EDMC charged in lawsuit with improper practices
An Oklahoma state pension fund sued Pittsburgh-based Education Management Corp. and its directors Monday, saying they breached their "fiduciary responsibilities" by allowing illegal student recruiting and other practices that have seriously hurt the company's stock value and threaten its funding.
The Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, which owns an unidentified number of shares in the for-profit education company known as EDMC, says the firm shifted its priorities after it was taken over in 2006 through a leveraged buyout led by Wall Street investment firm Goldman Sachs. That change led the company to value short-term profit over long-term, sustainable growth, according to the lawsuit filed in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court.
"Since the (leveraged buyout), there has been a radical shift in the company's priorities," the lawsuit says. "This focus has led to aggressive and illegal recruiting techniques to drive up student enrollment."
EDMC officials could not immediately be reached for comment. In response to previous lawsuits, representatives have maintained the company acted properly and did nothing wrong.
The Tribune-Review recently published an investigative report on EDMC, which has drawn multiple ongoing federal and state lawsuits and investigations.
The lawsuit filed Monday alleges EDMC illegally compensated employees based solely on the number of students they enrolled, engaged in aggressive and misleading recruitment practices and misrepresented its graduates' job placement data.
The suit says the company's practices threaten its future ability to receive money from U.S. Department of Education Title IV programs such as Pell Grants and government-backed Stafford Loans. The company received $2.6 billion from the programs last year.
Because EDMC does not pay dividends, the suit notes that investors only can make money from the company based on its stock price. The company's stock price has plummeted during the past year from nearly $30 a share to $9.30 at the close of trading Monday.
Pittsburgh attorney William Caroselli, who is representing the plaintiffs, said he doesn't know how much money the plaintiffs have invested in the company, but he described it as "seven figures."
Caroselli said the lawsuit names individual EDMC board members as defendants because "as a board they failed to exercise their fiduciary duty to the stockholders. The EDMC stock has fallen considerably."
The lawsuit claims that since CEO Todd Nelson took over in February 2007, enrollment has been placed above all else and that admissions workers began enrolling "anyone and everyone" to meet student quotas. Admissions employees were taught to identify a prospective student's emotional weakness and press them to enrollments and lock up student loans, the suit states.
The shareholder suit includes allegations made in a whistle-blower lawsuit made public last year, which was brought by two former employees who say the company fraudulently paid admissions officers more money based on how many students they enrolled. The lawsuit was taken over by the U.S. Attorney for Western Pennsylvania and prosecutors in 11 states.
EDMC told the Trib it works with outside experts in both human resources and education law to develop its compensation plan so it complies with federal law.
A federal judge this month dismissed part of the whistle-blower lawsuit, saying enrollment was only one of several factors used to determine a recruiter's pay. The court allowed a claim to proceed that the policy was mere "window dressing."
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.