DOCSLIB.ORG

At Kaplan University’S On

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
At Kaplan University’S On UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PLUMBERS LOCAL #200 PENSION FUND, ) Civil No.:1:10-cv-01835-PLF Individually and on Behalf of All Others ) Similarly Situated, CLASS ACTION ) Plaintiff, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL vs. THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY, DONALD E. GRAHAM and HAL S. JONES, Defendants. [PROPOSED] AMENDED CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE ACTION .....................................................1 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE..........................................................................................8 III. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................8 IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ..................................................................................10 V. CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES ...........................................................................................12 VI. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS ...................................................................................24 A. Introduction............................................................................................................24 B. Washington Post’s Business Model Depends on Maximizing the Amount of Financial Aid Obtained by Kaplan Students, Regardless of Their Abilityto Ever Repay It.........................................................................................25 1. The For-Profit College Business Model Places Low-Income Students in High-Cost Schools ..................................................................25 2. The Vast Majority of For-Profit College Revenue Comes From FederalStudent Aid ...................................................................................27 C. The HEA Provides Eligibility Criteria that an Institution Must Meet in Order to Participate in the Federal Student Aid Programs ....................................28 1. Incentive Compensation for Recruiters Is Not Permitted..........................29 2. Substantial Misrepresentations Are Prohibited..........................................30 3. Kaplan Is Required to Keep Cohort Default Rates Under 25%.................31 4. Kaplan Must Comply With the 90/10 Rule ...............................................32 5. Kaplan Must Prepare Its Students For Gainful Employment....................32 6. Kaplan Must Promptly Disburse Federal Student Aid Funds to Students......................................................................................................33 7. Kaplan Must Meet State Authorization and Accreditation Requirements.............................................................................................33 8. Other “Applicable Laws”...........................................................................34 i D. At All Relevant Times, Kaplan Generated the Majority of Washington Post’s Revenues.....................................................................................................36 E. Washington Post’s Kaplan Was All A “Numbers Game”.....................................37 1. The Company’s Sales Machine Included an Army of Kaplan Admissions Advisors Stationed In Warehouse-Sized Call Centers...........38 2. Like A Boiler Room, Admissions Advisors Were Under Intense Pressure to Meet “Enrollment Quotas”......................................................39 3. Admissions Advisors’ Employment Status Was Directly Tied to EnrollmentNumbers..................................................................................43 4. Admissions Advisors’ Compensation was Directly Tied to Enrollments................................................................................................45 F. In Order to Artificially Inflate the Company’s Financials, Defendants Endorsed and Oversaw Unethical Recruiting Practices.........................................46 1. “Uncovering the Pain and the Fear – Creating Urgency” – Kaplan’s Scripts.........................................................................................56 2. Kaplan Works the System, and Its Students, In Order to Obtain Financial Aid Awards ................................................................................58 G. Ability to Benefit - Kaplan Takes One Step Forward and Two Steps Back..........60 H. Kaplan’s Improper Practices Throughout the Class Period Were Orchestrated to Circumvent the Requirements of the 90/10 Rule.........................61 I. Kaplan Skirts DOE Reviews..................................................................................65 J. The GAO Investigates Kaplan, Prompting the Company’s Education Division to Dramatically Change Its Practices......................................................66 1. The GAO Visit to the Pembroke Pines Campus........................................66 2. The Impact of GAO Report – Kaplan Scrambles to Minimize the Damage......................................................................................................67 K. The Florida Attorney General Investigates Kaplan, and Reveals the Sworn Testimony of Two Former Kaplan Admissions Advisors.....................................69 L. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants Had Knowledge of and Endorsed Kaplan’s Fraudulent Scheme.................................................................71 1. Kaplan Provided Washington Post With Daily Cash Transfers - Except on Days When It Was Violating the 90/10 Rule. ..........................71 ii 2. Defendants Actively Lobbied for Less Stringent Department of EducationGuidelines.................................................................................74 3. Federal Whistleblower Actions Put Defendants on Notice of the Wrongful Misconduct Alleged Herein.......................................................75 4. Kaplan’s Extensive Reporting Systems Provided Defendants With Knowledge of Kaplan’s Predatory Business Model..................................77 VII. DEFENDANTS’ FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS ISSUED DURING THE CLASS PERIOD ......................................................................................80 VIII. POST CLASS PERIOD EVENTS AND DISCLOSURES.............................................123 IX. DEFENDANTS’ FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS REGARDING WASHINGTON POST’S BUSINESS CONDUCT AND ETHICS...............................133 X. ADDITIONAL SCIENTER ALLEGATIONS................................................................135 XI. APPLICABILITY OF PRESUMPTION OF RELIANCE: FRAUD ON THE MARKET DOCTRINE ...................................................................................................139 XII. LOSS CAUSATION/ECONOMIC LOSS ......................................................................139 XIII. NO SAFE HARBOR .......................................................................................................143 XIV. COUNT I: FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 10(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 10b-5 PROMULGATED THEREUNDER AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS...............................................................................................................144 XV. COUNT II: FOR VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 20(a) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS..................................................148 XVI. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED...........................................................................................149 iii Lead Plaintiff Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of a proposed class (the “Class”) of all purchasers of the publicly traded common stock of The Washington Post Company (“Washington Post” or the “Company”) between July 31, 2009 and August 13, 2010, inclusive (the “Class Period”), by and through its undersigned counsel, brings suit against Washington Post, Donald E. Graham (“Graham”) and Hal S. Jones (“Jones”) (Graham and Jones are sometimes collectively referred to as the “Individual Defendants”) (Washington Post, Graham, and Jones are collectively the “Defendants”) 2. Plaintiff seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) as a result of the fraudulent scheme undertaken by Defendants and the economic loss suffered when the true facts were revealed to the public through a series of disclosure events. The claims asserted herein arise under and pursuant to §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5. I. INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE ACTION For decades, Washington Post operated as a well-known media company, most recognizable for its newspaper publication. Times, however, have changed. As set forth herein, the Company’s very viability has become ever more reliant upon revenues generated by its education division. Specifically, Washington Post operates Kaplan, Inc. (“Kaplan”), what the Company describes as “one of the world’s largest diversified providers of educational services.” Of relevance here is Kaplan Higher Education (“KHE”), the Company’s for-profit, post-secondary education division whose U.S. operations include more than 70 campuses in 20 states, as well as online offerings through Kaplan University. 4. Put simply, throughout the Class Period, Kaplan was the financial lifeline that kept the Company from drowning from the poor performance of Washington Post’s newspaper. To that end, as set forth herein, Kaplan provided daily cash infusions to Washington Post throughout the Class Period despite the fact that doing so violated Kaplan’s capital
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Graham Holdings Company 2014 Annual Report
    GRAHAM HOLDINGS 2014 ANNUAL REPORT REVENUE BY PRINCIPAL OPERATIONS n EDUCATION 61% n CABLE 23% n TELEVISION BROADCASTING 10% n OTHER BUSINESSES 6% FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (in thousands, except per share amounts) 2014 2013 Change Operating revenues $ 3,535,166 $ 3,407,911 4% Income from operations $ 407,932 $ 319,169 28% Net income attributable to common shares $ 1,292,996 $ 236,010 — Diluted earnings per common share from continuing operations $ 138.88 $ 23.36 — Diluted earnings per common share $ 195.03 $ 32.05 — Dividends per common share $ 10.20 $ — — Common stockholders’ equity per share $ 541.54 $ 446.73 21% Diluted average number of common shares outstanding 6,559 7,333 –11% INCOME FROM NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE OPERATING REVENUES OPERATIONS TO COMMON SHARES ($ in millions) ($ in millions) ($ in millions) 3,861 582 1,293 3,453 3,535 3,373 3,408 408 314 319 149 277 236 116 131 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 RETURN ON DILUTED EARNINGS PER AVERAGE COMMON COMMON SHARE FROM DILUTED EARNINGS STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY* CONTINUING OPERATIONS PER COMMON SHARE ($) ($) 46.6% 138.88 195.03 38.16 9.8% 9.0% 23.36 31.04 32.05 5.2% 17.32 4.4% 14.70 17.39 6.40 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 * Computed on a comparable basis, excluding the impact of the adjustment for pensions and other postretirement plans on average common stockholders’ equity. 2014 ANNUAL REPORT 1 To OUR SHAREHOLDERS Quite a lot happened in 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • Martha L. Minow
    Martha L. Minow 1525 Massachusetts Avenue Griswold 407, Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 495-4276 [email protected] Current Academic Appointments: 300th Anniversary University Professor, Harvard University Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor Faculty, Harvard Graduate School of Education Faculty Associate, Carr Center for Human Rights, Harvard Kennedy School of Government Current Activities: Advantage Testing Foundation, Vice-Chair and Trustee American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Access to Justice Project American Bar Association Center for Innovation, Advisory Council American Law Institute, Member Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, Harvard University, Director Campaign Legal Center, Board of Trustees Carnegie Corporation, Board of Trustees Committee to Visit the Harvard Business School, Harvard University Board of Overseers Facing History and Ourselves, Board of Scholars Harvard Data Science Review, Associate Editor Initiative on Harvard and the Legacy of Slavery Law, Violence, and Meaning Series, Univ. of Michigan Press, Co-Editor MacArthur Foundation, Director MIT Media Lab, Advisory Council MIT Schwarzman College of Computing, Co-Chair, External Advisory Council National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Science, Technology, and Law Profiles in Courage Award Selection Committee, JFK Library, Chair Russell Sage Foundation, Trustee Skadden Fellowship Foundation, Selection Trustee Susan Crown Exchange Foundation, Trustee WGBH Board of Trustees, Trustee Education: Yale Law School, J.D. 1979 Articles and Book Review Editor, Yale Law Journal, 1978-1979 Editor, Yale Law Journal, 1977-1978 Harvard Graduate School of Education, Ed.M. 1976 University of Michigan, A.B. 1975 Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude James B. Angell Scholar, Branstrom Prize New Trier East High School, Winnetka, Illinois, 1968-1972 Honors and Fellowships: Leo Baeck Medal, Nov.
    [Show full text]
  • Cs Title Court Id Maurice Elias V. Mabek Co, Et Al Cacdce Japhet Lopez, Et Al V
    cs_title court_id Maurice Elias v. Mabek Co, et al cacdce Japhet Lopez, et al v. Denny's Inc, et al cacdce Jarek Molski et al v. Arby's Huntington Beach et al cacdce Les Jankey et al v. Mister Ds Liquor Market et al cacdce Les Jankey et al v. Moons Market et al cacdce Mimi Greenberg v. Lindfield Inc et al cacdce Frank J Pairis Sr v. Citrus Valley Health Foundation et al cacdce Byron Chapman v. Ahmed S Siddiqui et al cacdce Joe Babakanian v. Thomas Chow et al cacdce Joe Babakanian v. K Mart Corporation et al cacdce Babakanian v. El Toro Shopping Center et al cacdce Babakanian et al v. Buchheim Properties III cacdce Joe Babakanian v. Bank Of America Corporation et al cacdce Joe Babakanian v. Popeyes et al cacdce Joe Babakanian v. International House of Pancakes Inc et al cacdce Dung Le et al v. Anaheim City School District et al cacdce Disabled Rights Union on Behalf of Michael Rifkin and its Members v. Rome Tailor et al cacdce Juan Moreno v. Cal West Distributors Inc et al cacdce Mary Winic et al v. Mr Cecils California Ribs #1 LLC et al cacdce Disabled Rights Union v. Sizzler Family Steakhouse #453 et al cacdce K Moore v. Los Angeles Unified School District et al cacdce Charles Tyler v. Prakash Patel et al cacdce Rosemarie Roggenkamp v. Kentucky Fried Chicken et al cacdce Rosemarie Roggenkamp v. IHOP Corp et al cacdce Rosemarie Roggenkamp v. Kentucky Fried Chicken et al cacdce Rosemarie Roggenkamp v. Keeno's et al cacdce Darryl Eversole v.
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 Annual Report Contents
    NEWSPAPER/ONLINE PUBLISHING TELEVISION BROADCASTING MAGAZINE PUBLISHING CABLE TELEVISION 04EDUCATION The Washington Post Company 2004 Annual Report Contents Financial Highlights, 1 Letter to Shareholders, 2 Corporate Directory, 12 Form 10-K Financial Highlights (in thousands, except per share amounts) 2004 2003 % Change Operating revenue $ 3,300,104 $ 2,838,911 + 16% Income from operations $ 563,006 $ 363,820 + 55% Net income $ 332,732 $ 241,088 + 38% Diluted earnings per common share $ 34.59 $ 25.12 + 38% Dividends per common share $ 7.00 $ 5.80 + 21% Common shareholders’ equity per share $ 251.93 $ 217.46 + 16% Diluted average number of common shares outstanding 9,592 9,555 – Operating Revenue Income from Operations Net Income ($ in millions) ($ in millions) ($ in millions) 04 3,300 04 563 04 333 03 2,839 03 364 03 241 02 2,584 02 378 02 204 01 2,411 01 220 01 230 00 2,410 00 340 00 136 Diluted Earnings Return on Average Common per Common Share Shareholders’ Equity ($) 04 34.59 04 14.8% 03 25.12 03 12.3% 02 21.34 02 11.5% 01 24.06 01 14.4% 00 14.32 00 9.5% 1 2004 ANNUAL REPORT A LETTER FROM DONALD E. GRAHAM To Our Shareholders For Red Sox fans and The Washington Post Company, 2004 was annus mirabilis, an amazing year. Many, many things went well for our company. Some were long planned and the result of careful work; others were strokes of luck. One statistic sums it up. Operating income of $563 million was $175 million higher than the best year we ever had, $388 million in 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • Alumni Magazine C2-C4camjf07 12/21/06 2:50 PM Page C2 001-001Camjf07toc 12/21/06 1:39 PM Page 1
    c1-c1CAMJF07 12/22/06 1:58 PM Page c1 January/February 2007 $6.00 alumni magazine c2-c4CAMJF07 12/21/06 2:50 PM Page c2 001-001CAMJF07toc 12/21/06 1:39 PM Page 1 Contents JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2007 VOLUME 109 NUMBER 4 alumni magazine Features 52 2 From David Skorton Residence life 4 Correspondence Under the hood 8 From the Hill Remembering “Superman.” Plus: Peres lectures, seven figures for Lehman, a time capsule discovered, and a piece of Poe’s coffin. 12 Sports Small players, big win 16 Authors 40 Pynchon goes Against the Day 40 Going the Distance 35 Camps DAVID DUDLEY For three years, Cornell astronomers have been overseeing Spirit 38 Wines of the Finger Lakes and Opportunity,the plucky pair of Mars rovers that have far out- 2005 Atwater Estate Vineyards lived their expected lifespans.As the mission goes on (and on), Vidal Blanc Associate Professor Jim Bell has published Postcards from Mars,a striking collection of snapshots from the Red Planet. 58 Classifieds & Cornellians in Business 112 46 Happy Birthday, Ezra 61 Alma Matters BETH SAULNIER As the University celebrates the 200th birthday of its founder on 64 Class Notes January 11, we ask: who was Ezra Cornell? A look at the humble Quaker farm boy who suffered countless financial reversals before 104 Alumni Deaths he made his fortune in the telegraph industry—and promptly gave it away. 112 Cornelliana What’s your Ezra I.Q.? 52 Ultra Man BRAD HERZOG ’90 18 Currents Every morning at 3:30, Mike Trevino ’95 ANATOMY OF A CAMPAIGN | Aiming for $4 billion cycles a fifty-mile loop—just for practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Veteran and Servicemember Complaints About Misconduct and Illegal Practices at Kaplan Schools
    PROJECT ON PREDATORY STUDENT LENDING LEGAL SERVICES CENTER OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL MEMORANDUM VETERAN AND SERVICEMEMBER COMPLAINTS ABOUT MISCONDUCT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES AT KAPLAN SCHOOLS December 2017 1 I. Introduction Kaplan Schools For-profit schools have garnered significant attention for their illegal practices and their unfair, deceptive, and misleading conduct. In particular, there is serious concern about their conduct with respect to veterans and servicemembers because for-profit schools specifically target students with military benefits. Moreover, there has been a recent wave of for-profit schools, including Kaplan, attempting to circumvent federal regulations by converting to nonprofits. Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (“Kaplan”), a for-profit corporation, is a subsidiary of Kaplan, Inc., which is owned by the Graham Holdings Company (formerly The Washington Post Company).1 Kaplan is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.2 In 2000, Kaplan created a postsecondary education division.3 The division includes Kaplan University, which offers online courses, and Kaplan Colleges and Institutes, which offer classroom-based programs.4 In 2011, approximately sixty percent of Kaplan’s students were enrolled in Kaplan University and roughly forty percent were enrolled in Kaplan Colleges and Institutes.5 Kaplan offers master’s, bachelor’s, associate, and certificate programs.6 In 2011, approximately twelve percent of Kaplan students were enrolled in master’s programs, thirty-five percent in bachelor’s programs, thirty percent in associate programs, and twenty-four percent in certificate programs.7 Kaplan University is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.8 Kaplan College and Kaplan Career Institute campuses are nationally accredited by the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (“ACICS”), the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (“ACCSC”), and the Commission of the Council on Occupational Education (“CCOE”).
    [Show full text]
  • 2005 Annual Report 1 to Our Shareholders
    THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY NEWSPAPER/ONLINE PUBLISHING TELEVISION BROADCASTING MAGAZINE PUBLISHING CABLE TELEVISION EDUCATION 2005 Annual Report CONTENTS Financial Highlights, 1 Letter to Shareholders, 2 Corporate Directory, 12 Form 10-K FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (in thousands, except per share amounts) 2005 2004 % Change Operating revenue $ 3,553,887 $ 3,300,104 + 8% Income from operations $ 514,914 $ 563,006 – 9% Net income $ 314,344 $ 332,732 – 6% Diluted earnings per common share $ 32.59 $ 34.59 – 6% Dividends per common share $ 7.40 $ 7.00 + 6% Common shareholders’ equity per share $ 274.79 $ 251.11 + 9% Diluted average number of common shares outstanding 9,616 9,592 – OPERATING REVENUE INCOME FROM OPERATIONS NET INCOME ($ in millions) ($ in millions) ($ in millions) 05 3,554 05 515 05 314 04 3,300 04 563 04 333 03 2,839 03 364 03 241 02 2,584 02 378 02 204 01 2,411 01 220 01 230 DILUTED EARNINGS RETURN ON AVERAGE COMMON PER COMMON SHARE SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY ($) 05 32.59 05 12.4% 04 34.59 04 14.9% 03 25.12 03 12.3% 02 21.34 02 11.6% 01 24.06 01 14.4% 2005 ANNUAL REPORT 1 TO OUR SHAREHOLDERS 2005 was a somewhat disappointing year. Our newspaper, TV and magazine businesses turned in poor- er results than their managers expected when the year began. Cable ONE was having a spectacular year until Hurricane Katrina devastated our Mississippi Gulf Coast systems. Kaplan’s brick-and-mortar college business missed its goals badly, disappointing Jonathan Grayer and me. These are the facts, and I’ll set them out for you in detail.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Annual Report Revenue by Principal Operations
    2013 ANNUAL REPORT REVENUE BY PRINCIPAL OPERATIONS n EDUCATION 62% n CABLE 23% n TELEVISION BROADCASTING 11% n OTHER BUSINESSES 4% FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (in thousands, except per share amounts) 2013 2012 Change Operating revenues $ 3,487,864 $ 3,455,570 1% Income from operations $ 345,565 $ 179,1 80 93% Net income attributable to common shares $ 236,010 $ 131,21 8 80% Diluted earnings per common share from continuing operations $ 25.78 $ 9.22 — Diluted earnings per common share $ 32.05 $ 17.39 84% Dividends per common share $ — $ 19.60 — Common stockholders’ equity per share $ 446.73 $ 348.1 7 28% Diluted average number of common shares outstanding 7,333 7,404 – 1 % OPERATING REVENUES INCOME FROM OPERATIONS ($ in millions) ($ in millions) 20 1 3 3,488 20 1 3 346 20 1 2 3,456 20 1 2 179 2 0 1 1 3,526 2 0 1 1 334 20 1 0 3,936 20 1 0 602 2009 3,563 2009 453 NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO COMMON SHARES RETURN ON AVERAGE COMMON ($ in millions) STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY* 20 1 3 236 20 1 3 9.0% 20 1 2 1 3 1 20 1 2 5.2% 2 0 1 1 1 16 2 0 1 1 4.4% 20 1 0 277 20 1 0 9.8% 2009 92 2009 3. 1% DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE DILUTED EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS ($) ($) 20 1 3 25.78 20 1 3 32.05 20 1 2 9.22 20 1 2 17.39 2 0 1 1 19.03 2 0 1 1 14.70 20 1 0 39.65 20 1 0 31.04 2009 28.16 2009 9.78 * Computed on a comparable basis, excluding the impact of the adjustment for pensions and other postretirement plans on average common stockholders’ equity.
    [Show full text]
  • Kaplan University 2011–2012 CATALOG ADDENDUM
    KAPLAN UNIVERSITY 2011–2012 CATALOG ADDENDUM PUBLISHED: JUNE 27, 2012 PREVIOUSLY issued: AUGUST 17, 2011, SeptembeR 23, 2011, NOVEMBER 9, 2011, decembeR 5, 2011, FEBRuaRY 1, 2012, FEBRuaRY 15, 2012, APRIL 27, 2012; MAY 16, 2012 Addenda are published on a periodic basis and reflect changes to policies and programs based on decisions made by the University since the publication of the previous Catalog or Addendum. This Addendum is a compilation of all Addenda issued since the previous Catalog. This Addendum supersedes all previous Addenda. It is not intended to alter any sections of the Catalog that are not specifically addressed herein, and all Catalog sections not addressed in this Addendum shall remain in full force and effect until further notice. Kaplan University Contact Information ONLINE ONLINE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR Office for Returning Students 12650 Ingenuity Drive PRIOR LEARNING 550 West Van Buren Street, 7th Floor Tel: 888.252.7895, Orlando, FL 32826 ASSESSMENT CENTER Chicago, IL 60607 ext. 4911 (Toll Free) Tel: 866.527.5268 (Toll Free) 550 West Van Buren Street, 7th Floor Tel: 866.522.7747 (Toll Free) 4646 East Van Buren Street Chicago, IL 60607 Fax: 800.588.4127 (Toll Free) Phoenix, AZ 85008 ONLINE SUPPORT CENTERS Fax: 800.582.9261 (Toll Free) Tel: 866.527.5268 (Toll Free) 6301 Kaplan University Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 CONCORD LAW SCHOOL ONLINE PROGRAMS/ 1601 SW 80th Terrace ADMISSIONS Plantation, FL 33324 550 West Van Buren Street, 7th Floor 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, 6301 Kaplan University Avenue Tel: 866.527.5268 (Toll Free) Chicago, IL 60607 Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Tel: 866.522.7747 (Toll Free) Tel: 866.527.5268 (Toll Free) Tel: 310.689.3200 Email: [email protected] Fax: 310.470.3547 CAMPUSES When confirming accreditation, please note that Kaplan University’s main campus is located in Iowa.
    [Show full text]
  • Graham Holdings Annual Report 2021
    Graham Holdings Annual Report 2021 Form 10-K (NYSE:GHC) Published: February 24th, 2021 PDF generated by stocklight.com UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K ☒ Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED December 31, 2020 or ☐ Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Commission file number 001-06714 Graham Holdings Company (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 53-0182885 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 1300 North 17th Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code: (703) 345-6300 Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered Class B Common Stock, par value GHC New York Stock Exchange $1.00 per share Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☒ No ☐ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ☐ No ☒ 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Washington Post Company 2003Annual Report
    The Washington Post Company 2003 Annual Report Contents Financial Highlights 01 To Our Shareholders 02 Corporate Directory 16 Form 10-K FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS (in thousands, except per share amounts) 2003 2002 % Change Operating revenue $ 2,838,911 $ 2,584,203 + 10% Income from operations $ 363,820 $ 377,590 – 4% Net income Before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle in 2002 $ 241,088 $ 216,368 + 11% After cumulative effect of change in accounting principle in 2002 $ 241,088 $ 204,268 + 18% Diluted earnings per common share Before cumulative effect of change in accounting principle in 2002 $ 25.12 $ 22.61 + 11% After cumulative effect of change in accounting principle in 2002 $ 25.12 $ 21.34 + 18% Dividends per common share $ 5.80 $ 5.60 + 4% Common shareholders’ equity per share $ 217.46 $ 193.18 + 13% Diluted average number of common shares outstanding 9,555 9,523 – Operating Revenue Income from Operations Net Income ($ in millions) ($ in millions) ($ in millions) 03 2,839 03 364 03 241 02 2,584 02 378 02 204 01 2,411 01 220 01 230 00 2,410 00 340 00 136 99 2,212 99 388 99 226 Diluted Earnings Return on Average Common per Common Share Shareholders’ Equity ($) 03 25.12 03 12.3% 02 21.34 02 11.5% 01 24.06 01 14.4% 00 14.32 00 9.5% 99 22.30 99 15.2% 01 The Washington Post Company The undramatic financial results of 2003—earnings per share a bit higher than last year’s—mask a year in which some important things happened at The Washington Post Company.
    [Show full text]
  • Graham Holdings Company Annual Report 2019
    Graham Holdings Company Annual Report 2019 Form 10-K (NYSE:GHC) Published: February 25th, 2019 PDF generated by stocklight.com UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED December 31, 2018 Commission file number 1-6714 Graham Holdings Company (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 53-0182885 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 1300 North 17th Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code: (703) 345-6300 Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Name of each exchange on which registered Class B Common Stock, par value New York Stock Exchange $1.00 per share Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ý No ¨ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No ý 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.
    [Show full text]