Apollo Group, Inc. ("APOL" or the Company) and its subsidiaries, including University of Phoenix, provides higher education programs for working adults in the United States.
According to a press release dated August 16, 2010, the Complaint alleges that despite extensive positive statements by Defendants in press releases and SEC filings during the Class Period regarding the Company's operational performance and future growth projections, these statements were false because: (1) Defendants had propped up the Company's results by fraudulently inducing students to enroll in APOL's scholastic and educational programs and engaged in other manipulative recruiting tactics; (2) Defendants had materially overstated the Company's growth prospects by failing to properly disclose that Defendants had engaged in illicit and improper recruiting activities, which also had the effect of artificially inflating the Company's reported results and future growth prospects; and (3) APOL did not maintain adequate systems of internal operational or financial controls, which would have permitted APOL's reported operational statements and foreseeable growth prospects to be true, accurate or reliable.
It was only on August 3, 2010 that investors finally began to learn the truth about APOL after the United States General Accounting Office issued a report that concluded that for-profit educational institutions like APOL had engaged in an illegal and fraudulent course of action designed to recruit students and over-charge the federal government for the cost of such education. Following these disclosures, shares of the Company declined precipitously over just a few trading days -- falling almost 10% between August 3 and August 5, 2010, on unusually high trading volume, thereby eradicating over $684.53 million of the Company's market capitalization in only four trading days.
On November 23, 2010, an Order consolidating cases, appointing lead Plaintiff, and approving lead Plaintiffs’ selection of Counsel was issued by the Court.
On February 18, 2011, the lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint [Consolidated Class Action Complaint] against the Defendants.
On April 13, 2011, the case was reassigned to the Honorable James A. Teilborg.
On December 06, 2012, an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed by the lead Plaintiffs against the Defendants.
On June 22, 2012, the Court ruled in favor of the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
On December 16, 2014, the 9th Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court in dismissing this action.