NOTE 14: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

DeVry Group is subject to lawsuits, administrative proceedings, regulatory reviews and investigations associated with financial assistance programs and other matters arising in the normal conduct of its business. The following is a description of pending legal and regulatory matters that may be considered other than ordinary, routine and incidental to the business. Descriptions of certain matters from prior SEC filings may not be carried forward in this report to the extent we believe such matters no longer are required to be disclosed or there has not been, to our knowledge, significant activity relating to them. The timing or outcome of the following matters, or their possible impact on DeVry Group’s business, financial condition or results of operations, cannot be predicted at this time. The continued defense, resolution or settlement of any of the following matters could require us to expend significant resources and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows and result in the imposition of significant restrictions on us and our ability to operate.

In April 2013, DeVry Group received a Civil Investigative Demand (a “CID”) issued by the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The CID was issued in connection with an investigation into whether DeVry Group caused false claims and/or false statements to be submitted to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts relating to student loans, guarantees, and grants provided to DeVry Group’s Massachusetts students and required DeVry Group to answer interrogatories and to provide documents relating to periods on or after January 1, 2007. DeVry Group responded to the CID in May 2013. In July 2016, DeVry Group received a second CID from the Office requesting information regarding DeVry University advertising, admissions materials, placement rates, and credit/transferability agreements. DeVry Group is in the process of responding to the second CID.

On July 15, 2014, DeVry Group received a letter dated July 9, 2014, from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York (“NYAG”). The letter requested cooperation with the NYAG’s inquiry into whether recent television advertisements and website marketing regarding DeVry University may have violated federal and state laws prohibiting false advertising and deceptive practices. DeVry Group, DeVry University, Inc., and DeVry/New York Inc. (collectively, the “DeVry Parties”) chose to resolve the NYAG inquiry by entering into an Assurance of Discontinuance (the “Assurance”) with the NYAG on January 27, 2017, without admitting or denying the allegations therein. Pursuant to the Assurance, the DeVry Parties agreed to pay $2.25 million for consumer restitution and $0.5 million in penalties, fees and costs. In addition, the DeVry Parties agreed that DeVry Group institutions marketing to New York consumers will maintain specific substantiation and present certain statistics as prescribed to support any future advertising regarding graduate outcomes and educational benefits, and will implement other agreed-upon compliance measures.

On August 28, 2015, DeVry University received a request from the Multi-Regional and Foreign School Participation Division of the Federal Student Aid office of the Department of Education (“ED FSA”) for documents and information regarding published employment outcomes and relative earnings information of DeVry University graduates (the “Inquiry”). The stated purpose of the Inquiry was to permit ED FSA to assess DeVry University's compliance with applicable regulations under Title IV. On January 27, 2016, DeVry University received a Notice of Intent to Limit from ED FSA (the “January 2016 Notice”), based on a portion of the Inquiry, informing DeVry University of ED FSA’s intention to impose certain limitations on the participation of DeVry University in programs authorized pursuant to Title IV. The proposed limitations related to representations in advertising and marketing, regarding the post-graduation employment outcomes of DeVry University students over a period from 1975 to October 1980 (the “Since 1975 Representation”). On October 13, 2016, DeVry University and the U.S. Department of Education (“ED”) reached a negotiated agreement to settle the January 2016 Notice (the “ED Settlement”). Under the terms of the ED Settlement, among other things, without admitting wrongdoing, DeVry University (1) may no longer make representations regarding the graduate employment outcomes of DeVry University graduates from 1975 to October 1980, including advertising regarding the cumulative graduate employment outcomes since 1975, (2) will maintain or undertake certain recordkeeping and compliance practices to support future representations regarding graduate employment rates and (3) will post a notice on its website and in its enrollment agreements regarding the Since 1975 Representation. The ED Settlement also provides that, except for Heightened Cash Monitoring 1 status, ED will not impose conditions on the timing of, or documentation requirements for, disbursement of aid due to matters relating to lack of substantiation for the Since 1975 Representation. As a result of the ED Settlement, DeVry University’s participation in the Title IV programs will be subject to provisional certification for five years and DeVry University will be required to post a letter of credit equal to the greater of 10% of DeVry University’s annual Title IV disbursements or $68.4 million for a five-year period. Institutions under provisional certification must obtain ED approval before it may award or disburse Title IV funds based on a substantial change, including the establishment of a new location or the addition of an educational program. Provisional certification status also carries fewer due process protections than full certification. As a result, ED may withdraw an institution’s provisional certification more easily than if it is fully certified. Provisional certification does not otherwise limit access to Title IV program funds by students attending the institution.

On January 27, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a civil complaint (the “FTC lawsuit”) against the DeVry Parties in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging that certain of DeVry University’s advertising claims were false or misleading or unsubstantiated at the time they were made in violation of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The parties settled the FTC lawsuit by stipulation, which was entered by the district court as a Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment (the “Order”) on December 19, 2016. Pursuant to the Order, the DeVry Parties paid $49.4 million to the FTC to be distributed at the sole discretion of the FTC; forgave $30.4 million of institutional loans issued before September 30, 2015; and forgave outstanding DeVry University accounts receivable balances of $20.2 million for former students. The Order also requires DeVry Group institutions marketing to U.S. consumers to maintain specific substantiation to support any future advertising regarding graduate outcomes and educational benefits, and to implement training and other agreed-upon compliance measures.

On May 13, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against DeVry Group, Daniel Hamburger, Richard M. Gunst, and Timothy J. Wiggins in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased DeVry Group common stock between February 4, 2011 and January 27, 2016. Citing the FTC lawsuit and the ED January 2016 Notice, the plaintiff claims that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and the earnings of DeVry University graduates relative to the graduates of other universities and colleges. As a result of these false or misleading statements about DeVry University graduate outcomes, plaintiff alleges, defendants overstated DeVry Group’s growth, revenue and earnings potential and made false or misleading statements about DeVry Group’s business, operations and prospects. The plaintiff alleges direct liability against all defendants for violations of §10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and asserted liability against the individual defendants pursuant to §20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and other unspecified relief. On July 13, 2016, the Utah Retirement System (“URS”) moved for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of counsel, which was not opposed by the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers and URS was appointed as lead plaintiff on August 24, 2016. URS filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”) on December 23, 2016. The SAC seeks to represent a putative class of persons who purchased DeVry Group common stock between August 26, 2011 and January 27, 2016 and names an additional individual defendant, Patrick J. Unzicker. Like the original complaint, the SAC asserts claims against all defendants for alleged violations of §10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and asserted liability against the individual defendants pursuant to §20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged material misstatements or omissions regarding DeVry University graduate outcomes. On January 27, 2017, defendants moved to dismiss the SAC.

On or about June 21, 2016, T’Lani Robinson and Robby Brown filed an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association in Chicago, seeking to represent a putative class of students who received a DeVry University education from January 1, 2008 until April 8, 2016 (“Putative Class Period”). Following DeVry Group’s filing of a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking, among other things, an order declaring that federal court is the appropriate venue for this putative class action, on September 12, 2016, Robinson and Brown voluntarily withdrew their demand for arbitration. On September 20, 2016, Robinson and Brown answered the declaratory judgement action and filed a putative class action counterclaim, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against DeVry Group Inc., DeVry University, Inc., and DeVry/New York, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The counterclaim asserted causes of action for breach of contract, misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, violations of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, conversion, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief. On November 4, 2016, following a stipulated dismissal of the declaratory action, the DeVry Parties moved to dismiss the counterclaim after which plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew it. On December 2, 2016, Robinson and Brown filed an amended complaint adding two additional named plaintiffs. The amended complaint purports to assert nationwide class claims under the above-referenced Illinois statutes and common law theories on behalf of those who, during the Putative Class Period, (i) enrolled in DeVry University; (ii) financed their education with DeVry University with direct loans administered by ED; or (iii) entered into an enrollment agreement with DeVry University and otherwise paid for a DeVry University education. The amended complaint also seeks to represent a fourth class of individuals residing in, or enrolled in a DeVry University campus located in, California during the Putative Class Period bringing claims under the California Business and Profession Code. In addition to the claims previously asserted as described above, the amended complaint adds a claim for breach of fiduciary duty owed students in administering Title IV funds. The DeVry Parties moved to dismiss the amended complaint on January 13, 2017.

On October 14, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Debbie Petrizzo and five other former DeVry University students, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the DeVry Parties in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Petrizzo Case”). The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of those who enrolled in and/or attended classes at DeVry University from at least 2002 through the present and who were unable to find employment within their chosen field of study within six months of graduation. Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of six different states’ consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief.

On October 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by Jairo Jara and eleven others, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against the DeVry Parties in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Jara Case”). The individual plaintiffs claim to have graduated from DeVry University in 2001 or later and sought to proceed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of those who obtained a degree from DeVry University and who were unable to find employment within their chosen field of study within six months of graduation. Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University’s graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of ten different states’ consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief.

By Order dated November 28, 2016, the district court ordered the Petrizzo and Jara Cases be consolidated under the Petrizzo caption for all further purposes. On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on behalf of 38 individual plaintiffs and others similarly situated. The amended consolidated complaint seeks to bring claims on behalf of the named individuals and a putative nationwide class of individuals for unjust enrichment and alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and the Illinois Private Businesses and Vocational Schools Act of 2012. In additional, it purports to assert causes of action on behalf of certain of the named individuals and 15 individual state-specific putative classes for alleged violations of 15 different states’ consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. Finally, it seeks to bring individual claims under Georgia state law on behalf of certain named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief.

On January 17, 2017, Harriet Myers filed a complaint derivatively on behalf of DeVry Education Group Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against individual defendants Daniel M. Hamburger, Timothy J. Wiggins, Richard M. Gunst, Patrick J. Unzicker, Christopher B. Begley, David S. Brown, Lisa W. Wardell, Ann Weaver Hart, Lyle Logan, Alan G. Merten, Fernando Ruiz, Ronald L. Taylor and James D. White. DeVry Education Group Inc. was named as a nominal defendant only. Citing the FTC lawsuit and settlement, the January 2016 Notice and ED settlement, and the allegations in the lawsuit filed by the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, each referenced above, the plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants have breached their fiduciary duties and violated federal securities law since at least 2011. The plaintiff asserts that the individual defendants permitted DeVry Education Group Inc. to engage in unlawful conduct, failed to correct misconduct or prevent its recurrence, and failed to ensure the accurate dissemination of information to shareholders. The complaint attempts to state three claims: (i) breach of fiduciary duty by all named defendants for allegedly allowing the illegal conduct to occur, (ii) unjust enrichment by all individual defendants in the receipt of compensation, and (iii) violation of Section 14(a) by failing to disclose the alleged illegal scheme in proxy statements and falsely stating that compensation was based on “pay for performance” where those performance results were allegedly false. Plaintiff seeks on behalf of DeVry Education Group Inc. monetary, injunctive and other unspecified relief.