8-K

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of Report (Date of Earliest Event Reported): June 23, 2010

Apollo Group, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Arizona	0-25232	86-0419443
(State or other jurisdiction	(Commission	(I.R.S. Employer
of incorporation)	File Number)	Identification No.)
4025 S. Riverpoint Parkway, Phoenix,		85040
Arizona
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (480) 966-5394

Former name or former address, if changed since last report

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:

o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))

Section 7 – Regulation FD

Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure.

     On June 23, 2010, Apollo Group, Inc. issued a press release announcing the reversal by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona in which the District Court vacated the January 2008 jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in Apollo’s securities class action lawsuit, captioned In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation. A copy of the press release is furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to this Form 8-K.

     The information in Item 7.01 of this Form 8-K and Exhibit 99.1 furnished herewith shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to the liabilities under that section, nor shall they be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, regardless of any general incorporation language in any such filing.

Section 9 – Financial Statements and Exhibits

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(d) Exhibits.

The following exhibits are provided herewith:

Exhibit Number	Description
99.1	Text of press release issued by Apollo Group, Inc. dated June 23, 2010.

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 hereunto duly authorized.

	Apollo Group, Inc.
June 23, 2010	By:	/s/ Brian Swartz
		Name:	Brian L. Swartz
		Title:	Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Exhibit Index

Exhibit No.	Description
99.1	Text of press release issued by Apollo Group, Inc. dated June 23, 2010.

EX-99.1

Exhibit 99.1

Apollo Group, Inc.
News Release

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSES LOWER COURT RULING IN
APOLLO GROUP, INC. SECURITIES LAWSUIT

PHOENIX, June 23, 2010 — Apollo Group, Inc. (Nasdaq:APOL) today announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reversed a lower court’s ruling in favor of the Company and ordered the lower court to enter judgement against the Company in accordance with the jury verdict in securities litigation arising out of a 2003 program review by the U.S. Department of Education, Apollo Group Inc. Securities Litigation.

“The Company is disappointed in the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and believes that the lower court’s well-reasoned decision in its favor was correct,” said P. Robert Moya, senior vice president, general counsel and secretary for Apollo Group, Inc. “We will explore all available options for seeking further review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision.”

Appellate Argument Overview

Under securities law, to prevail at trial, the plaintiff had to prove that a “corrective disclosure” — a disclosure that reveals to the market the falsity of prior statements or omissions — caused the price of Apollo’s stock to decline and, consequently, caused the losses of the plaintiff class.

When the contents of the initial government report at issue were reported by major business publications including The Wall Street Journal, Apollo’s stock price did not decline by a statistically significant amount. Consequently, the plaintiff pointed to a downgrade by a single market analyst one week later — a downgrade that made no mention of the report’s contents and contained no new facts — and argued that it caused a decline in the price of Apollo stock for which the plaintiff class of shareholders should be compensated.

Although the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Apollo argued, and the district court agreed, that the analyst report contained nothing new about the initial government report or its effects. The information that the plaintiff argued was newly disclosed by the analyst report was either clearly disclosed in previous news reports, or was not accurate. The district court recognized that neither false information nor previously disclosed information can correct anything. Accordingly, the district court ruled that the jury’s apparent finding that the downgrade was a corrective disclosure was not supported by any evidence, and therefore failed as a matter of law.

Litigation Background

This case, Apollo Group Inc. Securities Litigation, was a consolidated securities class action brought by the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago. It stemmed from allegations about the non-disclosure of an initial government report involving the manner in which Apollo subsidiary University of Phoenix compensated its enrollment counselors. The report’s

1

allegations, which were first raised in a False Claims Act lawsuit filed in 2003 by two private plaintiffs and then repeated with striking similarity in the initial government report at issue, have been largely discredited in recent years. The False Claims Act case was recently resolved, importantly with no admission of liability, wrongdoing, noncompliance or violation.

Apollo Group Inc. Securities Litigation was tried in Federal District Court in Arizona beginning November 14, 2007. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff on January 16, 2008 and the plaintiff class was awarded damages of up to $5.55 per share. On February 13, 2008, Apollo filed post-trial motions in which it asked the trial court to: (1) reverse the erroneous verdict; (2) order a new trial; or (3) condition denial of Apollo’s motions on the plaintiff’s acceptance of a reduced amount of damages not to exceed $3.49 per share. On August 4, 2008, the trial court overturned the erroneous jury verdict and resolved the case in favor of Apollo, finding that an analyst report on which the plaintiff’s case heavily relied was not a corrective disclosure.

More information on the case may be found in Apollo’s Legal Information Center at: www.apollolegal.com.

About Apollo Group, Inc.

Apollo Group, Inc. is one of the world’s largest private education providers and has been in the education business for more than 35 years. The Company offers innovative and distinctive educational programs and services both online and on-campus at the high school, undergraduate, masters and doctoral levels through its subsidiaries: University of Phoenix, Apollo Global, Institute for Professional Development, College for Financial Planning and Meritus University. The Company’s programs and services are provided in 40 states and the District of Columbia; Puerto Rico; Canada; Latin America; and Europe, as well as online throughout the world (data as of May 31, 2010).

For more information about Apollo Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries, call (800) 990-APOL or visit the Company’s website at www.apollogrp.edu.

Investor Relations Contacts:
Allyson Pooley ~ (312) 660-2025 ~ allyson.pooley@apollogrp.edu
Jeremy Davis ~ (312) 660-2071 ~ jeremy.davis@apollogrp.edu

Media Contact:
Sara Jones ~ (818) 326-1871 ~ sara.jones@apollogrp.edu

2