended March 31, 2016 were $13.9 million.
Restructuring and impairment charges. We had no restructuring and impairment charges for the three months ended March 31, 2017. For the three months ended March 31, 2016, restructuring and impairment charges were $0.7 million, comprised primarily of severance costs for wages and benefits resulting from a reduction in force.
Other income, net. Our other income, net, was $0.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and $0.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016. The decrease between periods was primarily due to decreased interest income on average cash balances.
Income tax expense (benefit). We recognized an income tax expense of $0.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and an income tax benefit of $5.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016, at effective tax rates of 2.3% and 35.2%, respectively.
Net income (loss). Our net income was $9.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2017, compared to net loss of $10.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016, which represents a $20.0 million increase in net income as a result of the factors discussed above.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
We finance our operating activities and capital expenditures primarily through cash on hand and cash provided by operating activities. Our cash and cash equivalents were $164.7 million at March 31, 2017 and $307.8 million at December 31, 2016. At March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, we had restricted cash of $20.2 million and $24.5 million, respectively, and investments of $31.8 million and $49.4 million, respectively.
We manage our excess cash pursuant to the quantitative and qualitative operational guidelines of our cash investment policy. Our cash investment policy, which is managed by our Chief Financial Officer, has the following primary objectives: (i) preserving principal, (ii) meeting our liquidity needs, (iii) minimizing market and credit risk, and (iv) providing after-tax returns. Under the policy’s guidelines, we invest our excess cash exclusively in high-quality, U.S. dollar-denominated financial instruments. For a discussion of the measures we use to mitigate the exposure of our cash investments to market risk, credit risk and interest rate risk, see Part I, Item 3, “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”
There was a slight increase in the fair value of our investments at March 31, 2017 as compared to December 31, 2016. We believe that any fluctuations we have recently experienced are temporary in nature and that while some of our securities are classified as available-for-sale, we have the ability and intent to hold them until maturity, if necessary, to recover their full value.
Title IV funding
Our institutions derive the substantial majority of their respective revenues from students who enroll and are eligible for various federal student financial assistance programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. Our institutions are


31


subject to significant regulatory scrutiny as a result of numerous standards that must be satisfied in order to participate in Title IV programs. For additional information regarding Title IV programs and the regulation thereof, see “Business—Regulation” included in Part I, Item 1 of the Form 10-K. The balance of revenues derived by our institutions is from government tuition assistance programs for military personnel, including veterans, payments made in cash by individuals, reimbursement from corporate affiliates and private loans.
If we were to become ineligible to receive Title IV funding, our liquidity would be significantly impacted. The timing of disbursements under Title IV programs is based on federal regulations and our ability to successfully and timely arrange financial aid for our institutions’ students. Title IV funds are generally provided in multiple disbursements before we earn a significant portion of tuition and fees and incur related expenses over the period of instruction. Students must apply for new loans and grants each academic year. These factors, together with the timing at which our institutions’ students begin their programs, affect our revenues and operating cash flow.
Operating activities
Net cash used in operating activities was $11.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2017, compared to net cash used in operating activities of $20.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016, an overall increase in net cash provided by operating activities of $8.9 million between periods. This increase was primarily due to the $20.0 million increase in net income between periods. This increase was also partially attributable to the change in accounts payable and accrued liabilities as a result of the timing of payments. Despite the cash used in operating activities during the period, we expect to generate cash from our operating activities for the foreseeable future.
Investing activities
Net cash provided by investing activities was $16.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2017, compared to net cash used in investing activities of $20.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016. During the three months ended March 31, 2017, we had maturities of investments of $17.7 million, purchases of investments of $37,000 and no sales of investments. This is compared to purchases of investments of $20.2 million, no sales of investments and no maturities of investments for the three months ended March 31, 2016. Capital expenditures for the three months ended March 31, 2017 were $1.3 million, compared to $0.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016. We expect our capital expenditures to be approximately $6.0 million for the year ending December 31, 2017.
Financing activities
Net cash used in financing activities was $152.2 million for the three months ended March 31, 2017, compared to net cash used in financing activities of $1.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016. During the three months ended March 31, 2017, we repurchased approximately 18.1 million shares of our common stock for an aggregate purchase price of $150.0 million and $2.0 million of related fees. During each of the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, net cash used in financing activities included tax withholdings related to the issuance of shares upon the vesting of restricted stock units, partially offset by the cash provided by stock option exercises.
Based on our current level of operations, we believe that our future cash flows from operating activities and our existing cash and cash equivalents will provide adequate funds for ongoing operations, planned capital expenditures and working capital requirements for at least the next 12 months.
Significant Cash and Contractual Obligations
The following table sets forth, as of March 31, 2017, certain significant cash and contractual obligations that will affect our future liquidity:
 
Payments Due by Period
(In thousands)
Total
 
2017
 
2018
 
2019
 
2020
 
2021
 
Thereafter
Operating lease obligations
$
95,816

 
$
27,019

 
$
31,400

 
$
20,833

 
$
9,503

 
$
5,112

 
$
1,949

Other contractual obligations
58,157

 
10,317

 
12,648

 
11,642

 
9,599

 
3,951

 
10,000

Uncertain tax positions
8,261

 

 
8,261

 

 

 

 

Total
$
162,234

 
$
37,336

 
$
52,309

 
$
32,475

 
$
19,102

 
$
9,063

 
$
11,949



32


Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
As part of our normal business operations, we are required to provide surety bonds in certain states where we do business. In May 2009, we entered into a surety bond facility with an insurance company to provide such bonds when required. As of March 31, 2017, our total available surety bond facility was $3.5 million and the surety had issued bonds totaling $3.3 million on our behalf under such facility.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
For information regarding recent accounting pronouncements, refer to Note 2, “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” to our condensed consolidated financial statements included in Part I, Item 1 of this report.
Item 3.  Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.
Market and Credit Risk
Pursuant to our cash investment policy, we attempt to mitigate the exposure of our cash and investments to market and credit risk by (i) diversifying concentration to ensure we are not overly concentrated in a limited number of financial institutions, (ii) monitoring and managing the risks associated with the national banking and credit markets, (iii) investing in U.S. dollar-denominated assets and instruments only, (iv) diversifying account structures so that we maintain a decentralized account portfolio with numerous stable, highly rated and liquid financial institutions and (v) ensuring that our investment procedures maintain a defined and specific scope such that we will not invest in higher-risk investment accounts, including financial swaps or derivative and corporate equities. Accordingly, pursuant to the guidelines established by our cash investment policy, we invest our excess cash exclusively in high-quality, U.S. dollar-denominated financial instruments.
Despite the investment risk mitigation strategies we employ, we may incur investment losses as a result of unusual and unpredictable market developments, and we may experience reduced investment earnings if the yields on investments that are deemed to be low risk remain low or decline further in this time of economic uncertainty. Unusual and unpredictable market developments may also create liquidity challenges for certain of the assets in our investment portfolio.
We have no derivative financial instruments or derivative commodity instruments.
Interest Rate Risk
To the extent we borrow funds, we would be subject to fluctuations in interest rates. As of March 31, 2017, we had no outstanding borrowings.
Our future investment income may fall short of expectations due to changes in interest rates. At March 31, 2017, a hypothetical 10% increase or decrease in interest rates would not have a material impact on our future earnings, fair value or cash flows related to interest earned on our cash, cash equivalents or investments.


33


Item 4.  Controls and Procedures.
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
We maintain disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) and Rule 15d-15(e) of the Exchange Act, that are designed to provide reasonable assurance that information required to be disclosed by us in reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer or persons performing similar functions, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. In designing and evaluating the disclosure controls and procedures, management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives, and management is required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of any possible controls and procedures.
Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our chief executive officer and our chief financial officer, we carried out an evaluation of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report pursuant to Rule 13a-15(b) and Rule 15d-15(b) of the Exchange Act. Based on this evaluation, our chief executive officer and our chief financial officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at the reasonable assurance level as of March 31, 2017.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
There have been no changes to our internal control over financial reporting during the three months ended March 31, 2017 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.


34


PART II—OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1.  Legal Proceedings.
For information regarding our legal proceedings, refer to Note 13, “Commitments and Contingencies” to our condensed consolidated financial statements included in Part I, Item 1 of this report, which note is incorporated by reference into this Part II, Item 1.

Item 1A.  Risk Factors.
Investing in our common stock involves risk. Before making an investment in our common stock, you should carefully consider the risk factors discussed in Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors” of the Form 10-K. The risks described in the Form 10-K are those which we believe are the material risks we face, and such risks could materially adversely affect our business, prospects, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may impact us. There have been no material changes in our risk factors from those previously disclosed in the Form 10-K.
Item 2.  Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds.
The following table sets forth information regarding repurchases of our common stock on a monthly basis for the three months ended March 31, 2017:
ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
Period
Total Number of Shares Purchased(1)
 
Average Price Paid per Share
 
Total Number of Shares Purchased
as Part of Publicly Announced
Plans or Programs(1)
 
Maximum Number of Shares
that May Yet Be Purchased
Under the Plans or Programs
January 1, 2017 through January 31, 2017

 
$

 

 
$

February 1, 2017 through February 28, 2017

 
$

 

 
$

March 1, 2017 through March 31, 2017
18,072,289

 
$
8.30

 

 
$

Total
18,072,289

 
$
8.30

 

 
$

(1)
On March 10, 2017, we entered into an agreement (the “Share Repurchase Agreement”) with Warburg Pincus Private Equity VIII, L.P. (“Warburg Pincus”) to repurchase 18,072,289 shares of our common stock from Warburg Pincus in a private transaction at a price per share equal to $8.30, for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $150.0 million. The per share purchase price provided for by the Share Repurchase Agreement represented an approximately 11.6% discount to the closing price of our common stock at the close of business on March 9, 2017 of $9.39. The repurchase of shares of our common stock contemplated by the Share Repurchase Agreement closed on March 10, 2017. A special committee of the of Board of Directors of the Company, comprised solely of independent directors not affiliated with Warburg Pincus, negotiated the Share Repurchase Agreement on our behalf. In connection with the transactions contemplated by the Share Repurchase Agreement, the special committee was advised by separate independent legal and financial advisors.
Item 3.  Defaults Upon Senior Securities.
None.
Item 4.  Mine Safety Disclosures.
None.
Item 5.  Other Information.
None.


35


Item 6.  Exhibits.
Exhibit

 
Description
10.1

 
Share Repurchase Agreement, dated March 10, 2017, by and between the Company and Warburg Pincus (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to the Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the SEC on March 10, 2017).
31.1

 
Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
31.2

 
Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
32.1

 
Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, executed by Andrew S. Clark, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Kevin Royal, Chief Financial Officer.
99.1

 
Disclosure required pursuant to Section 13(r) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
101

 
The following financial information from the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2017, filed with the SEC on May 2, 2017, formatted in Extensible Business Reporting Language (“XBRL”): (i) the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016; (ii) the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income (Loss) for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016; (iii) the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss) for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016; (iv) the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Stockholders’ Equity for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016; (v) the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016; and (vi) the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.


36


SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
 
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION, INC.
 
 
May 2, 2017
/s/ KEVIN ROYAL
 
Kevin Royal
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal financial officer and duly authorized to
sign on behalf of the registrant)


37