 | ||
|
| Home Annual/Quarterly Updates About Us
|
Apollo Group, Inc. Conclusion: The original complaint charges Apollo and certain of its officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company improperly based recruiter's compensation on enrollment figures, in violation of U.S. regulations that forbid schools whose students receive federal financial aid from tying pay directly to enrollments; (2) that as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants were able to demonstrate dazzling growth at schools such as the University of Phoenix, even though recruiters bolstered their numbers by signing up unqualified students; and (3) that as a result of the illegal practices, the Company's earnings and net income were materially inflated at all relevant times.
The complaint further alleges that on September 15, 2004, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "Will Apollo's Bad Report Card Get Its Shares Grounded?" The article stated that Apollo engaged in a "culture of duplicity" in which supervisors improperly lavished money on sales employees for signing up scores of new students, including those unable to cut it. This news shocked the market. Shares of Apollo fell $1.41 per share, or 1.76 percent on September 15, 2004, to close at $78.68 per share.
According to the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2008, in October 2004, three class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The District Court consolidated the three pending class action complaints under the caption In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT and a consolidated class action complaint was filed on May 16, 2005 by the lead plaintiff. The consolidated complaint named us, Todd S. Nelson, Kenda B. Gonzales and Daniel E. Bachus as defendants. On March 1, 2007, by stipulation and order of the Court, Daniel E. Bachus was dismissed as a defendant from the case. Lead plaintiff represents a class of our shareholders who acquired their shares between February 27, 2004 and September 14, 2004. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Act by us for defendants’ allegedly material false and misleading statements in connection with our failure to publicly disclose the contents of a preliminary Department of Education program review report. The case proceeded to trial on November 14, 2007. On January 16, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs awarding damages of up to $5.55 for each share of common stock in the class suit, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The class shares are those purchased after February 27, 2004 and still owned on September 14, 2004. The judgment was entered on January 30, 2008, subject to an automatic stay until February 13, 2008. On February 13, 2008, the District Court granted our motion to stay execution of the judgment pending resolution of our motions for post-trial relief, which were also filed on February 13, 2008, provided that we post a bond in the amount of $95.0 million. On February 19, 2008, we posted the $95.0 million bond with the District Court. Oral arguments occurred on August 4, 2008 as part of our post-trial motions, during which the District Court vacated the earlier judgment based on the jury verdict and entered judgment in favor of Apollo and the other defendants. The $95.0 million bond posted in February was subsequently released on August 11, 2008. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 29, 2008. The plaintiffs’ brief is due on December 15, 2008, and the defendants’ brief is due on January 13, 2009.
INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 8200
Sector: Services
Industry: Schools
| COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: | Apollo Group, Inc. |
| COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: | APOL |
| COMPANY WEBSITE: | http://www.apollogrp.com |
| FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE | |||||||||||||||||
| Sekuk Global Enterprises, et al. v. Apollo Group, Inc., et al. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT | |||
| Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 10/12/2004 | ||
| REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||||||||||||||||
| In Re: Apollo Group, Inc. Securities Litigation | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| DOCUMENTS FOR THE REFERENCE COMPLAINT | |||
| Lead Plaintiff, The Policemen's Annuity And Benefit Fund Of Chicago's Consolidated Class Action Complaint For Violations Of Federal Securities Laws | |||
| Type: Complaint | Date on the document: 05/16/2005 | ||
| Minute Entry - Trial Minutes | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 11/21/2007 | ||
| Minute Entry - Trial Minutes | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 01/16/2008 | ||
| Bill of Costs | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 01/30/2008 | ||
| Judgment | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 01/30/2008 | ||
| Defendants' Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law Pursuant To Rule 50(B) Oral Argument Requested | |||
| Type: Motion | Date on the document: 2/13/2008 | ||
| Defendants' Motion For New Trial Pursuant To Rule 59 Oral Argument Requested | |||
| Type: Motion | Date on the document: 2/13/2008 | ||
| Defendants' Notice of Filing Bond | |||
| Type: Notice | Date on the document: 02/19/2008 | ||
| Judgment | |||
| Type: Other | Date on the document: 8/4/2008 | ||
| Order | |||
| Type: Order | Date on the document: 8/4/2008 | ||
| Notice of Appeal | |||
| Type: Notice of Appeal | Date on the document: 8/29/2008 | ||
| U.S. District Court Civil Docket | |||
| Type: Docket | Date on the document: 11/21/2008 | ||
| OTHER DOCUMENTS | |||
| Case Name and/or Number: | |||
| Type: | Date on the document: | ||
WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.
Go to Search page | Go to Case Index page | Back to Top