Washington Post 2010 Annual Report Download - page 54

Greater Washington Publishing’s offices are located in leased space in Vienna, VA, while El Tiempo Latino’s offices are
located in leased space in Arlington, VA.
Avenue100 leases space in an office building in Woburn, MA. This lease expires in 2015.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
A purported class action complaint was filed against the Company, Donald E. Graham and Hal S. Jones on October 28,
2010, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, by the Plumbers Local #200 Pension Fund. The complaint
alleges that the Company and certain of its officers made materially false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose
material facts relating to Kaplan Higher Education, in violation of the federal securities laws. The complaint seeks
damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and equitable/injunctive relief. Based on an initial review of this complaint, the Company
believes the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.
Kaplan, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, is a party to a previously disclosed class action antitrust lawsuit filed on
April 29, 2005, by purchasers of BAR/BRI bar review courses from fall 1997 through July 2006, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California. The court approved a settlement of the case on July 9, 2007, and the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the approval of the settlement on April 23, 2009. Though the Ninth
Circuit vacated the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to class counsel and counsel to various objectors to the
settlement, and remanded to the U.S. District Court to consider the attorney’s fees issue anew, and though that issue
continues to be litigated, the attorney’s fees award will be paid from the escrowed settlement funds so Kaplan does not
anticipate that it will be affected by the ultimate determination of the attorney’s fees issue.
On February 6, 2008, Kaplan was served with another purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California alleging claims substantially similar to those alleged in the previously settled lawsuit but on
behalf of a putative class that included all persons who purchased a bar review course from BAR/BRI in the United States
after the July 2006 cut-off for class membership in the prior action. West Publishing Corporation, which owns BAR/BRI, is
a co-defendant. On April 15, 2008, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. On May 20, 2008, the plaintiffs
filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 18, 2010, the parties entered into a
stipulation and settlement agreement, which requires court approval to become effective. In December 2010, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the District Court to consider approval of the settlement.
On April 29, 2009, Kaplan was served with a purported class action lawsuit by a purchaser of Kaplan’s LSAT
preparation course, alleging that in 1997, BAR/BRI and Kaplan entered into a market allocation agreement in violation
of U.S. antitrust laws. On March 12, 2010, the Court granted Kaplan’s Motion to Dismiss the case in its entirety and no
appeal was filed.
On June 17, 2008, teachers at Kaplan Aspect, which is now operated within Kaplan International Colleges, filed a
complaint in California Superior Court in San Francisco against Kaplan, Inc. and Aspect Education, Inc. alleging wage
and hour violations on behalf of a putative class of California teachers. In January 2009, the parties reached an
agreement to settle the claims in the action, as well as similar claims for a class of Kaplan Aspect teachers in states outside
California. On August 19, 2010, the parties received final approval of the settlement of the California claims in the
California Superior Court.
On or about January 17, 2008, an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania contacted Kaplan Higher Education’s CHI-Broomall campus and made inquiries about the
Surgical Technology program, including the program’s eligibility for Title IV federal financial aid, the program’s student
loan defaults, licensing and accreditation. Kaplan responded to the information requests and is fully cooperating with the
inquiry. The U.S. Attorney has expressed concerns about the program’s historical sufficiency of externship sites, but has
not concluded its inquiry. The U.S. Department of Education is also conducting a Program Review at the CHI-Broomall
campus. CHI-Broomall and Kaplan have responded to a preliminary report issued by the Department of Education, have
responded to a February 12, 2010, request by the Department of Education for additional information and are fully
cooperating with its Program Review. Kaplan has not received a final Program Review report from the Department of
Education. The U.S. Attorney’s Office has informed Kaplan Higher Education that it may make further information requests
upon the completion of the Department of Education Program Review. At this time, Kaplan cannot predict the ultimate
impact the Department of Education Program Review or U.S. Attorney’s inquiry may have.
Several Kaplan subsidiaries are also subject to four unsealed complaints that include, among other allegations, claims
under the Federal False Claims Act (31U.S.C. § 3729, et seq.) relating to eligibility for Title IV funding. The U.S.
Government declined to intervene in all four cases, which are captioned:
United States of America ex rel. Carlos Urquilla-Diaz et al. v. Kaplan University et al. (unsealed March 25, 2008);
United States of America ex rel. Jorge Torres v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp. (unsealed April 7, 2008); United States
38 THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY