Phoenix Education Partners, Inc. (PXED) Risk Factors

Verbatim Item 1A Risk Factors from Phoenix Education Partners, Inc.'s latest 10-K. Filing date: 2025-11-20. Accession: 0001193125-25-289786.

This page reproduces the company's own Item 1A Risk Factors text from the linked SEC filing. It is filer text, not grepcent analysis, scoring, or investment advice.

Informational only - not investment advice. See Disclaimer.

Extracted from Item 1A Risk Factors to the first Item 1B/1C/2 boundary after HTML sanitization. Confidence: high. Source form: 10-K. Character span: 154062-344626.

Back to PXED company profile

Item 1A. Risk Factors.

You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below, as well as the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” Additional risks not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also affect us. If any of these risks occur, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. Further, past financial performance may not be a reliable indicator of future performance and historical trends should not be used to anticipate results or trends in future periods.

Risk Factor Summary

This summary briefly lists the principal risks and uncertainties facing our business, which are only a select portion of those risks:

•
we operate in a highly regulated industry with extensive regulatory requirements, and the failure to comply with applicable regulations or regulatory requirements, standards or policies could subject us to significant monetary liabilities, fines and penalties, including loss of or limitations upon access to U.S. federal student loans, grants and military program benefits for our students, and otherwise have a material adverse impact on our business;

•
the impact that recent amendments to the Higher Education Act by Congress may have on our business, including the recent amendments that will limit or reduce the amount of federal student aid funding and that condition the future eligibility of educational programs for federal student aid funding upon compliance with new metrics focused upon the earnings of our former students;

•
risks associated with the impact that further legislative, political and regulatory changes could have on our business;

•
the impact that the loss of institutional accreditation, loss of, or failure to receive, certifications for participation in Title IV programs or limitations imposed by the Department of Education or state regulatory authorities could have on our business;

•
we derived 88.6% of our cash basis revenue from Title IV funds in our most recent fiscal year, and if the University becomes ineligible to participate in Title IV programs, including due to the “90/10 Rule,” or participation is materially limited, our business may not be sustainable;

•
if our 90/10 Rule percentage is projected to exceed or exceeds 90% for a given fiscal year, we may be required to take measures to reduce the percentage of revenue that we derive from Title IV program funds, including by taking actions that reduce our revenue, increase our operating expenses, and/or increase our tuition, in each case perhaps significantly, or by making operational or programmatic changes, which may materially and adversely impact our business and financial condition;

•
“Borrower Defense to Repayment” regulations and “closed school loan discharge” regulations may subject us to significant repayment liability for certain discharged federal student loans, including with respect to the approximately 48,000 borrower defense applications the University received from the Department of Education beginning in June 2020 and continuing until April 2024, as well as potential additional pending claims in the Department’s possession of which the University has not been formally notified, and require us to be provisionally certified or post a letter of credit or other security, or result in the limitation or termination of eligibility of the University to participate in Title IV programs;

•
any failure to comply with the Department of Education’s “gainful employment” metrics and financial transparency regulations could limit the programs we can offer students, the Title IV eligibility of the impacted programs and/or increase our cost of operations;

•
successfully competing against current and future competitors, including traditional public and private degree-granting institutionally accredited colleges and universities, other proprietary degree-granting institutionally accredited schools and other alternatives to higher education, each of whom may offer programs that are wholly online and geared towards the needs of working adults;

•
a decline in the overall growth of enrollment in post-secondary institutions, or in the number of students seeking degrees online, could lead to lower enrollment, which could negatively impact our future growth and require us to maintain or increase market share in existing markets;

•
our ability to develop and maintain favorable awareness of the University among, and enroll and retain, students as well as structural changes in the marketing landscape;

•
our Tuition Price Guarantee program limits our ability to raise additional revenue from current students through tuition increases, and any changes to the Tuition Price Guarantee program could harm our reputation, enrollment numbers, retention rates and overall business and financial performance;

•
if we do not maintain existing, and develop additional, B2B relationships with employers, our business may be impaired; and

•
we cannot guarantee the payment of dividends on our common stock, or the timing or amount of any such dividends.

Risks Related to the Highly Regulated Industry in Which We Operate

If we fail to comply with the extensive regulatory requirements applicable to our business, we could face significant monetary liabilities, fines and penalties, including loss of or limitations upon access to U.S. federal student loans, grants and military program benefits for our students.

Our operations are subject to extensive U.S. federal and state regulation applicable to providers of post-secondary education. The principal federal regulatory regime was established under the Higher Education Act and the regulations promulgated under the Higher Education Act by the Department of Education. Among other matters, these regulations govern the participation by the University in federal student financial aid programs under Title IV of the

Higher Education Act (“Title IV”), which is the principal source of funding for students at the University. Most of our fiscal year 2025 consolidated net revenue was derived from the receipt of Title IV program funds disbursed to our students. We must also comply with statutes and regulations that govern the University’s administration of our students’ use of veterans’ education benefits or United States Department of Defense (the “Department of Defense” or “U.S. Department of Defense”) tuition assistance programs. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment.”

To participate in Title IV programs, a post-secondary institution must be authorized by the appropriate state post-secondary agency or agencies in each state in which the institution operates, be accredited by an accrediting commission recognized by the Department of Education, be certified by the Department of Education as an eligible institution and offer at least one eligible program of education. The operations and programs of an institution may also be regulated by other state education agencies and additional specialized accrediting commissions. As a result of these requirements, we are subject to extensive regulation by the Department of Education, the HLC, which is our institutional accreditor, the education agencies of the states in which we operate, and specialized accrediting commissions. The applicable regulatory requirements cover nearly all phases of our operations, including educational program offerings, branch campus and classroom locations, instructional and administrative staff relations, administrative procedures, marketing and recruiting, compensation structures for certain employees, financial operations, including minimum financial responsibility calculations, other requirements for the eligibility of educational programs for federal student aid, the substantiation of credit hours awarded to students for their coursework, the eligibility of individual students for federal student aid, the amount of federal loans, federal Pell grants and other federal student aid that may be awarded, requirements affecting the timing of disbursement of federal student aid, payment of refunds to students who withdraw within allowable timeframes and the return to the Department of Education of federal student aid for such students, maintenance of restricted cash, acquisitions or openings of new schools, student accessibility, commencement of new or cessation of existing educational programs and changes in our corporate structure and ownership.

The applicable statutes, regulations, standards and policies of the various regulatory agencies and accreditors frequently change and often are subject to interpretative uncertainty, particularly as they historically have been developed to govern the operations of traditional, academic term-based schools, which are prevalent in our industry, rather than on schools that follow a non-term academic delivery model, which is used by the University. Changes in, or new interpretations of, applicable statutes, regulations, standards or policies could have a material adverse effect on our ability to participate in and receive funds provided by federal student aid programs, as well as our accreditation, authorization to operate or grant degrees or other credentials in various states, the scope of our permissible activities, the costs of doing business and our ability to implement beneficial changes in our academic or business model. We cannot predict how the statutes, regulations, standards and policies administered by these agencies will be applied or interpreted in the future, or whether we will be able to comply with any future changes in these requirements.

If we violate or fail to satisfactorily comply with applicable statutes, regulations, standards or policies, we may be subject to any of the following sanctions, among others, imposed by any one or more of the relevant regulatory agencies or accreditors:

•
monetary fines or penalties;

•
limitations on, or termination of, our operations, including, but not limited to, our ability to offer new programs, change the length of our existing programs, increase enrollment levels, or grant degrees, diplomas and certificates;

•
restrictions on, or revocations of, our accreditations, licenses or other operating authority, including by the HLC or a programmatic accreditor;

•
limitations on, or suspensions or termination of, our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, military benefit programs, veteran education benefit programs or state financial aid programs;

•
imposition by the Department of Education of heightened cash monitoring, which could cause delays in the disbursement of Title IV program funds, or transfer from the Department of Education’s advance system of receiving Title IV program funds to its reimbursement system, under which a school must

disburse its own funds to students and document the students’ eligibility for Title IV program funds before receiving such funds from the Department of Education;

•
repayments of funds received under Title IV programs or state financial aid programs;

•
requirements to post a letter of credit with the Department of Education;

•
imposition of provisional certification by the Department of Education, which may include growth restrictions that prevent us from adding to or changing our locations and programs absent express approval from the Department of Education;

•
other civil or criminal penalties; and

•
other forms of censure.

Any of the sanctions described above could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In particular, if we become ineligible to participate in Title IV programs, or our participation is materially limited, our sources of revenue will become significantly more restricted and our business may not be sustainable. In addition to the potential financial implications, we may not be able to conduct our operations and our program offerings may in turn be significantly reduced. Furthermore, if we are charged with legal or regulatory violations, our reputation could be damaged, which could have a negative impact on our stock price, our enrollment and the willingness of third parties to conduct business with us. We cannot predict with certainty how these regulatory or accrediting requirements will be applied, or whether we will be able to comply with the applicable requirements in the future.

If the Department of Education were to limit, suspend, or terminate our eligibility or certification to participate in the Title IV programs or if it were to choose not to renew our certification in the future, our students could lose their access to Title IV program funds, our participation in Title IV programs would be restricted or terminated, or we could be required to accept significant limitations as a condition of our continued participation in Title IV programs.

Department of Education certification to participate in Title IV programs lasts a maximum of six years, and institutions are thus required to seek recertification from the Department of Education on a regular basis in order to continue their participation in Title IV programs. An institution must also apply for recertification by the Department of Education if it undergoes a “change in control,” as defined by Department of Education regulations, and may be subject to similar review if it expands its operations or educational programs in certain ways. Certification can be granted on a full or provisional basis and, in instances where the Department of Education is reviewing an application for renewal but does not complete the review by the stated date of expiration, may be continued on a month-to-month basis until the review is complete. Institutions that are provisionally certified are typically required to obtain prior Department of Education approval to add educational programs or make any other significant change. Further, for an institution that is certified on a provisional basis, the Department of Education may revoke the institution’s certification without advance notice or advance opportunity for the institution to challenge that action. For an institution that is certified on a month-to-month basis, the Department of Education may allow the institution’s certification to expire at the end of any month by denying recertification without advance notice, and without any formal procedure for review of such action.

In August 2025, the Department of Education renewed the University’s Title IV program participation agreement (“PPA”) and approved the recertification of the University’s continued participation in the Title IV programs through June 30, 2031. However, if the Department of Education were to initiate future proceedings to limit, suspend, or terminate the University’s eligibility or certification to participate in the Title IV programs, or if it were to choose not to renew our certification in the future, such actions could cause the participation by the University in the Title IV programs to be interrupted, limited, or terminated, and could cause our students to lose access to Title IV program funds.

In addition, new federal regulations relating to certification and imposing additional requirements in PPAs may pose challenges to the University and increase the risk of regulatory noncompliance and a finding by the Department of Education that the University has not or cannot fully satisfy all required eligibility and certification standards. The new regulations, which became effective July 1, 2024, expand the grounds for placing an institution on provisional

certification and identify new potential conditions on provisionally certified institutions. The regulations further added new requirements to an institution’s PPA including, among other things, restrictions on student transcript withholding and a prohibition on institutional policies and procedures that induce students to limit their amount of federal student aid. For certification decisions to which the new regulations are applicable, the regulations also require that the PPA be signed by entities with direct or indirect ownership of the institution and the power to exercise control over the institution, and require such co-signatories to assume liability for financial losses to the federal government related to the institution’s administration of Title IV programs. The entities required to become co-signatories include, but are not limited to, (i) entities with at least 50% control over an institution through direct or indirect ownership, by voting rights or by its right to appoint board members to an institution or any other entity, whether by itself or in combination with other entities or natural persons with which it is affiliated or related, or pursuant to a proxy or voting or similar agreement; (ii) entities with the power to block significant actions of an institution; (iii) entities that are the 100% direct or indirect interest holder of an institution; and (iv) certain entities that are required to submit financial statements to the Department of Education in connection with an institution.

If the Department of Education finds that the University has not fully satisfied all required eligibility and certification standards, the Department of Education could take adverse actions against the University, up to and including termination of the University’s Title IV program participation. Similarly, the Department of Education could renew our certification in the future, but restrict or delay our students’ receipt of Title IV funds, limit the number of students to whom we could disburse such funds, require us to post a substantial letter of credit, or place other conditions or restrictions on us. Since we derived 88.6% of our cash basis revenue from Title IV funds in our most recent fiscal year, if the University becomes ineligible to participate in Title IV programs, or participation is materially limited, our sources of revenue will become significantly more restricted and our business may not be sustainable. We cannot predict the timing or outcome of the future recertification application process. See “—If any of the education regulatory agencies that regulate us delay their approval of, or do not approve, any transaction involving us that constitutes a “change in control,” our ability to operate or participate in Title IV programs may be materially impaired.” We also cannot predict what terms and conditions may be imposed on the University as part of any recertification, or how such terms and conditions may affect the University’s ongoing participation in Title IV programs.

Government agencies, regulatory agencies, and third parties may conduct compliance reviews, bring claims, or initiate litigation against us based on alleged violations of the extensive regulatory requirements applicable to us.

In conducting oversight of the administration of the federal student aid program by Title IV-participating institutions, the Department of Education relies on compliance reviews, including program reviews conducted by Department of Education staff, mandatory annual compliance audits by independent audit firms, and audits and investigations conducted by the Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General. For example, we are currently subject to an unresolved off-site program review that began in June 2021 in which the Department of Education is asserting that the University owes liabilities for closed school loan discharges for three former students in the amount of approximately $44,000, which determination is presently on appeal. See “—Closed School Loan Discharge” regulations may subject us to significant repayment liability for certain student loans pursuant to Title IV programs and require us to be provisionally certified or to post a letter of credit or other security, or may result in the limitation or termination of eligibility of the University to participate in Title IV programs.” We have experienced in the past, and are likely to experience in the future, additional program reviews or audits in addition to the annual compliance audit process.

We are also subject to ongoing oversight actions by other regulatory agencies, including, but not limited to, those conducted by our institutional accreditor, the HLC, other agencies that accredit programs that we offer, our state authorizing agencies, the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”), the Department of Defense, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (the “U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs” or “Department of Veterans Affairs”), the state approving agencies that approve programs for military program benefits, and state attorneys general. For example, as a result of past resolutions of certain government investigations, we are subject to ongoing obligations and prohibitions against misrepresentations in certain advertising practices that were a focus of an FTC investigation, and rules of engagement for University-related activities on military installations that were a focus of a state attorney general investigation (each as further described in Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment”), as well as other notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Actual or perceived non-compliance with these ongoing or other obligations could prompt the FTC or a state attorney general to seek fines and penalties via an enforcement

action against the University. The imposition of any such fines or penalties could have a material adverse effect on our business and operations. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Federal Trade Commission Investigation” and “—Attorney General Investigations.”

In some circumstances of non-compliance or alleged non-compliance, we may be subject to qui tam lawsuits under the Federal False Claims Act or various, similar state false claim statutes. In these actions, private plaintiffs seek to enforce remedies under the Federal False Claims Act on behalf of the federal government and, if successful, are entitled to recover their costs and to receive a portion of any amounts recovered by the federal government in the lawsuit. These lawsuits can be prosecuted by a private plaintiff, even if the Departments of Education and Justice do not agree with plaintiff’s theory of liability. We have been subject to, and settled, qui tam lawsuits in the past and while we cannot predict the size or frequency of similar claims that we may face in the future, any resulting liability may be material. The broad-based scrutiny and related investigations by state and federal regulators can also lead to follow-on consumer class actions filed by private attorneys on behalf of current and former students. Such actions often adopt the same theories of liability pursued by the regulators and seek additional relief under the premise that the student consumers were not made whole by the regulator’s settlement. In addition, investigations by and settlements with state and federal regulators can also lead to securities-related class actions that take a similar approach of adopting the regulators’ allegations and/or findings and seeking relief based on alleged losses to shareholders.

Claims and lawsuits brought against us, even if they are without merit, may also result in adverse publicity, damage our reputation, negatively affect the market price of our stock, adversely affect our student enrollments, and discourage third parties from doing business with us. Even if we adequately address the issues raised by any such proceeding and successfully defend against it, we may have to devote significant financial and management resources to address these issues, which could materially harm our business.

“Borrower Defense to Repayment” regulations may subject us to significant repayment liability for certain discharged federal student loans and require us to be provisionally certified or post a letter of credit or other security, or result in the limitation or termination of the University’s eligibility to participate in Title IV programs.

Under the Higher Education Act, the Department of Education’s regulations specify acts or omissions of a school that a student loan borrower may assert as a defense to repayment (“BDR” or “BDR claim”) of a federal student loan and thereby seek to obtain a discharge and refund of such loan. Under the rules governing BDR claims, the Department of Education has indicated that it believes it may also assert such a claim on behalf of a student borrower. Additionally, the Department of Education may initiate a recoupment proceeding against a school to collect loan amounts that are discharged or refunded as the result of a BDR claim. These rules have been significantly revised three times in recent years. Currently, a complex framework of rules applies different loan relief and recoupment standards and procedures based upon the date that the loan in question was first disbursed. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Borrower Defense to Repayment” for further discussion of the 1995, 2017, 2020, and (enjoined) 2023 BDR rules (each, a “BDR Rule” and collectively, the “BDR Rules”) and relevant litigation, legal challenges, and recent amendments to the Higher Education Act regarding the BDR regulatory framework.

Beginning in June 2020 and continuing until April 2024, the University received approximately 48,000 borrower defense applications from the Department of Education as part of the fact-finding process by which the Department of Education notifies institutions regarding BDR claims received from student borrowers and provides institutions an opportunity to respond. The University provided substantive, timely responses related to each such application and other requested evidence to the Department of Education. While the University believes it has both factual and procedural defenses to the claims made in the applications regardless of which BDR Rules apply, we cannot predict how the Department of Education will evaluate the evidence and adjudicate each claim. Additionally, approximately one-third of the applications received by the University were dated on or before June 22, 2022, which would subject the underlying loans associated with those BDR claims to automatic discharge under the terms of the settlement in the Sweet class-action lawsuit and potentially prevent such claims from serving as the basis of a recoupment action by the Department of Education against us. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Borrower Defense to Repayment.” Nearly all of the remaining applications received by the University were dated between June 23, 2022 and November 15, 2022. The Sweet settlement provided that BDR claims filed between June 22, 2022 and November 15, 2022 would be adjudicated no later than January 28, 2026, or would be automatically discharged. The federal courts overseeing

the Sweet settlement have referenced the Department of Education’s assurances that it will not rely on automatic discharges under the Sweet settlement as the basis upon which to recoup such discharged loans from institutions. Accordingly, any such automatic discharges would be potentially unable to serve as the basis of a recoupment action by the Department of Education against us.

In September 2023, the Department of Education announced that it had approved more than 1,200 BDR claims and discharged nearly $37 million federal student loans from borrowers who made claims regarding the University’s “Let’s Get to Work” ad campaign, which ran from 2012 to 2014. The Department of Education announced it had determined that the University substantially misrepresented its relationships with outside companies in the ad campaign. The Department of Education further indicated its intent to commence a recoupment effort against the University for the amounts of the discharged loans, but the Department of Education has not yet commenced any such action. While the BDR claims that were discharged appear to have also been subject to automatic discharge under the terms of the Sweet settlement, and the settlement itself could not serve as the basis of a recoupment action by the Department of Education under its stated position, the Department of Education may still attempt to seek recoupment of such discharged payments in the future, and we cannot predict the timing or scale of such recoupment efforts if pursued. Furthermore, based on preliminary information available to the University, we believe there are a substantial number of additional pending BDR claims with respect to the University that have not yet been provided to the University by the Department of Education and of which the University has not been formally notified. If such claims are adjudicated and the Department of Education seeks recoupment from the University, such recoupment could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Additionally, the BDR Rules require the University to dedicate significant resources to navigating as many as four different versions of regulatory standards and processes. The University also maintains reporting procedures to comply with the financial responsibility provisions related to BDR, under which the Department of Education may require the University to post a letter of credit or other financial protection in the event of certain triggering events. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—Borrower Defense to Repayment” and “Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Standards of Financial Responsibility.”

The current BDR Rules and regulations could result in significant risks for our business and the application of the various BDR standards may be unclear or subject to interpretation in a manner that is adverse to us and unpredictable. If a significant amount of BDR claims are adjudicated by the Department of Education and the Department of Education seeks significant recoupment from the University for such claims, such recoupment could have a material adverse impact on our business. Furthermore, the potentially significant discretion vested in the Department of Education to administer the regulations, including whether to seek recoupment of discharged loan amounts or require letters of credit from institutions, and the subjective judgments regarding the triggers for debt relief may result in unexpected outcomes that materially and adversely affect our business and liquidity. In addition, the manner in which we respond to state or federal and certain private lawsuits may be materially impacted as a result of the possible significant consequences of an adverse judgment or finding in such matters on the subsequent adjudication of BDR claims.

Individual BDR applications are submitted by student loan borrowers to the Department of Education, rather than to institutions directly, and the Department of Education has asserted that the BDR Rules provide for group claims without an underlying individual BDR application from a borrower in certain circumstances. It is unclear how many individual or group BDR claims have been approved or denied by the Department of Education, or how many individual or group BDR claims will be asserted, approved or denied in the future. It is further unknown whether and to what extent the Department of Education may seek to recoup the amount of discharged or refunded loans or impose such liability against the University, whether our legal and factual defenses with respect to such BDR claims and recoupment proceedings or imposition of liability would succeed, or even which procedures will ultimately govern the BDR resolution process. Additionally, the University could receive negative coverage in the media regarding BDR claims that could impede the recruitment of students. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Borrower Defense to Repayment.” While we cannot predict the outcome of any current, pending or potential future claims, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial performance and operations.

“Closed School Loan Discharge” regulations may subject us to significant repayment liability for certain student loans pursuant to Title IV programs and require us to be provisionally certified or to post a letter of credit or other security, or may result in the limitation or termination of the University’s eligibility to participate in Title IV programs.

The Higher Education Act and related Department of Education regulations provide that upon the closure of an institution participating in Title IV programs, including any campus location thereof, certain students who had attended that institution or location may be eligible to obtain a “closed school loan discharge” of their federal student loans if they withdraw from the closed school within a prescribed timeframe and do not complete their educational programs through transfer or teach-out with another postsecondary institution. If a loan is discharged on these grounds, then the Department of Education may seek recoupment of the discharged amount from the responsible institution. In December 2024, following a program review and related administrative proceeding, the University was found liable for recoupment for closed school loan discharges for three student borrowers in the amount of approximately $44,000. The University has appealed this decision to the Secretary of the Department of Education, and the ultimate outcome of the proceedings is uncertain. Although this liability is de minimis, the outcome of the proceeding, along with the evolving regulations governing closed school loan discharges, could have potential implications with respect to student borrowers who attended any of the substantial number of physical campuses and learning centers that the University has closed in recent years. These closures were made in connection with its Campus Footprint Initiative, where the University worked closely with its regulatory oversight bodies and students to adhere to the University’s commitment to ensure that every impacted student would have the opportunity to complete their education program at their location or attend online at their choice. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—Defense to Repayment,” “—Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Closed School Loan Discharge” and “Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Branching and Classroom Locations.” The University is not aware of any other closed school loan discharges that have been approved by the Department of Education in regard to the University’s closed locations. If, in the future, other discharges are approved and the number of such discharges is substantial, the impact on the terms of the University’s participation in Title IV programs or on the University’s financial condition could be material and adverse.

Recent action by Congress that revised the laws governing federal student financial aid programs, including changes to the level of federal student aid funding available to higher education students and to the requirements educational programs must meet to qualify for such funding, could reduce our enrollment and revenue, and increase our costs of operation.

The U.S. Congress must periodically reauthorize the Higher Education Act and annually determine the funding level for each Title IV program. The most recent reauthorization of the Higher Education Act expired September 30, 2013, but Title IV student financial aid programs remain authorized and functioning. However, as part of the annual federal budget reconciliation process, on July 4, 2025, amendments to the Higher Education Act revising certain federal student aid program provisions were signed into law by President Trump as part of the OBBB. The recent amendments, which generally take effect in July 2026, include provisions that will limit or reduce the amount of federal student aid funding that may be available to some higher education students and that impose new accountability standards on institutions. For example, the recent amendments may reduce the amount of federal student loan funding available to graduate students and to the parents of student borrowers, except during a limited timeframe for current borrowers. The recent amendments also create new accountability standards conditioning the Federal Direct Loan Program eligibility of educational programs upon compliance with benchmarks that compare former students’ median earnings after completion to the median earnings of working adults with lesser credentials. Individual programs (other than undergraduate certificate programs) will lose federal direct loan eligibility if, in two out of three consecutive years, the median earnings (as determined by the Department of Education) of the program’s student cohort who received Title IV funds and graduated four years prior falls below the median earnings of working adults aged 25 to 34 who are not enrolled in an institution of higher education and who have only a high school diploma (for undergraduate degree programs) or only a bachelor’s degree (for graduate and professional programs). See Item 1, “Business—Financial Aid Programs.” We are continuing to evaluate this complex new earnings accountability requirement, and it is anticipated that the Department of Education will publish further implementing regulations. The Department of Education published a notice on July 25, 2025 of its intention to establish two negotiated rulemaking committees to prepare regulations that will implement the recent amendments to the Higher Education Act under the OBBB. The first committee, RISE, reached consensus in early November 2025 on the entire package of student loan-related changes. The Department has indicated their intention to publish proposed regulations on these federal student loan-related changes in early 2026. The second committee, AHEAD, is scheduled to hold sessions in December 2025 and January 2026, and is expected to consider changes to institutional and programmatic accountability, the Pell Grant

Program, and other changes to the Title IV programs. The Department of Education may also initiate additional rulemaking proceedings. Accordingly, the impact of the recent amendments to the Higher Education Act and of ongoing, pending, and future regulatory and policy changes resulting from those amendments, including with respect to the new accountability requirement conditioning the federal direct loan eligibility of our programs, cannot be predicted, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Further action by Congress to revise the laws governing federal student financial aid programs, including changes applicable only to proprietary educational institutions, could reduce our enrollment and revenue, and increase our costs of operation.

Congress continues to engage in discussion and activity regarding reauthorizing the Higher Education Act, but political and policy differences have prevented legislative progress, creating the potential for additional future amendments to the Higher Education Act in the interim, and making timing unpredictable and the terms of any eventual full reauthorization difficult to forecast. Because the significant majority of our revenue is derived from Title IV programs, any legislative changes to Title IV programs, whether in connection with a reauthorization of the Higher Education Act or in other amendments, including any changes that affect the level of funding or the eligibility of the University or its students to participate in Title IV programs or that require us to modify our practices in ways that could increase our administrative or operating costs, could have a material adverse effect on our enrollment, business, results of operations and financial condition.

Shifts in higher education policy at the federal and state levels could have a material adverse effect on our business or render our current business impractical or unsustainable.

Shifts in higher education policy at the federal or state levels occur from time to time. Among other things, policy changes can increase the risk of new legislation, and of changes in and new interpretations of, and more aggressive enforcement of, existing statutes, regulations, standards or policies. They may also lead to the imposition of new terms and conditions of participation that could limit, perhaps materially, the eligibility of proprietary schools, such as the University, to participate in Title IV student financial aid programs, as well as other aid programs that benefit our students. While some proposals that have been made in the past require congressional action, others could be taken via executive action. In addition, state governors, legislatures and attorneys general could negatively influence public policy initiatives, privacy and tax policy developments, investigative demands and regulatory efforts against proprietary higher education institutions. The passage of legislation, or executive or regulatory actions on higher education, at both the federal and state level, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation, or render our business impractical or unsustainable.

If we do not meet specific financial responsibility standards established by the Department of Education, we may be required to post a letter of credit or accept other limitations in order to continue participating in Title IV programs, or we could lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs.

To participate in Title IV programs, the Department of Education regulations specify that an eligible institution of higher education must satisfy specific measures of financial responsibility prescribed by the Department of Education or post a letter of credit in favor of the Department of Education and accept other conditions on its participation in Title IV programs. These financial responsibility tests are applied on an annual basis based on each institution’s audited financial statements, and may be applied at other times, such as if the institution undergoes a change in control. These tests may also be applied to an institution’s parent company or other related entity. The operating restrictions that may be placed on an institution that does not meet the quantitative standards of financial responsibility include being transferred from the advance payment method of receiving Title IV funds to either the reimbursement or the heightened cash monitoring system, which could result in a significant delay in the institution’s receipt of those funds. Pursuant to Title IV program regulations, each eligible institution must satisfy a measure of financial responsibility based on a weighted average of annual ratios that assess the financial condition of the institution, with a resulting composite score between a negative 1.0 and a positive 3.0. An institution’s composite score must be at least 1.5 for the institution to be deemed financially responsible without the need for further Department of Education oversight. The Company’s composite scores for fiscal years 2025 and 2024 were 2.6 and 2.8, respectively. The financial responsibility requirements also include standards pertaining to the University’s audit reports, its timely return of Title IV program funds in respect of withdrawn students, and other criteria, including the content of its reports on compliance and internal controls and its standing with regulators and accreditors. See Item 1,

“Business—Regulatory Environment—Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Standards of Financial Responsibility.”

In addition to the above, new Department of Education financial responsibility regulations that took effect on July 1, 2024 revised the timing for submission of audit reports and identified events that constitute a failure of an institution to demonstrate its ability to meet its financial obligations, including certain mandatory triggering events upon which an institution is deemed automatically to lack financial responsibility. Mandatory triggering events include certain final monetary judgments or settlements in legal proceedings, certain borrower defense recoupment proceedings initiated by the Department of Education, receiving at least 50% of Title IV program funds in the prior year from programs that are failing the Department of Education’s new gainful employment metrics, certain actions by the SEC, certain creditor events, and failing to comply with certain other metrics related to the 90/10 Rule (as defined below) and an institution’s cohort default rates. Thus, for example, if the University were to fail to meet the requirements of the 90/10 Rule for any fiscal year, that failure would be a mandatory trigger that would constitute an automatic failure of financial responsibility. The University’s 90/10 Rule percentage was 88.6% for fiscal year 2025, and there is no assurance that we will continue to comply with the 90/10 Rule in the future. See “—The University may lose eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if the percentage of our revenue derived from federal funding sources is too high.” The regulations also identified new discretionary triggering events, upon which the Department of Education may determine that the institution lacks financial responsibility, including, among other things, the occurrence of: specified defaults, delinquencies, creditor events, and judgments; significant fluctuations in volume of Title IV program funds from year to year; high annual dropout rates; the formation of a group process by the Department of Education with respect to recoupment of pending BDR claims; for an institution owned at least 50% by a publicly traded entity, a disclosure by the entity in a public filing that it is under investigation for possible violations of state, federal or foreign law; certain other state, federal, and accreditation regulatory actions; or any other event or condition that the Department of Education determines is likely to have a “significant adverse effect” on the financial condition of the institution. Thus, for example, if the Department of Education were to decide to pursue recoupment against us with respect to our pending BDR claims via a group process, it could then use that decision as the basis for also declaring a discretionary triggering event and a determination that we lack financial responsibility. See “—‘Borrower Defense to Repayment’ regulations may subject us to significant repayment liability for certain discharged federal student loans and require us to be provisionally certified or post a letter of credit or other security, or result in the limitation or termination of eligibility of the University to participate in Title IV programs.” An institution that suffers a triggering event and is thus determined by the Department of Education or otherwise deemed automatically to lack financial responsibility must (i) provide a letter of credit or other form of acceptable financial protection to the Department of Education and (ii) accept other conditions on its Title IV eligibility. Under these regulations, the Department of Education requires an institution to provide financial protection, including a letter of credit, if applicable, in an amount of not less than 10% of the institution’s total Title IV funding in the prior year for each individual triggering event, such that multiple triggering events could subject an institution to substantial cumulative financial protection obligations.

If, in the future, we fail to satisfy the Department of Education’s financial responsibility standards, including due to the existence of mandatory or discretionary triggering events, we could be limited in our access to or lose Title IV program funding, be required to post a letter of credit in favor of the Department of Education, and/or accept provisional certification or other operating restrictions on our participation in Title IV programs, any of which could have a material adverse effect on enrollments and our financial condition, cash flows and results of operations. Additionally, the University’s ability to offer distance education programs could be impacted if our composite score falls below 1.5, as that would affect our ability to participate in the national State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (“SARA”). See “—If we fail to maintain any of our state authorizations, we will lose our ability to operate in that state and to participate in Title IV programs.”

If we do not comply with the Department of Education’s administrative capability standards, we could suffer financial penalties, be required to accept other limitations in order to continue participating in Title IV programs, or lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs.

Department of Education regulations specify extensive criteria an institution must satisfy to establish that it has the requisite administrative capability to participate in Title IV programs. These criteria impose requirements that, among other things, an institution administer Title IV programs in accordance with all applicable federal student financial aid requirements, with adequate checks and balances in its system of internal controls over financial reporting, and with capable and sufficient personnel. See the risks to the University described under the heading “

—If our institution fails to maintain adequate systems and processes to detect and prevent fraudulent activity in student enrollment and financial aid, our institution may lose the ability to participate in Title IV programs, Department of Defense military tuition assistance programs, Department of Veterans Affairs veterans education benefit programs, or have participation in these programs conditioned or limited, or face claims from third parties.” The criteria further include, among other requirements, that the institution maintain certain records and reporting, reasonable standards for measuring satisfactory academic progress, and systems for resolving certain financial aid discrepancies. Recent amendments by the Department of Education to the administrative capability regulations, which became effective July 1, 2024, impose additional requirements, including revised and new criteria regarding an institution’s validation of high school diplomas, financial aid counseling, career services, provision of clinical or externship opportunities, disbursement of Title IV funds, offering of gainful employment programs, substantial misrepresentations, and aggressive and deceptive recruitment tactics or conduct. The recent amendments also provide the Department of Education with increased and explicit authority to make an adverse administrative capability finding based on a broader set of issues than it has used historically. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Administrative Capability.” If we fail to satisfy any of these criteria, the Department of Education may determine that we lack administrative capability and, therefore, subject us to fines, sanctions, and additional scrutiny, including the limitation, denial, or termination of eligibility for Title IV programs, which could significantly reduce enrollments and revenue, and materially and adversely affect our business and financial condition.

The University may lose eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if the percentage of our revenue derived from federal funding sources is too high.

The University, and all other proprietary institutions of higher education, are subject to the so-called “90/10 Rule” under the Higher Education Act. Under this rule, a proprietary institution will be ineligible to participate in Title IV programs for at least two fiscal years if, for any two consecutive fiscal years, it derives more than 90% of its cash basis revenue, as defined in the rule, from Title IV programs or other qualifying federal funding sources, including tuition assistance programs offered by the U.S. Department of Defense (military tuition assistance) and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (veterans education benefits). If an institution is determined to be ineligible, any disbursements of Title IV program funds made after the end of the institution’s second fiscal year in the measuring period must be repaid to the Department of Education. An institution that derives more than 90% of its cash basis revenue from Title IV programs or other qualifying federal funding sources for any single fiscal year will be automatically placed on provisional certification for two fiscal years and will be subject to possible additional sanctions or requirements determined to be appropriate under the circumstances by the Department of Education. The institution would also be required to provide notice to existing students about the potential loss of Title IV funding. While the Department of Education has broad discretion to impose additional sanctions or requirements on such an institution, there is only limited precedent available to predict what those sanctions might be. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—90/10 Rule.”

The University’s 90/10 Rule percentages were 88.6% and 88.3% for fiscal years 2025 and 2024, respectively. The University has no direct control over the amount of Title IV student loans and grants sought and other federal funds for which its students are determined to be eligible.

If the University’s 90/10 Rule percentage is projected to exceed or exceeds 90% for a given fiscal year, we may be required to take measures to reduce the percentage of revenue that we derive from Title IV program funds or other qualifying federal funds we receive. Such measures could involve actions that reduce our revenue, increase our operating expenses, and/or increase our tuition in order to capture more revenue from sources other than Title IV programs and other qualifying federal funds (thus rendering us less competitive), in each case perhaps significantly. In addition, we may be required to make operational or programmatic changes in the future in order to remain in compliance with the 90/10 Rule, and such changes may materially and adversely impact our business and financial condition. Furthermore, these required changes could make it more difficult to comply with other important regulatory requirements, including the financial responsibility rules described above.

Finally, some state legislatures have in the past proposed legislation that would prohibit institutions from enrolling residents based on even more restrictive funding thresholds than the current federal 90/10 Rule, failure to comply with which could lead to monetary fines, penalties, limitations on offering programs, and/or ultimate loss of operating or degree granting authority in the various states where the University maintains physical operations or, potentially, where its distance education students reside, particularly to the extent that the SARA requirements would

be amended to allow such individual state requirements. We expect that states with legislatures, governors or attorneys general that have a particular focus on the higher education industry will continue to pose significant risks in this area.

Any failure to comply with the Department of Education’s “gainful employment” metrics and financial transparency regulations could limit the programs we can offer students, the Title IV eligibility of the impacted programs and/or increase our cost of operations.

Under the Higher Education Act, proprietary schools are generally eligible to participate in Title IV programs only in respect of educational programs that lead to “gainful employment in a recognized occupation.” An initial attempt by the Department of Education in 2010 to promulgate, for the first time, regulations that would have applied program-specific, student outcome-based eligibility criteria to determine whether individual educational programs offered by proprietary schools led to “gainful employment” were judicially rejected prior to implementation. Subsequently revised regulations were implemented by the Department of Education in 2014 but later repealed in 2020. In October 2023, the Department of Education released new financial value transparency and gainful employment regulations, which became effective July 1, 2024, that established two independent “gainful employment” metrics. To maintain Title IV eligibility, an institution must comply with both metrics, along with a related financial value transparency regulation (as described below). The two gainful employment metrics are (i) a debt-to-earnings ratio that compares the median earnings of graduates who received federal financial aid to the median annual payments on loan debt borrowed for the program, and (ii) an earnings premium test that measures whether the typical graduate from a program who received federal financial aid earns more than a typical high school graduate in the same state (or, in some cases, nationally) and within a certain age range in the labor force. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Gainful Employment and Financial Value Transparency.” Any program that fails either or both metrics in a single year would be required to disclose such failure to students, and any program that fails the same metric in any two out of three consecutive years, or is voluntarily discontinued by the institution, would not be eligible to have Title IV reinstated for a minimum of three years. Nearly all programs at the University would be subject to evaluation under these “gainful employment” regulations. The Department of Education has not released gainful employment metrics and it is unknown when metrics will be released. At this time, it is difficult to predict which of our programs may not satisfy the gainful employment metrics.

The Department of Education’s financial value transparency rule requires all colleges to provide certain student and financial information about their programs to the Department of Education. That information, including student debt burdens and program costs, will be published on a Department of Education consumer-facing website to help students make informed enrollment decisions. Beginning in 2026, a student interested in a program deemed to leave students with high debt burdens will need to acknowledge having seen that information before they can enroll.

Our ability to satisfy the gainful employment metrics for certain of our programs will be subject to some extent on factors outside of our control, including, but not limited to, general economic conditions affecting our graduates, changes in labor markets, increases in student borrowing levels, increases in interest rates, changes in the federal poverty income levels, and changes in the percentage of our former students who are current in repayment of their student loans. Additionally, certain programs we offer that typically lead to lower-paying, service-oriented professions may be unable to satisfy the gainful employment metrics and have to be discontinued in order for the University to maintain Title IV eligibility. Additionally, future enrollments could also be impacted if students were required by the transparency rule to acknowledge that the program they are interested in has been known to leave students with high debt burdens. Even if we were able to correct any deficiency in the gainful employment metrics in a timely manner so that the impacted program did not lose Title IV eligibility, the disclosure requirements associated with a program’s failure to meet at least one metric may adversely affect our reputation. Each of these impacts could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Gainful Employment and Financial Value Transparency.” In addition, it is uncertain whether or how the Department of Education will modify the current gainful employment and financial value transparency rules as a result of the recent amendments to the Higher Education Act introducing the new program eligibility requirements based on student earning outcomes, or for other purposes. See “—Recent action by Congress that revised the laws governing federal student financial aid programs, including changes to the level of federal student aid funding available to our students and to the requirements educational programs must meet to qualify for such funding, could reduce our enrollment and revenue, and increase our costs of operation.”

If we fail to maintain our institutional accreditation, or our institutional accrediting body loses recognition by the Department of Education, we will lose our ability to participate in Title IV programs.

An institution must be accredited by an accrediting commission recognized by the Department of Education in order to participate in Title IV programs. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment” and “Business—Regulatory Environment—Accreditation.” The University is institutionally accredited by the HLC, which satisfies this requirement. In January 2023, the HLC reaffirmed the accreditation of the University for a 10-year period ending in 2032-33. To remain accredited, we must continuously meet accreditation standards relating to, among other things, performance, governance, institutional integrity, educational quality, faculty, administrative capability, resources, and financial stability. If we fail to satisfy any of the HLC’s standards, we would be subject to additional oversight and reporting requirements, accreditation proceedings such as a show-cause directive, an action to defer or deny any application for a new grant of accreditation, an action to suspend our accreditation or a program’s approval, or other negative actions. Future inquiries or actions by state or federal agencies could negatively impact our accreditation status. If our institutions or programs are subject to accreditation actions or are placed on probationary or other negative accreditation status, we may experience adverse publicity, impaired ability to attract and retain students and substantial expense to obtain unqualified accreditation status. The inability to obtain reaccreditation following period reviews or any final loss of accreditation by the HLC would cause us to lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, cause a significant decline in our total student enrollments and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, if the Department of Education ceased to recognize the HLC for any reason, the University would not be eligible to participate in Title IV programs beginning 18 months after the date such recognition ceased unless the HLC was again recognized by, or the University was accredited by another accrediting body recognized by, the Department of Education. If the HLC ceased to be recognized by the Department of Education and the University failed to timely obtain replacement institutional accreditation within the required timeframe, the University would cease to be eligible to participate in Title IV programs and our business would no longer be sustainable in its current form.

If we fail to satisfy the various accreditation standards of our programmatic accreditors, or fail to satisfy state licensure and certification requirements applicable to our professional licensing programs, we could face restrictions on, or the loss of accreditation for or the ability to offer, certain programs.

The University offers various professional licensing programs in nursing, education, counseling, and social work that are accredited by specialized accrediting agencies. See Item 1, “Business—Accreditation and Jurisdictional Authorizations.” The University is subject to the oversight of these programmatic accreditors and must satisfactorily prove its programs, or any new programs that it seeks to offer, meet the standards of accreditation for that profession. Moreover, the University is required to participate in ongoing accreditation reviews and be responsive to any accreditation standards concerns. Additionally, and in accordance with state and federal requirements, the University’s professional licensing programs must meet all specific state requirements for licensure and certification in any state where the program is offered so that graduates of these programs may pursue licensure and certification in their state. The University must maintain and continually monitor the licensing and certification requirements in every state where it offers its professional licensing programs and must meet student notification requirements in the event a student moves to a different jurisdiction or if a program fails to meet the licensing requirements in any given state. If we fail to satisfy the standards of any of those specialized accrediting commissions or state agencies, we could lose the specialized accreditation or the state approval for the affected programs, which could prevent our students from seeking and obtaining licensure or employment, result in materially reduced student enrollments in those programs and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. See “—If any of the education regulatory agencies that regulate us delay their approval of, or do not approve, any transaction involving us that constitutes a “change in control,” our ability to operate or participate in Title IV programs may be materially impaired.” See also “—Failure of the University to resolve examination pass rate concerns with the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education could result in potential action by the accreditor to limit or remove accreditation from all of the University’s Master of Science in Nursing programs.” In addition, if the University seeks initial accreditation of a new program, and that accreditation is denied, the University would be required to report the denial to the HLC and potentially other regulators which could have regulatory consequences to the University, result in reputational damage and materially impact the University’s enrollment and financial results.

Failure of the University to resolve examination pass rate concerns with the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education could result in potential action by the accreditor to limit or remove accreditation from all of the University’s Master of Science in Nursing programs.

The University’s Master of Science in Nursing / Family Nurse Practitioner (“MSN/FNP”) program, which represented less than 1.0% of the University’s fiscal year 2025 revenue, is accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (“CCNE”). The CCNE requires, among other things, that programs leading to additional certification (such as the MSN/FNP program) demonstrate pass rates on applicable certification exams of at least 80%. From 2021 to 2023, the pass rates for the University’s MSN/FNP program decreased from 78% to 65%. The University has been continuously working closely with the CCNE and has undertaken a detailed and significant action plan with respect to curriculum revisions and other actions designed to improve the pass rates. These actions resulted in an increase for the calendar year 2024 pass rate to 78%. At its meeting in September 2025, the CCNE granted reaccreditation to the University’s Master of Science in Nursing program for 10 years, until September 2035. Although the CCNE determined that the program substantially complied with all accreditation standards, .it determined that the certification pass rate remained a concern. The University is required to file a compliance report to the CCNE by December 1, 2026 demonstrating compliance with the pass rate requirement of 80%.

While a withdrawal of accreditation may not have an immediate material impact on our revenue, it could be harmful to our reputation and lead to claims from former students or other materially adverse consequences.

If we fail to maintain our state authorization, we would lose our ability to participate in Title IV programs.

To operate and offer postsecondary programs, and to be certified to participate in Title IV programs, we must be authorized to operate by the appropriate post-secondary regulatory authority in each state where we have a physical presence. We are domiciled in the state of Arizona and are authorized to operate there by the Arizona State Board. To maintain our state authorization, we must continuously meet standards relating to, among other things, educational programs, facilities, instructional and administrative staff, marketing and recruitment, financial operations, addition of new locations and educational programs, and various operational and administrative procedures. If we fail to satisfy any of these standards, we could lose our state authorization, which would also cause us to lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.

In addition, substantially all of the University’s enrolled students attend our programs online and, in order to participate in the Title IV programs, the University must be authorized to offer its distance education programs in any jurisdiction where it enrolls students in its online programs. The University holds this authorization as an approved participating institution of its home state (Arizona) in SARA. All states except California are members of the SARA compact. As a participating member of SARA, the University is authorized to offer its approved distance education programs to residents of other member states under the structure and oversight of SARA. SARA is recognized by the Department of Education as a method of state authorization for distance education programs. The University is also registered as an out-of-state institution with the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education to offer its distance education programs to California students. Whether through direct authorization from states, or through participation in the SARA compact, the University is authorized to offer its approved educational programs at its physical locations and online and must continue to maintain such authorization to effectively operate its business.

agencies that regulate us delay their approval of, or do not approve, any transaction involving us that constitutes a “change in control,” our ability to operate or participate in Title IV programs may be materially impaired.”

If the University fails to maintain authorized status in its home state, or otherwise fails to comply with the requirements to participate in SARA or state regulatory requirements to provide distance education in a non-SARA state, the University could lose its ability to participate in SARA or may be subject to the loss of state licensure in Arizona or authorization to provide distance education in such non-SARA state, which could have a material adverse effect on the University. Moreover, pursuant to SARA policy, a change in ownership or control for a SARA participating institution is determined by the institution’s home state. Accordingly, if the Arizona State Board were to determine that a subsequent offering or transaction constitutes a change of ownership or control, the University would be required to complete a reauthorization for approval in Arizona as well as a reauthorization under SARA. During the pendency of any such change of control process with Arizona, the University would be placed on provisional status with SARA and would be required to meet any conditions or requirements deemed appropriate by Arizona. See “—If any of the education regulatory agencies that regulate us delay their approval of, or do not approve, any transaction involving us that constitutes a “change in control,” our ability to operate or participate in Title IV programs may be materially impaired.” Participation in SARA requires that we comply with the Department of Education’s financial responsibility rules, among numerous other requirements. Furthermore, the Department of Education has recently proposed regulations that would allow individual states to impose their own new and diverse requirements (in conjunction with the ongoing application of SARA policies) on institutions offering programs in such individual states. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—State Regulation.” While these regulations have not been adopted to date, if the Department of Education regulations that recognize reciprocity agreements for state authorization purposes were modified in such a fashion, that departure from reciprocity with the institutions’ home states would adversely affect the University and would reduce or eliminate the regulatory and operational efficiency that the University enjoys in operating under SARA. Furthermore, we cannot predict the extent to which states will retain membership in SARA, the manner in which SARA’s policies may be modified, interpreted, and enforced, our ability to comply with SARA’s requirements and retain eligibility, or the impact that failure to meet the SARA requirements may have on our business.

If our graduates are unable to obtain professional licenses or certifications required for employment in their chosen fields of study, our reputation may suffer and we may face declining enrollments and revenue or be subject to student litigation.

Certain of our students require or desire professional licenses or certifications after graduation to obtain employment in their chosen fields. Their success in obtaining such licensure depends on several factors, including the individual merits of the student, whether the institution and the program were approved by the relevant government or by the relevant state regulatory authorities, whether the program from which the student graduated meets all professional licensure educational requirements and whether the program is accredited in accordance with state requirements. If one or more state professional licensing authorities refuses to recognize our graduates for professional licensure in the future based on factors relating to us or our programs, the potential growth of our programs would be negatively affected, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, we could be exposed to litigation that would force us to incur legal and other expenses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

For example, the University recently learned that a Mississippi student in its Bachelor of Science in Education/Early Childhood Education (BSED/ECH) program was denied teacher licensure in Mississippi. The University’s teacher licensure students complete an Arizona program that makes them eligible for a Mississippi teacher license via reciprocity. Graduates of this program must first obtain an Arizona teacher license prior to applying for licensure in Mississippi. The subject student received an Arizona license but upon application to Mississippi for licensure, was denied because of a deficiency related to a specific course. This licensure denial appears to be a change in interpretation by the Mississippi Department of Education of the Mississippi licensure requirements, as previous graduates of the BSED/ECH program have received Mississippi teacher licensure via reciprocity despite the same purported deficiency. Effective September 1, 2025, the University has updated its curriculum to require Mississippi students to complete the applicable courses in their program before applying for Arizona licensure.

We may lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if our student loan default rates are too high.

To remain eligible to participate in Title IV programs, an educational institution’s student loan cohort default rates must remain below certain specified levels. Each cohort is the group of students who first enter into student loan repayment during a federal fiscal year (ending September 30), and the default rate is the percentage of that cohort who default on their payment by the end of the second full year after such repayment start date. The cohort default rates are published by the Department of Education approximately 12 months after the end of the applicable measuring period. Thus, in September 2025, the Department of Education published the cohort default rates for the 2022 cohort. An educational institution loses eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if its cohort default rate equals or exceeds 40% for any given year or 30% for three consecutive years. If an institution’s cohort default rate equals or exceeds 30% for any given year, it must establish a default prevention task force and develop a default prevention plan with measurable objectives for improving the cohort default rate. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Student Loan Cohort Default Rates.” As part of the federal relief enacted regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, federal student loan payments were paused until September 1, 2023, causing three-year cohort default rates to decline significantly beginning in 2020. The restarting of payment obligations in September 2023 following the multi-year COVID-19 interruption is expected to cause a material increase in reported rates, which are not yet known. Although our cohort default rates, even prior to the COVID-19 pause, have historically been significantly below the mandated levels, any increase in interest rates or declines in income or job losses for our students could contribute to higher default rates on student loans. While we anticipate that there will be substantial increases in cohort default rates among institutions generally and that our rates will also increase, we cannot predict the extent of any such increases in our cohort default rates or how our future rates will compare to our historical pre-pandemic levels and to the Department of Education’s student loan default rate thresholds. Exceeding the student loan default rate thresholds and losing our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs would have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, and results of operations. Any future changes in the formula for calculating student loan default rates, economic conditions, or other factors that cause our default rates to increase could threaten our eligibility to participate in some or all of the Title IV programs and have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results. In addition, if Congress or the Department of Education restricts permitted types of default prevention assistance, the default rates of our former students may be negatively impacted.

If we fail to comply with the Department of Education’s incentive compensation rule, we could be subject to sanctions and other liabilities.

As part of an institution’s PPA with the Department of Education and under the Higher Education Act and Title IV regulations, an institution participating in Title IV programs cannot provide any commission, bonus, or other incentive payment based directly or indirectly on success in securing enrollments or the award of Title IV financial aid to any persons or entities engaged in any student recruiting or admission activities or in making decisions regarding the award of student financial assistance. The restrictions of this incentive compensation rule, which extend to any third-party companies that an educational institution contracts with for student recruitment, admissions, or financial aid awarding services, prohibit us from offering any bonus or incentive-based compensation based on the successful recruitment, admission or enrollment of students or the award of Title IV financial aid to any of our employees involved with or responsible for such activities. The lack of interpretive guidance regarding the rule, however, has caused uncertainty about what constitutes incentive compensation and which employees are covered by the regulation and has made the development of effective and compliant performance metrics for certain categories of employees or service providers more difficult to establish. If the University pays a bonus, commission, or other incentive payment in violation of applicable Department of Education rules or if the Department of Education or other third parties interpret the University’s compensation practices as noncompliant, the University could be subject to sanctions, litigation, or other liability. Such failure and resulting penalties, fines or liabilities may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Restrictions on Incentive Compensation.”

If we fail to comply with the Department of Education’s misrepresentation rules or its rules prohibiting aggressive and deceptive recruitment tactics, we could be subject to sanctions and other liabilities.

The Higher Education Act prohibits an institution that participates in Title IV programs from engaging in “substantial misrepresentation” of the nature of its educational programs, its financial charges, or the employability of its graduates. The Department of Education defines “misrepresentation” to include any false, erroneous or

misleading statement made by an institution or its representative. A statement is deemed “misleading” if it has the likelihood or tendency to mislead under the circumstances. Misrepresentations also include statements that omit information in such a way as to make the statement false, erroneous, or misleading. A misrepresentation rises to the level of a “substantial misrepresentation” if, under the totality of circumstances, the misrepresentation could reasonably be relied upon to that person’s detriment. In recent years, the Department of Education has increased its efforts to hold institutions accountable for substantial misrepresentations. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Substantial Misrepresentation.” In addition, Department of Education regulations prohibit an institution that participates in Title IV programs, any of its representatives, or any ineligible institution, organization, or person with whom the eligible institution has an agreement to provide educational programs, marketing, advertising, lead generation, recruiting or admissions services, from engaging in activities that constitute aggressive and deceptive recruitment tactics or conduct. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Aggressive and Deceptive Recruitment Tactics.” If the Department of Education were to interpret statements made by the University or on the University’s behalf to be in violation of the misrepresentation rules or the aggressive and deceptive recruitment rules, it could terminate, limit or suspend our participation in Title IV programs, deny our applications to add new programs or locations, or initiate other proceedings or sanctions, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.

If any of the education regulatory agencies that regulate us delay their approval of, or do not approve, any transaction involving us that constitutes a “change in control,” our ability to operate or participate in Title IV programs may be materially impaired.

If the University engages in a transaction that involves a change in control of the Company or the University, as such term is defined under the standards of the Department of Education, the HLC, or any other applicable state education agency or accrediting commission, it must notify or seek the approval of each such agency. These agencies do not have uniform criteria for what constitutes a change in control. Transactions or events that typically constitute a change in control include significant acquisitions or dispositions of the voting stock and/or assets of an institution or its parent company, and significant changes in the corporate form, governance structure, or composition of the board of directors of an institution or its parent company. Some of these transactions or events may be beyond our control. Our failure to obtain, or a delay in receiving, approval of any change in control from the Department of Education, the HLC, or any other applicable state education agency or accrediting commission, including with respect to a future offering of our common stock, could impair our ability to operate or participate in Title IV programs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Our failure to obtain, or a delay in receiving, approval of any change in control from any other state in which we are currently licensed or authorized, or from any of our specialized accrediting commissions, could require us to suspend our activities in that state or suspend offering the applicable programs until we receive the required approval, or could otherwise impair our operations. The potential adverse effects of a change in control could influence future decisions by us and our stockholders regarding the sale, purchase, transfer, issuance, or redemption of our stock, which could discourage bids for your shares of our stock and could have an adverse effect on the market price of your shares.

Under the Department of Education’s regulations, an institution that undergoes a change in control loses its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs and must apply to the Department of Education to reestablish such eligibility. We submitted a description of the IPO to the Department of Education in March 2025, asking that it confirm our understanding that the IPO would not constitute a change in control under Department of Education standards. While there is no formal mechanism for making this request to the Department of Education and the Department of Education is not required to provide any such requested confirmation, on April 22, 2025, the Department of Education confirmed to us that the IPO would not constitute a change in ownership resulting in a change in control. While the Department of Education confirmed that our IPO did not constitute a change in ownership resulting in a change of control, if the Department were to reconsider the confirmation, or if it determines that future offerings or transactions do constitute a change in control under their standards, the University would be subject to a recertification approval requirement that would include extensive documentary submission requirements and to reviews by the Department of Education of the University’s financial and administrative capability and to extensive prior review and approval procedures by the HLC. Under some circumstances, the Department of Education may continue an institution’s participation in Title IV programs on a provisional basis pending completion of the change in control approval process. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Change in Ownership or Control.”

The HLC informed the University that the IPO did not require prior review and approval by the HLC under the HLC’s policies governing changes of control, structure, or organization. However, future offerings or transactions may constitute a change in ownership or control of the University under the HLC standards and may therefore require approval of the HLC Board of Trustees, in which case the HLC may undertake an evaluation of the effect of the change on the continuing operations of the University for purposes of determining if continued accreditation is appropriate, which evaluation may include a comprehensive review. Any requested approval from the HLC may be granted by the HLC without conditions, or with conditions that could limit the University’s operations, or could be denied, which would effectively block the applicable offering.

In addition, Arizona rules state that the Arizona State Board must approve certain changes of ownership or control, including but not limited to a transfer of 50% or more of a privately held institution’s voting stock or assets or a change from one business form to another. An institution that undergoes a change of ownership or control must submit written notification within seven days of the effective date of the change and must submit a license application including all required documentation that demonstrates the University meets the applicable statutory and licensure requirements of the Arizona State Board no later than 60 days after the date of written notice. The application process requires the submission of substantial information and documentation, including with respect to our accreditation, corporate ownership, educational programs, financial responsibility, and other matters as may be deemed relevant to determining the University’s compliance with all licensing requirements, including, potentially, an inspection of the University’s place of business. The Arizona State Board’s approval requirements may be triggered by future offerings or transactions that constitute a change in ownership or control under their standards. If such a required Arizona State Board approval were delayed or the University’s application for reauthorization were denied approval, such consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.

Moreover, pursuant to SARA policy, a change of ownership or control for a SARA participating institution is determined by the institution’s home state. Accordingly, if the Arizona State Board were to determine that a subsequent offering or transaction constitutes a change of ownership or control requiring its approval, the University would be placed on provisional status under such additional oversight measures as its home state considers necessary for purposes of ensuring SARA requirements are met regarding program quality, financial stability, and consumer protection during the pendency of the change of control. If the University were not successful in meeting requirements as set by the Arizona State Board, or in completing the change of control procedures and subsequent reauthorizations with Arizona and SARA, we could lose Arizona and SARA authorization and no longer be able to enroll distance education students unless and until the University is reauthorized in Arizona and subsequently SARA, or obtains individual authorizations in each state. This could have a significant impact on the University’s ability to compete in the distance education market, as well as on the University’s financial performance, and make it vulnerable to additional challenges in obtaining authorization in individual states.

California is not a member of the SARA compact, and the University is registered as an out-of-state institution with the California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education to offer its distance education programs to California students. Unless California decides to join SARA as a member state, the University must continue to maintain its individual state authorization through registration as an out-of-state institution. If California’s regulations or statutes were to change, the University would need to comply with those changes to continue its separate authorization to offer distance education to California students. If the University was not able to meet California’s state authorization requirements to offer distance education in the future, such consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.

The University maintains certain programmatic, specialized accreditation. Those specialized accreditors could determine that future offerings constitute a substantive change requiring their further review and approval, such processes would trigger additional accreditor and specialized state board or agency evaluation of our educational programs and of our compliance with the applicable standards and requirements of those agencies. If any such further required programmatic, specialized accreditor or specialized state board or agency processes were delayed, or if any programmatically accredited educational program or program approved by a specialized state board or agency were denied approval, such consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.

The University is subject to sanctions if it fails to calculate accurately and make timely payment of refunds of Title IV program funds for students who withdraw from the University.

The Higher Education Act and the Department of Education’s regulations require the University to calculate refunds of unearned Title IV program funds awarded or disbursed to students who withdraw from their educational program before completing the payment period or period of enrollment for which those funds were awarded or disbursed and to return those unearned funds to the Department of Education in a timely manner, within 45 days of the date the University determines that the student has withdrawn. If refunds are not properly calculated or timely returned for a sufficient percentage of students, the University may be required to post a letter of credit with the Department of Education or be subject to sanctions, liabilities or other adverse actions by the Department of Education. Such consequences could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Return of Title IV Funds.”

If our institution fails to maintain adequate systems and processes to detect and prevent fraudulent activity in student enrollment and financial aid, our institution may lose the ability to participate in Title IV programs, Department of Defense military tuition assistance programs, or Department of Veterans Affairs veterans’ education benefits programs, or have participation in these programs conditioned or limited, or face claims from third parties.

Institutions must maintain systems and processes to identify and prevent fraudulent applications for enrollment and financial aid. We have been the target of fraudulent and abusive activity, including related to efforts by unqualified third parties to apply to and enroll in our programs and obtain Title IV program funds, and believe that the risk to us of outside parties attempting to perpetrate fraud in connection with the award and disbursement of Title IV program funds, including as a result of identity theft, is heightened due to our being an almost exclusively online education provider. In recent periods, we, and other institutions like us, have experienced a measurable increase in these types of suspicious activities resulting in greater numbers of fraudulent applications and enrollments, including by persons receiving the Title IV funds. Accordingly, we have implemented additional checks and balances to supplement our processes aimed at ensuring that only qualified persons apply to and enroll in our programs and seek or obtain the Title IV program funds. The Department of Education recently issued new guidance regarding institutions’ responsibilities to prevent fraud and protect the integrity of the Title IV programs. If the systems and processes that our institution has established to detect and prevent fraud, or our administration of Title IV programs, military tuition assistance, or veterans’ education benefits are deemed inadequate or noncompliant in connection with preventing these suspicious activities, the Department of Education may find that our institution has failed to comply with Title IV requirements, including but not limited to the Department of Education’s administrative capability requirements. See “—If we do not comply with the Department of Education’s administrative capability standards, we could suffer financial penalties, be required to accept other limitations in order to continue participating in the Title IV programs, or lose our eligibility to participate in the Title IV programs.” Any significant failure to adequately detect fraudulent activity related to student enrollment and financial aid could cause us to fail to meet accreditor standards, or could subject us to complaints or claims by affected third parties. Furthermore, accrediting agencies that evaluate institutions offering online programs require such institutions to have processes to establish that a student who registers for such a program is the same student who participates in and receives credit for such program. Our failure to meet the requirements of the Department of Education could result in audits, investigations, and adverse findings and recommendations by its Office of Inspector General, in the assertion of liabilities by the Department of Education for the return of Title IV funds or the loss of accreditation, which could result in the loss of our ability to participate in Title IV programs or other federal assistance programs or in enforcement actions against the University, each of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.

The U.S. political and economic environment, including the legal, regulatory, administrative and policy changes being pursued by the new U.S. presidential administration, may materially affect our business operations and financial performance.

In recent decades, our industry has faced an uncertain political and economic environment as important legal, regulatory and policy approaches to higher education in the United States have changed from administration to administration and as a result of changes in Congressional control. Changes in federal policy by the executive branch and regulatory agencies may occur over time through a new presidential administration’s executive orders or policy and personnel changes or through a new Congress’ legislative priorities, each of which can lead to increased oversight

of education providers, additional regulations, new interpretations of existing regulations, and/or uncertainty as to the impact of new regulations on those implemented by prior administrations. For example, in addition to the impact that the recent changes to the Higher Education Act may have on the participation by some of our students or programs in the federal student aid programs, those amendments also create uncertainty as to what impact new regulations and policies implementing those statutory changes may have on the University and its administration of the Title IV programs. Overall, these changes from administration to administration have materially increased our regulatory and compliance costs over time.

Executive actions and executive orders, as well as any tandem regulatory changes, implemented by the new administration and its appointees, such as the executive order requiring the elimination of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, can require significant management attention to understand and assure compliance and may require changes in our business operations or programs. Others could turn out to be favorable to our industry. For example, in April 2025, the new administration signed a memorandum directing executive agencies to rescind regulations that are unlawful under recent Supreme Court decisions, which could result in certain agencies overturning one or more regulations to which we are currently subject. Still others could adversely impact our industry, including from an administrative perspective, if announced reductions in employee headcount and funding at the Department of Education and other applicable agencies, or steps being taken to seek the closure of the Department of Education and the reallocation of certain of its functions to other branches of the federal government, result in slower processing of Title IV matters, program approvals, or other applicable functions that directly or indirectly impact our operations and business. In this regard, in March 2025, the Department of Education implemented an extensive reduction in force and the President issued an executive order directing the Secretary of Education “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities . . .” On May 22, 2025, a U.S. District Court preliminarily enjoined the Department of Education from carrying out the reduction in force and the executive order, and on June 6, 2025, the government asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction, which the Supreme Court granted on July 14, 2025. That litigation remains ongoing. The reductions in the Department of Education workforce, plans for closure of the Department of Education, and other future changes in federal laws and regulations and the interpretation and implementation of such laws and regulations, could affect us in substantial and unpredictable ways. We cannot predict what additional actions the new administration will take with respect to the operations of the Department of Education or the response of the staff of the Department of Education to any such actions; the extent to which the new administration and Congress, or any future administration or Congress, will act to change or eliminate or implement new statutes, regulations, standards, policies, and practices; the form that new statutes, regulations, standards, policies, or practices may take or the extent to which those statutes, regulations, practices or policies may impact us or federal funds disbursed to schools through federal financial aid programs; or whether any challenges to actions taken by the new administration will be successful. Significant changes to the Department of Education or to federal regulation of higher education could have a material adverse impact on our enrollment, revenue, results of operations, and financial condition. In addition, we expect our regulatory and compliance costs to continue to increase for the foreseeable future, which will adversely affect our financial performance.

Additionally, levels of U.S. federal government spending are difficult to predict. Considerable uncertainty exists regarding the spending priorities of the new U.S. presidential administration and Congress and how future budget and program decisions will unfold, including the extent to which future spending reductions may impact us and our industry generally. The U.S. federal government recently experienced a shutdown due to a failure by Congress to timely enact funding bills needed for the new fiscal year. The shutdown modestly impacted military tuition assistance funding for some of our students. Although the shutdown has ended, the legislation that ended the funding lapse extends most federal funding only through January 30, 2026, while fully funding a few agencies for the full year. Accordingly, additional shutdowns may occur in the future, possibly beginning as early as February 2026. Future shutdowns may have a pronounced and substantial effect on access to federal student aid for our students and for the University, including but not limited to, military tuition assistance and other military benefits programs. Future government shutdowns, and other suspensions, interruptions, delays, or cessations of governmental funding or changes to the U.S. federal government’s budget and budgetary priorities could adversely affect the funding of federal programs providing financial assistance to our students, which could in turn adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results.

Our unauthorized release of, or failure to secure, confidential information could subject us to civil penalties or cause us to lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs.

As an educational institution participating in federal student assistance programs, we collect and retain certain confidential and personal information, including financial information regarding enrollees or their sponsors. Such information may be subject to federal and state privacy and data security rules, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Gramm Leach Bliley Act, and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The Department of Education, which is one of multiple governmental agencies with oversight authority in regard to confidential and personal information, has in recent years stated that it is exercising, and will continue to exercise, heightened scrutiny in regard to the protection of confidential and personal information by Title IV participating institutions. Our release or failure to secure confidential information or other non-compliance with these rules would likely constitute non-compliance with our obligations under our PPA with the Department of Education and under federal and state privacy and data security rules, and could subject us to fines, loss of our capacity to conduct electronic commerce, and loss of eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows.

Our reputation and our stock price may be negatively affected by the actions of other postsecondary educational institutions.

In recent years, the Department of Education, the United States Department of Justice, the SEC, the FTC, state attorneys general, and state governmental agencies, among others, have initiated regulatory proceedings and litigation against various postsecondary educational institutions, including the University, relating to, among other allegations, deceptive trade practices, false claims against the government, and non-compliance with Department of Education requirements, state education laws, and state consumer protection laws. See Item 1, “Business—Regulatory Environment—Regulation of Student Financial Aid Programs—Federal Trade Commission Investigation” and “—Attorney General Investigations.” These actions have attracted adverse media coverage and have been the subject of legislative hearings and regulatory actions at both the federal and state levels, focusing not only on the individual schools but in some cases on the larger for-profit postsecondary education sector as a whole. Adverse media coverage regarding other for-profit education companies or other educational institutions could damage our reputation, result in lower enrollments, revenue, and operating profit, and have a negative impact on our stock price. Such coverage could also result in increased scrutiny and regulation by the Department of Education, Congress, accrediting commissions, state legislatures, state attorneys general, or other governmental authorities of all educational institutions, including us.

Risks Related to Our Business

We face intense and increasing competition in the post-secondary education market, which could decrease our market share and create pricing pressures.

The post-secondary education market is highly competitive. We compete for students with traditional public and private degree-granting institutionally accredited colleges and universities, other proprietary degree-granting institutionally accredited schools and other alternatives to higher education. We also compete with various emerging non-traditional, credit-bearing and noncredit-bearing education programs, offered by both proprietary and not-for-profit providers. Some of our competitors have greater financial and non-financial resources than we have and are able to offer programs similar to ours at a lower tuition level for a variety of reasons, including the availability of direct and indirect government subsidies, government and foundation grants, large endowments, tax-deductible contributions and other financial resources not available to proprietary institutions, or by providing fewer student services or larger class sizes. In addition, a significant and increasing number of traditional four-year and community colleges, which are subject to fewer regulatory constraints, offer distance learning and other online education programs, including programs that are offered wholly online and geared towards the needs of working adults. As the proportion of traditional colleges and universities providing alternative learning modalities increases, we will face increased competition from these institutions, including those with highly regarded reputations, the degrees from which are perceived as more valuable in the workplace. We may also face increased competition in maintaining and developing new corporate and other engagements with employers, particularly as employers become more selective as to which online universities they will encourage or offer scholarships to their employees to attend and as to the online universities from which they will hire prospective employees. We may limit tuition increases or increase spending in response to competition in order to retain or attract students or pursue new market opportunities.

If we cannot effectively respond to competitors, however, it could reduce our enrollment. We cannot be sure that we will be able to compete successfully against current or future competitors or that competitive pressures faced by us will not adversely affect our market share, revenue and operating margin.

A decline in the overall growth of enrollment in post-secondary institutions, or in the number of students seeking degrees online, could lead to lower enrollment, which could negatively impact our future growth.

Based on industry analyses, enrollment growth in degree-granting, post-secondary institutions is slowing and the number of high school graduates that are eligible to enroll in degree-granting, post-secondary institutions is expected to continue to decrease over the next few years. In order to maintain current growth rates, we aim to maintain or increase market share in existing markets. Student enrollment at the University, however, is impacted by many factors, including macroeconomic conditions that are beyond our control. For example, during periods when the unemployment rate declines or remains stable, prospective students may have more employment options, leading them to choose to work rather than to pursue post-secondary education. Enrollment may also be impacted by affordability concerns and negative perceptions of the value of a college degree, which can increase prospective students’ reluctance to take on debt, including during periods of higher unemployment, and make it more challenging for us to attract and retain students, as well as demographic trends in family size, job growth in fields unrelated to our core disciplines or other societal factors. Education providers are also introducing new education and operating models focused on reducing costs and time to completion, including competency-based and adaptive learning models, intensive and immersive skills-focused bootcamps, other non-degree programs and career-focused educational pathways, tools and services. The increasing acceptance of these programs and pathways among employers as a means to fulfill the huge demand for IT and business career upskilling may make our degree programs that focus on those fields less attractive to prospective students. In addition, student enrollment may be negatively affected by our reputation and any negative publicity related to us. While we continue to make investments in our business that are designed to improve student experiences, retention and academic outcomes and support the sustainable and responsible growth of the University and our reputation, the success of these initiatives may reduce over time. Our failure to attract new students, or the decisions by prospective students to seek degrees in disciplines that we do not offer or to pursue alternative non-degree competency-based credentials rather than our degree programs, would have an adverse impact on our future growth.

Our financial performance depends on our ability to develop and maintain favorable awareness of the University among, and enroll and retain, students.

We expend significant resources on public engagement and marketing in order to build favorable awareness of the University and the programs we offer. Creating this awareness is critical to our ability to attract prospective students, to convert prospective students to enrolled students in a cost-effective manner, and to retain these enrolled students throughout their programs. Some of the factors that could prevent us from successfully enrolling and retaining students in our programs include:

•
structural changes in the marketing landscape, including fundamental changes to internet search due to AI (both organic and sponsored), and the transformation of television, that could result in less efficient student acquisition;

•
changes in the cost or efficacy of our advertising;

•
laws or other regulatory requirements that limit the amount we may spend on advertising;

•
increased competition from schools offering distance learning and other online educational programs;

•
a decrease in the perceived or actual economic benefits that students derive from our programs or education in general;

•
a decrease in or perceived low student pass rates for professional licenses and other examinations necessary for students to work in their chosen fields;

•
regulatory investigations or enforcement proceedings that may damage our or the industry’s reputation;

•
increased regulation of online education, including in states in which we do not have a physical presence;

•
litigation that may damage our or the industry’s reputation;

•
inability to continue to recruit, train and retain quality faculty;

•
student or employer dissatisfaction with the quality of our services and programs;

•
tuition rate reductions by competitors that we are unwilling or unable to match;

•
a decline in the acceptance of online education;

•
disruptions to our information technology systems; and

•
negative social media sentiment.

If one or more of these factors reduces demand for our programs, our enrollment could be negatively affected or our costs associated with each new enrollment could increase, or both, either of which could have a material adverse impact on our business and financial condition.

Our Tuition Price Guarantee program limits our ability to raise additional revenue from current students through tuition increases, and any changes to the Tuition Price Guarantee program could harm our reputation, enrollment numbers, retention rates and overall business and financial performance.

Effective January 2018, the University implemented its Tuition Price Guarantee program. Under this program, a student’s tuition price per course is frozen at the tuition rates in effect at his or her enrollment date, thereby giving each of our students certainty in the price of tuition through the duration of their programs even if rates are subsequently increased for students who enroll at later dates. The net revenue we generate in a given period largely depends on the total number of courses taken by the enrolled student population and the tuition price per course. As a result of the Tuition Price Guarantee, while we can increase tuition rates over time for new students as they enroll, we may not increase the tuition rates we charge to currently enrolled students even if our costs to provide their programs increase over their programs’ duration. Accordingly, our net revenue may be materially lower than the net revenue that could be generated if all enrolled students were subject to normal course tuition increases. In addition, because we heavily promote our Tuition Price Guarantee as a beneficial means of providing students with tuition price certainty, any modification or elimination of this program could adversely affect our reputation among current and prospective students, cause our enrollment and retention to decline, and adversely impact our business and financial performance.

The occurrence of natural or man-made catastrophes could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

Natural events, acts of God, epidemics, pandemics or other public health emergencies (such as the COVID-19 pandemic), terrorist attacks and other acts of violence, cyber-terrorism or other catastrophes could result in significant worker absenteeism, increased student attrition rates, voluntary or mandatory closure of facilities, our inability to meet dynamic employee health and safety requirements, and other disruptions to our business. In addition, these events could adversely affect, and, in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, did adversely affect, global economies, market conditions and business operations across industries worldwide, including our industry. Any of these events, their consequences or the costs related to mitigation or remediation could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If we fail to adapt to changing market needs or new technologies, our business may be adversely affected.

The nature of the skills required by employers can evolve rapidly in today’s changing economic and technological environment and our educational programs must evolve in response to these changes. While we have invested significant resources to develop and implement features that enhance the online classroom experience, such as delivering course content through streaming video, simulations, and other interactive enhancements, our existing and new programs may not meet the needs of current or prospective students or the employers of our graduates. Even if we can develop acceptable new programs that meet current market demands, we may not be able to offer those new programs as quickly as required by prospective employers or as quickly as our competitors can do so. In addition, we may be unable to obtain, or timely obtain, specialized accreditations or licenses that may make certain programs

desirable to students. If we are unable to adequately respond to changes in market requirements due to regulatory or financial constraints, unusually rapid technological changes, or other factors, our ability to attract and retain students could be impaired, the rates at which our graduates obtain jobs involving their fields of study could suffer, and our business and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Establishing new academic programs or modifying existing programs requires us to make investments, incur marketing expenses and reallocate other resources. We may have limited experience with the courses in new areas and may need to modify our systems and strategy or enter into arrangements with other educational institutions to provide new programs effectively and profitably. If we are unable to offer new programs in a cost-effective manner or are otherwise unable to effectively manage the operations of newly established academic programs, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Our strategy is to focus on positive student outcomes and the long-term success of students rather than short-term interests of our stockholders, which may negatively influence financial performance.

We may take actions that we believe will have a positive impact on student outcomes and the long-term success of students, even if these actions may not maximize our short-term or medium-term financial results for investors. We believe this focus on student outcomes and success will benefit the University in the long-term. However, these anticipated long-term benefits may be slow to materialize or may not materialize at all. Our student-centric approach may have an adverse impact on our operational and financial performance and negatively impact our stock price.

If we do not maintain existing, and develop additional, B2B relationships with employers, our business may be impaired.

We currently have relationships with large employers to provide their employees with the opportunity to obtain degrees and professional development certificates through us while continuing their employment. These relationships are an important part of our strategy, as they provide us with potential working adult students for particular programs and also increase our reputation among high-profile employers. In addition, degree-granting programs in which employers directly pay tuition have a beneficial impact on our 90/10 Rule percentage calculation by reducing the proportion of our cash basis revenue attributable to Title IV program funds. If, for whatever reason, we are unable to further grow our existing relationships or develop new relationships, if our existing relationships deteriorate or end, or if we fail to offer programs that teach skills demanded by employers, our efforts to attract potential working adult students may be impaired, which could materially and adversely affect our business and financial condition and our compliance with applicable regulations.

If we cannot attract or retain a qualified senior management team, our business could be adversely affected.

Our success to date has largely depended on, and our future performance will continue to depend on, the skills, efforts, and motivation of our senior management team, who generally have significant experience with our business and the education industry. Our future success also depends on our continued ability to attract and retain qualified personnel. The loss of the services of any of our key personnel, or our failure to attract and retain other qualified and experienced personnel on acceptable terms, could adversely affect our business results.

To effectively educate our students, we must continue to attract and retain qualified faculty members.

We employ approximately 2,400 faculty members, of which the majority are adjunct, part-time faculty. In order to effectively educate our students, we must retain a large number of faculty on an ongoing basis and keep our faculty engaged and focused on the mission of delivering quality education. If we fail to attract and retain sufficient numbers of qualified faculty members, fail to adequately train new faculty members, or allow our relations with faculty members to deteriorate, our ability to serve our students would be impaired, and we may be required to reduce the scope or number of the classes available to our students, any of which could have a material adverse impact our business.

If we are unable to successfully conclude pending litigation and governmental inquiries, our business and financial condition could be adversely affected.

In the ordinary conduct of our business, we are periodically subject to lawsuits, demands in arbitrations, investigations, regulatory proceedings or other claims, including, but not limited to, claims involving current and former students, routine employment matters, business disputes and regulatory demands. See Item 1, “Business—Legal Proceedings” for further discussion of certain pending matters. These matters may cause us to incur substantial damages or settlement costs in excess of our insurance coverage related to these matters or to pay substantial fines or penalties, and they also may require significant time and attention from our management or cause reputational harm, all of which may cause our business to suffer. In addition, an adverse outcome in any of these matters could also materially and adversely affect our licenses, accreditations and eligibility to participate in Title IV programs.

Our business may be adversely affected if we are unable to adequately establish, maintain, protect and enforce our intellectual property and proprietary rights or prevent third parties from making unauthorized use of such rights.

Our success depends in part on our ability to protect our intellectual property and proprietary rights, which are an essential asset of our business. Failure to adequately protect our intellectual property rights could result in our competitors offering similar educational programs and services, potentially resulting in the loss of our competitive advantage and a decrease in our revenue, which would adversely affect our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations. We rely on a combination of intellectual property rights, such as copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets (including know-how), patents and domain names, in addition to employee and third-party confidentiality agreements, intellectual property licenses and other contractual rights, to establish, maintain, protect and enforce our rights in our curricula and other course materials, technology, proprietary information, processes and other assets. For example, we rely on trademarks to protect our rights to various marks and logos associated with our products and services. If our trademarks are not adequately protected, then we may not be able to build and maintain name recognition in our markets of interest and our business may be adversely affected. We also rely on agreements under which we contract to own, or license rights to use, intellectual property developed by faculty members, content experts and other third parties. We cannot be sure that these measures are adequate, that we have secured, or will be able to secure, appropriate permissions or protections for all of the intellectual property rights we use or claim rights to, or that third parties will not terminate our license rights. For example, we cannot be certain that patents will be granted with respect to any of our pending patent applications or with respect to any patent applications filed by us in the future, nor can we be sure that any of our existing patents or any patents granted to us in the future will be commercially useful in protecting our technology. Even if we are able to obtain intellectual property rights, we cannot be sure that such rights will permit us to take advantage of current market trends or otherwise provide competitive advantages. Furthermore, intellectual property laws and our procedures and restrictions provide only limited protection and any of our intellectual property rights may be challenged, invalidated, circumvented, infringed or misappropriated. If we fail to protect our intellectual property rights adequately, we may lose an important advantage in the markets in which we compete.

Our intellectual property rights and the enforcement or defense of such rights may be affected by developments or uncertainty in laws and regulations relating to intellectual property rights. Moreover, many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, may not favor the enforcement of trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and other intellectual property protections, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement, misappropriation or other violation of our intellectual property or marketing of competing products in violation of our intellectual property rights generally.

Despite our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights, unauthorized third parties may attempt to use, duplicate or copy our intellectual property rights, including proprietary aspects of our student recruitment and engagement strategies, educational delivery methods and systems, curricula and online resource material. Furthermore, our efforts to protect these rights may be insufficient or ineffective. The result is that any of our intellectual property rights may be challenged, which could result in them being narrowed in scope or declared invalid or unenforceable. In addition, there can be no assurance that our intellectual property rights will be sufficient to protect against others offering educational programs, services or technologies that are substantially similar or superior to ours and that compete with our business.

Our efforts to protect our intellectual property may require use of funds in litigation to seek to protect our proprietary rights against any infringement, misappropriation or other violation, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

We also rely upon unregistered proprietary information in the operation of our business. For example, we rely on trade secrets to protect intellectual property that may not be patentable, or that we believe is best protected by means that do not require public disclosure. While it is our policy to enter into confidentiality agreements with employees and third parties to protect our proprietary expertise, know-how and trade secrets, and other confidential or proprietary information, we cannot guarantee that we have entered into such agreements with each party that has or may have had access to the same and, even if entered into, these agreements may be breached or may otherwise fail to prevent disclosure, third-party infringement or misappropriation of our confidential or proprietary information. These agreements also may be limited as to their terms and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure or use of confidential or proprietary information. Monitoring unauthorized uses and disclosures is difficult, and we do not know whether the steps we have taken to protect our confidential or proprietary information will be effective. Enforcing a claim that a party illegally disclosed or misappropriated a trade secret or other confidential or proprietary information can be difficult, expensive and time-consuming, and the outcome can be unpredictable.

In addition, our trade secrets and other confidential or proprietary information may otherwise become known or be independently developed by our competitors or other third parties. If any of the same were to be lawfully obtained or independently developed by a competitor or other third party, we would have no right to prevent them from using that technology or information to compete with us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Furthermore, to the extent that our employees, consultants, contractors, and other third parties use intellectual property owned by others in their work for us, disputes may arise as to the rights in related or resulting know-how and inventions. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope and validity of our proprietary rights, and the failure of our confidentiality agreements to protect our confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets could result in significantly lower revenue, reduced or eliminated profit margins, or other adverse effects on our business and financial condition.

Litigation may be necessary to protect our trade secrets and otherwise enforce our intellectual property rights. If we decide to take legal action to protect, defend or enforce our intellectual property rights, our efforts may be met with defenses, counterclaims and countersuits attacking the validity and enforceability of our intellectual property rights. Any suit or proceeding initiated by us concerning the violation by third parties of our intellectual property rights could result in substantial costs and diversion of our resources and our management’s attention and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations, regardless of the final outcome of such legal action. Furthermore, it could result in a court or governmental agency invalidating or rendering unenforceable our patents or other intellectual property rights upon which the suit or proceeding is based.

We will not be able to protect our intellectual property if we are unable to enforce our rights or if we do not detect unauthorized use of our intellectual property. However, the costs associated with enforcing patents, confidentiality agreements or other intellectual property rights may make aggressive enforcement impracticable. We may be unable or unwilling to incur the costs and resources necessary to determine whether third parties are using our intellectual property rights without our authorization. The undetected or unremedied use of our intellectual property rights or the development or acquisition of intellectual property by third parties could reduce or eliminate any competitive advantage we may have as a result of our intellectual property, adversely affecting our business prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

We may become subject to litigation brought by third parties claiming infringement, misappropriation or other violation by us of their intellectual property rights.

Our commercial success depends in part on avoiding infringement, misappropriation or other violations of the intellectual property and proprietary rights of third parties. However, we have in the past been, and may in the future, become party to disputes from time to time over rights and obligations concerning intellectual property held by third parties, and we may not prevail in any such future disputes. For example, third parties may allege that we have infringed upon or not obtained sufficient rights in the technologies used in our financial aid and educational delivery systems, the content of our courses or other educational materials or in our ownership or uses of other intellectual

property claimed by that third party. Some third-party intellectual property rights may prove to be extremely broad, and it may not be possible for us to conduct our operations in such a way as to avoid violating those intellectual property rights.

As we face increasing competition and as a public company, the possibility of intellectual property rights claims against us will grow. Such claims and litigation may involve patent holding companies or other adverse intellectual property rights holders who have no relevant product revenue (often referred to as “non-practicing entities” or “patent trolls”), and, therefore, our own pending patents and other intellectual property rights may provide little or no deterrence to these rights holders in bringing intellectual property rights claims against us. There may be intellectual property rights held by others, including issued or pending patents and trademarks, that cover significant aspects of our technologies, content, branding or business methods, and we cannot be sure that we are not infringing or violating, and have not infringed or violated, such third-party intellectual property rights, or that we will not be held or alleged to have done so in the future. We expect that we may receive notices in the future that claim that we or our partners, or clients using our solutions and services, have misappropriated or misused other parties’ intellectual property rights, particularly as the number of competitors in our market grows and the functionality of applications amongst competitors overlaps.

Any claim that we have violated the intellectual property or other proprietary rights of third parties, whether such claim is with or without merit, and whether or not it results in litigation, is settled out of court or is determined in our favor, could be time-consuming and costly to address and resolve, and could divert the time and attention of management and technical personnel from our business. Our various liability insurance coverages, if any, may not adequately, or at all, cover potential claims of this type. Furthermore, an adverse outcome of a dispute may result in an injunction and could require us to pay substantial monetary damages, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees, if we are found to have willfully infringed a party’s intellectual property rights. Any settlement or adverse judgment resulting from such a claim could (i) require us to enter into a licensing agreement to continue using the technology, content or other intellectual property that is the subject of the claim; (ii) restrict or prohibit our use of such technology, content or other intellectual property; (iii) require us to expend significant resources to alter the design and operation of our systems and technology or the content of our courses; and/or (iv) require us to indemnify third parties. Royalty or licensing agreements, if required or desirable, may be unavailable on terms desirable to us, or at all, and may require significant royalty payments and other expenditures. We may also be required to develop alternative non-infringing technology, content or other intellectual property, which could require significant time and expense. There also can be no assurance that we would be able to develop or license suitable alternative technology, content or other intellectual property to permit us to continue offering the affected technology, content, products or services to our partners. If we cannot develop or license technology, content or other intellectual property for any allegedly infringing aspect of our business, we would be forced to limit our educational programs and/or other products and services and may be unable to compete effectively. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

System disruptions to our computer networks, phone systems, digital platforms or infrastructure could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We rely upon our own and third-party service providers’ IT systems and infrastructure to operate our business. The performance and reliability of the computer networks, phone systems, digital platforms and infrastructure at our campus, and our online programs, is critical to our operations, reputation and ability to attract and retain students. As with any complex technology ecosystem, we experience intermittent outages of the IT systems used by our students and by our employees, including system-wide outages. We also may experience business interruptions and outages resulting from natural disasters, inclement weather, climate change, transit disruptions, political disruptions, or other events in one or more of the geographic areas in which our systems are located. If we fail to effectively assess and identify cybersecurity risks associated with the use of technology in our business operations, we may become increasingly vulnerable to such risks. Our Tier 1 and 2 critical systems are covered by validated disaster recovery service and protected by a formal disaster recovery plan. We also maintain a robust backup and recovery infrastructure to allow timely recovery from catastrophic failure for systems not covered by a formal disaster recovery plan. Our high priority applications (non-SaaS) are currently hosted in Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) with the exception of our communications platform which is hosted in a virtual private cloud by Expedient. The communications platform is currently migrating to a Software as a Service (“SaaS”) cloud platform, which we expect to complete by the end of calendar year 2025. AWS is a cloud infrastructure provider (rather than a data center). While extremely rare, a

multi-region AWS outage could impact the availability of critical systems. An event such as this may require service restoration activities that could take up to several weeks to complete. In addition, high-profile incidents involving third-party service providers that have caused widespread disruptions to their customers’ operations, such as the Microsoft Windows outage caused by a flawed CrowdStrike software update in July 2024, have occurred. We cannot guarantee that the systems of our third-party service providers have not been, or will not be, compromised or that errors by our third-party service providers will not cause similar disruptions or outages to our operations.

As part of our technology infrastructure and systems upgrade and our reduction of expenses, we have upgraded or are in the process of upgrading a substantial portion of our key IT systems, including migrating our learning management system, our student relationship platform, and our student financial aid and corporate website to cloud-hosted, SaaS providers. We have also recently migrated our entire technology footprint to a hybrid cloud and, in the process, shut down the last remaining University data center. As a result, the total server count reduced from over 11,000 to roughly 1,300. While this has reduced overall environmental cost and complexity, there are still key systems that must be upgraded from outdated software versions over the next twelve months. Additionally, the continued operation of key SaaS platforms is dependent upon each vendor’s ability to meet contractual service level agreements for availability and performance. We cannot be sure that the IT systems and infrastructure on which we depend, including those of third parties, will continue to meet our current and future business needs or adequately safeguard our operations. Our failure to complete or a delay in the migration of our IT systems may result in our failure to reduce or a delay in reducing our technology expenses. Such a failure or delay may adversely affect our business operations and our financial performance.

Significant disruption in SaaS vendor platforms could make significant portions of our operations unavailable without suitable workarounds. Any disruption in our IT systems could significantly impact our operations and reputation, reduce student and prospective student confidence in our educational institution, adversely affect our compliance with applicable regulations and accrediting body standards, and have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition. Although we vet the capabilities of current and future suppliers and maintain insurance for some types of these disruptions, there is no assurance that insurance proceeds would be adequate or available to compensate us for damages sustained due to these disruptions.

Our collection, use, retention, and processing of personal information makes us a target for security incidents, increasing the risks of personal data breaches, which can impact our business and result in reporting, notice and regulatory obligations.

Our collection, use, retention, and other processing of personal information—both in our capacity as a data controller as well as a data processor in our role as a service provider—makes us and the systems or vendors we rely upon a target for cyber-attacks, which could harm our business. We collect, use, retain, and otherwise process large amounts of personal and sensitive information regarding our applicants, students, faculty and employees, including social security numbers, tax return information, personal and family financial data, biometric information, health data and payment card information and we and our service providers rely on technology licensed from, or otherwise provided by, third parties to process and store this information. Much of this personal information is held and managed by third-party vendors, and as a result, we are vulnerable to disruptions from utility outages and susceptible to operational and information security risks resulting from system failures and cybersecurity incidents of our third-party vendors, and the technology and services they rely on to provide services to us. We also face risks of the acts and omissions of such third parties as they relate to data privacy and security. Any failure by such third parties to prevent or mitigate security incidents presents risk of operational disruptions and/or legal risk to us under applicable data protection laws and regulations, each of which could have a material adverse effect on our business and reputation.

In instances where personal information is held or managed by us, we use technical, administrative, and physical controls to help limit access and use of personal information. However, a threat actor may be able to circumvent those controls, which could result in a security incident or data breach. In addition, our or a third party’s errors in the collection, use, retention, or other processing of personal information could result in a security incident or violation of applicable data protection laws or regulations. A security incident or data breach may require us to shut down relevant systems, terminate vendor relationships, undertake additional remediation measures that may interfere with our business operations and result in IT unavailability and downtime and may result in legal liability. In the event the security incident or data breach involves personal information that is held by us or our vendors, it could have additional material adverse effects on our operations. A security incident or data breach may also result in liability under state,

federal and international data privacy laws and statutes, data breach and reporting laws, negative publicity, and legal actions by state attorneys general and private litigants, including class actions, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our reputation and business and financial condition.

Many statutory requirements, both in the United States and abroad, include obligations for companies to notify individuals of data breaches involving certain personal information, which could result from security incidents experienced by us or our third-party service providers. There are federal laws and separate laws in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia and foreign jurisdictions that may require companies to provide notice to consumers whose personal information has been impacted as a result of a data breach or notice to governmental agencies. These laws are not consistent, and an analysis of the impacted data and individuals is required in order to determine such obligations. Moreover, state data breach notification laws may be amended from time to time, requiring attention to changing regulatory requirements as part of the analysis. Complying with these laws following a security incident may require costly forensics and investigations, in addition to their impact on our business operations.

Given that we rely on a number of third-party vendors for our IT and related infrastructures, the details of our vendor contracts largely determine whether a security incident caused by our vendor results in a breach of our contract and the remedies available to us in such instances. Any contractual protections we may have in place for our third-party service providers, contractors or consultants may not be sufficient to adequately protect us from any such liabilities and losses, and we may be unable to enforce any such contractual protections.

Where we are a data processor or service provider, we also may have contractual obligations in the event of a security incident or data breach and may be contractually required to notify customers or counterparties of such incident or breach and pay for or reimburse a third party for costs associated with such incident or breach, even if we are not legally required to do so. As a result, security incidents and data breaches present legal risks under applicable laws, as well as contractual risks under our existing and future contracts. These obligations are time sensitive, and contractual obligations may vary between contracts. Compliance with these contracts requires contract management, including our understanding of our various obligations under such contracts and the ability to undertake those obligations pursuant to the applicable terms.

We are subject to rapidly changing laws and regulations relating to privacy and data security. Failure to comply with such laws and regulations could lead to government enforcement actions (including civil or criminal penalties), private litigation or adverse publicity and could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Many U.S. states have now passed comprehensive consumer privacy laws resulting in a patchwork of privacy legislation that heightens the costs of compliance, the risks of noncompliance, and the potential for enforcement actions by individual state attorneys general against the University. Federal and state laws or regulations also impose data security requirements in connection with our processing of personal information. Moreover, the Department of Education has issued regulations governing the collection and disclosure of student data. Our collection, use, storage, disclosure, retention, and other processing of personal information subjects us to a variety of laws and regulations, in the United States. Our legal exposure under data protection laws may expand as a result of new data protection laws and regulations or as a result of our ongoing growth. Such applicability could impact our internal business operations and data practices, and could limit the way we collect, use, retain, and otherwise process personal information, which could impact our business, including how we market and provide our products and services. Our business may be subject to laws regulating the use of marketing activities by telephone, email, mobile devices and the internet, including the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. Compliance with these and the evolving privacy and data security requirements, such as developing and maintaining a robust privacy program, is rigorous and time-intensive and may increase our cost of doing business. In addition, we have in the past, and may in the future, be subject to litigation under state and federal privacy and data security laws and statutes by federal or state authorities and private litigants, including class actions, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business. See Note 13 to our audited consolidated financial statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We also make public statements about our collection, use, and disclosure of personal information through our privacy policy and in other public facing policies or statements. Although we endeavor to ensure that these public statements are complete, accurate and fully implemented, we may at times fail to do so or be alleged to have failed to do so. We may be subject to potential regulatory or other legal action if such policies or statements are found to be

deceptive, unfair or misrepresentative of our actual practices. Any concerns about our data privacy and security practices (even if unfounded), or any failure, real or perceived, by us to comply with our posted privacy policies or with any other legal or regulatory requirements, standards or other privacy or consumer protection-related laws and regulations applicable to us, could harm our business.

The types of data that we collect and process are generally higher risk and/or sensitive, which comes with higher regulatory scrutiny and makes us a bigger target for malicious cyber threats.

The nature of our business requires us to collect and process financial data, social security numbers, and other types of sensitive or higher risk personal data. Such data is the focus of rapidly evolving data protection laws and regulations. This data is also subject to higher regulatory scrutiny. Data security incidents and/or breaches of such data can result in regulatory investigations and legal liability.

In addition, we (or our third-party vendors on our behalf) may process biometric data, including in connection with our efforts to prevent fraud and abuse. The collection, use, retention, and other processing of biometric data is subject to a complex and evolving regulatory landscape, including various state biometric privacy laws. In addition, a number of state data protection laws treat biometric information as sensitive personal information, bringing biometric information into their purview. Failure to comply with these regulations, or any future laws governing the use of biometric data, could result in significant liabilities, including fines, penalties, and class-action litigation. Additionally, any security breach or misuse of biometric data could harm our reputation, erode customer trust, and lead to substantial financial and operational impacts.

Public concerns about data privacy, particularly related to biometric information, may also result in fewer applicants for our programs or increased pressure to modify our online processes, potentially increasing our costs and reducing our competitiveness. If we are unable to effectively manage these risks, our business, financial condition, and results of operations could be adversely affected.

We face risks of cyber and other data security incidents, which can impact our business, result in harm to our operations, and require costly remediation measures.

We face an ever-increasing number of cybersecurity threats from a broad range of threat actors. These threats can result in security incidents, including physical break-ins, hacking, and data breaches, each of which may be caused by intentional or unintentional actions by our employees, contractors, consultants, students, or other third parties, including cyber-attacks by malicious threat actors. Security incidents may take the form of unauthorized activity and access, phishing or spoofing, malicious penetration, system viruses, malicious code, malware, ransomware, denial of service attacks and other organized cyber-attacks that seek to exploit vulnerabilities, affect service reliability and threaten the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information. We have in the past, and may in the future, be subject to such cyber-security incidents. Incidents may occur as a single instance, or a threat actor can act on multiple occasions over an extended period of time without detection. The motivations of threat actors may vary, but security incidents that compromise our IT systems, including the information contained in such systems, can cause interruptions, unavailability, inaccessibility, delays or operational malfunctions, which in turn could have an adverse effect on our revenue, profitability, reputation and liquidity. Security incidents may also require costly remediation measures and result in regulatory investigations and legal liability, whether via regulatory actions or lawsuits.

The risk of a security incident, particularly through cyber-attacks or intrusions, has generally increased as the number, intensity, and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. Our size and the amount and sensitivity of personal data that we collect or otherwise process makes us a prominent target for cyber-attacks within the education industry.

In addition, the increased use of mobile devices by our employees and students, including personal mobile devices which use we cannot always control, increases the risk of IT threats and vulnerabilities, such as those involving unsecure networks, as well as unintentional disclosure of personal information, such as through the theft of a mobile device, which can lead to a security incident and/or data breach.

A security incident may impact confidential, proprietary, or sensitive business information, or otherwise rise to the level of a data breach, which can risk business value or otherwise carry burdensome, time-sensitive, and costly obligations, including notification, reporting, and regulatory obligations, particularly if the data involved is personal data regulated by one or more laws or regulations. An incident or data breach could result in the theft, access, or destruction of personal information, sensitive information, intellectual property, data, or other misappropriation of assets, or otherwise compromise our confidential or proprietary information. Because techniques used by threat actors change frequently and generally are not recognized until they are launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or to implement adequate preventative measures.

We have devoted, and will continue to devote, resources to the security of our IT systems as well as physical security measures to reduce the risk of a security incident or data breach; however, our IT systems may still be vulnerable as there can be no assurance that these measures and efforts will prevent future incidents. In addition, our ability to control the internal security measures implemented by our vendors is necessarily limited by our inability to directly control those measures. We maintain a vendor management process to review the security measures undertaken by our vendors to help try and manage such risk. Nonetheless, we cannot directly control, or always have reliable insight into, our vendors’ security measures.

We maintain cybersecurity insurance for these types of events to help protect against the potential monetary and financial adverse impacts of such events, but there is no assurance that insurance proceeds will be adequate or available to compensate or reimburse us for damages sustained due to these events.

Our use of artificial intelligence may subject us to increased compliance obligations and legal risk.

We use and are working to further incorporate AI technologies into our operations to increase efficiencies. We expect our use of AI to help grow our business and benefit our students, but it is not certain that we will realize our desired or anticipated benefits. The presence of AI increases our legal risk due to the increasing scope of AI regulation in various jurisdictions as AI regulation is a top focus of regulators in the United States and abroad. Compliance with these AI regulations increases our cost of compliance and may result in legal exposure in the event of noncompliance. Additionally, our development, training and use of AI may require additional investments and/or increase the cost of our offerings, which could impact our financial condition. Furthermore, the use of AI may result in incidents that compromise the confidentiality of data (including personal data). Any such incidents related to our use of AI could harm our business, financial condition and reputation. AI also raises ethical issues and, if our use of AI becomes controversial, we may be subjected to brand or reputational harm.

The complexity of many AI models makes it challenging to understand why they are generating particular outputs. This limited transparency increases the challenges associated with assessing the proper operation of AI models, understanding and monitoring the capabilities of AI models, reducing erroneous output, eliminating bias and complying with regulations that require documentation or explanation of the basis on which decisions are made.

In addition, as AI becomes increasingly prevalent in our operations, we will have increased risk of disputes over the ownership or use of AI-generated content, as well as the risk of inadvertently infringing on third-party intellectual property rights. The intellectual property landscape for AI is evolving, and new laws, regulations, or interpretations may create further uncertainty or increase the likelihood of such claims. If such claims arise, they could result in costly litigation, licensing fees, or limitations on our ability to use certain AI technologies, any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Furthermore, if the content, analyses, or recommendations that AI applications assist in producing are or are alleged to be deficient, inaccurate, or biased, or infringe third-party intellectual property rights, we may be subject to private lawsuits, regulatory scrutiny, or reputational harm, and our business and financial condition may be adversely affected.

We rely on third-party vendors whose service may be of lower quality than ours, whose responsiveness may be less timely than ours, and whose compliance practices may increase our operational and compliance risk.

We rely on third-party vendors to provide certain services to our students primarily related to IT services, our learning management system, and financial aid processing, and expect to rely more heavily on such vendors, particularly through cloud computing services, in the future. In particular, we contract with certain third-party vendors for student software systems and services related to the administration of portions of our Title IV and financing

programs. Failure of such vendors to comply with applicable regulations could have a material adverse effect on our institution, including fines and the loss of eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, which could have a material adverse effect on our enrollment, revenue, and results of operations and cash flows and result in the imposition of significant restrictions on us and our ability to operate. If any such third-party vendors discontinues providing its services to us, we may not be able to replace such third-party vendor in a timely, cost-efficient, or effective manner, or at all, and we could lose our ability to comply with collection, lending, and Title IV requirements, which could have a material adverse effect on our enrollment, revenue, and results of operations, and cash flows and result in the imposition of significant restrictions on us and our ability to operate.

In addition, while we monitor and assess vendor services, it is possible that the quality of the services we receive and the timeliness of vendor responses may not meet our students’ expectations or the level of service that we would otherwise provide. Using third-party vendors creates compliance risk that vendors may not adequately protect personal information, or may not comply with applicable federal or state regulations. Further, transitioning from vendors or from in-house processes to new providers or from third-party vendors to in-house processes, involves inherent risks, including the risk of significant disruption of integral processes or the decrease in quality of service as compared to those of the prior provider. In the event third-party vendors fail to provide services, lack adequate business continuity planning, or fail to provide necessary implementation or transition services, our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

We may incur liability for the unauthorized duplication, distribution or other use of materials posted online.

In some instances, our employees, including faculty members, or our students may stream, file share, download or otherwise make unauthorized use of third-party content using our computer networks and/or post various articles or other third-party content online in class discussion boards or in other venues including social networks. While we have policies in place to prevent such unauthorized uses, we cannot guarantee that our employees and students will comply with such policies. The laws governing our obligations with regard to third-party materials are often fact-specific and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, which makes it challenging to adopt, implement and/or apply a “one-size fits all” approach with our policies and processes covering these practices. As a result, we could incur liability to third parties for the unauthorized duplication, distribution or other use of these materials. Any such claims could subject us to costly litigation and impose a significant strain on our financial resources and management personnel regardless of whether the claims have merit. Liability insurance policies may not cover potential claims of this type adequately or at all, and we may be required to alter or cease our uses of such material, which may include changing or removing content from our courses, or paying monetary damages, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

We may have unanticipated tax liabilities that could adversely impact our results of operations and financial condition.

We are subject to multiple types of taxes in the United States, and the associated laws are complex and subject to different interpretations. The determination of our provision for income taxes and other tax accruals involves various judgments, and therefore the ultimate tax determination is subject to uncertainty. Our future effective tax rates could be subject to volatility or be adversely affected by a number of factors, including changes in the valuation of our deferred taxes, changes in tax laws or regulations, and revised interpretations of existing laws or accounting principles. Such changes may adversely affect our future reported financial results, may impact the way in which we conduct our business, or may increase the risk of audit by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) or other tax authorities.

Our U.S. federal income tax return for fiscal year 2023 is currently under review by the IRS and fiscal years 2022 and 2024 are currently open for review. Additionally, tax years as early as fiscal year 2020 remain subject to examination by state or local tax authorities.

Although we believe our tax accruals are reasonable, the final determination of tax returns under review or returns that may be reviewed in the future and any related litigation could result in tax liabilities that materially differ from our historical income tax provisions and accruals.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

Our stock price may fluctuate significantly

The market price of our common stock could vary significantly as a result of a number of factors, some of which are beyond our control. The following factors could affect our stock price:

•
our operating and financial performance and prospects;

•
quarterly variations in the rate of growth (if any) of our financial or operational indicators, such as earnings per share, net income, net income margin, net revenue, Adjusted EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA Margin, Adjusted Net Income and Average Total Degreed Enrollment;

•
the public reaction to our press releases, our other public announcements and our filings with the SEC;

•
results of operations that vary from those of our competitors or other strategic actions by our competitors;

•
changes in operating performance and the stock market valuations of other companies;

•
announcements related to litigation and governmental inquiries or investigations, and reputational harm related thereto;

•
changes in the political, legislative, regulatory, and public policy outlook or associated enactments that are adverse to the University or to the eligibility of proprietary schools to participate in federal student aid programs;

•
our failure to meet revenue or earnings estimates made by research analysts or other investors;

•
changes in revenue or earnings estimates, or changes in recommendations or withdrawal of research coverage, by equity research analysts;

•
speculation in the press or investment community;

•
sales of our common stock by us or our stockholders, or the perception that such sales may occur;

•
changes in accounting principles, policies, guidance, interpretations, or standards;

•
additions or departures of key management personnel;

•
actions by our stockholders;

•
general economic and market conditions or trends in our industry or the economy as a whole;

•
domestic and international economic, legal and regulatory factors unrelated to our performance;

•
material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting; and

•
the realization of any risks described under this “Risk Factors” section, or other risks that may materialize in the future.

Furthermore, the stock markets in general have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. In addition, price volatility may be greater if the public float and trading volume of our common stock are low. Securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility in the overall market and in the market price of a company’s securities. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could result in very substantial costs, divert our management’s attention and resources, and harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are an “emerging growth company” and take advantage of reduced disclosure requirements applicable to “emerging growth companies,” which could make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, and, for as long as we continue to be an “emerging growth company,” we intend to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements applicable to other public companies but not to “emerging growth companies.” These exemptions include, but are not limited to: not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, not being required to communicate critical audit matters in the auditor’s report, permission to present only

two years of audited financial statements and only two years of related “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in our periodic reports and registration statements, including in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding stockholder advisory vote on executive compensation (e.g., “say-on-pay” and “say-on-frequency”) and any golden parachute payments not previously approved. In addition, under the JOBS Act, “emerging growth companies” can delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. While we have elected to avail ourselves of this exemption, we are permitted and may elect to early adopt certain new or revised accounting standards for which the respective standard allows for early adoption. For as long as we take advantage of the reduced reporting obligations, the information that we provide stockholders may be different from information provided by other similarly situated public companies.

We will be an “emerging growth company” until the earliest of (i) the last day of the first fiscal year in which our annual gross revenue equals or exceeds $1.235 billion; (ii) the date that we become a “large accelerated filer” as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Exchange Act, with the market value of our common stock that is held by non-affiliates equal to at least $700 million as of the last business day of our most recently completed second fiscal quarter; (iii) August 31, 2031; and (iv) the date on which we have issued more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt during the preceding three-year period. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive if we choose to rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result of any choices to reduce future disclosure, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock, our stock price may decline or become more volatile and it may be difficult for us to raise additional capital if and when we need it.

We have incurred and will continue to incur significant costs and devote substantial management time as a result of operating as a public company, particularly after we are no longer an “emerging growth company.”

As a public company, we have incurred and will continue to incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses that we have not incurred as a private company, including costs associated with public company reporting requirements. For example, we are required to comply with the requirements of Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, heightened auditing standards, and the rules and regulations implemented by the SEC and the NYSE, our stock exchange, including the establishment and maintenance of effective disclosure and financial controls and changes in corporate governance practices. The rules governing management’s assessment of our internal control over financial reporting are complex and require significant documentation, testing and possible remediation. We expect that compliance with these requirements will increase our legal and financial compliance costs and will make some activities more time-consuming and costly. For example, the increased legal and regulatory obligations as a public company could make it more difficult or costly for us to obtain certain types of insurance, including director and officer liability insurance, and we may be forced to accept reduced policy limits and coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain the same or similar coverage, and it could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified persons to serve on our board of directors, our board committees or as our executive officers. In addition, our management and other personnel may need to divert their attention from operational and other business matters to devote substantial time to these public company requirements. In particular, we expect to incur significant expenses and devote substantial management effort toward ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In that regard, we may need to hire additional accounting and financial staff with appropriate public company experience and technical accounting knowledge.

After we are no longer an “emerging growth company,” and can no longer take advantage of the reporting exemptions available to “emerging growth companies” as discussed above, we expect to incur additional management time and cost to comply with the more stringent reporting requirements applicable to companies that are deemed accelerated filers or large accelerated filers, including complying with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results or prevent fraud. As a result, stockholders could lose confidence in our financial and other public reporting, which would harm our business and financial condition and the trading price of our common stock.

As a privately-held company, we were not required to evaluate our internal control over financial reporting in a manner that meets the standards of publicly traded companies required by Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. As a public company, we are subject to significant requirements for enhanced financial reporting and internal controls. Effective internal control over financial reporting is necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and, together with adequate disclosure controls and procedures, is designed to prevent fraud. The process of designing and implementing effective internal controls is a continuous effort that requires us to anticipate and react to changes in our business and the economic and regulatory environment, and to expend significant resources to maintain a system of internal controls that is adequate to satisfy our reporting obligations as a public company. Any failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations on a timely basis, result in material misstatements in our consolidated financial statements and harm our results of operations. In addition, we will be required, pursuant to 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, to furnish a report by management on, among other things, the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting beginning with our annual report for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2026. This assessment will need to include disclosure of any material weaknesses identified by our management in our internal control over financial reporting. The rules governing the standards that must be met for our management to assess our internal control over financial reporting are complex and require significant documentation, testing, and possible remediation. Testing and maintaining internal controls may divert our management’s attention from other matters that are important to our business.

Our independent registered public accounting firm is not required to audit the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting until after we are no longer an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, which at the latest would be August 31, 2031. At such time, our internal control over financial reporting may be insufficiently documented, designed or operating, which may cause our independent registered public accounting firm to issue a report that is adverse. Undetected material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting could lead to financial statement restatements and require us to incur the expense of remediation, which could have a negative effect on the trading price of our stock.

Furthermore, if we fail to achieve and maintain an effective internal control environment, we could suffer material misstatements in our consolidated financial statements and fail to meet our reporting obligations, which would likely cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information. Additionally, ineffective internal control over financial reporting could expose us to increased risk of fraud or misuse of corporate assets and subject us to potential delisting from the NYSE, regulatory investigations, civil or criminal sanctions and litigation, any of which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We continue to be controlled by the Apollo Stockholder, and Apollo’s interests may conflict with our interests and the interests of other stockholders.

As of November 11, 2025, the Apollo Stockholder beneficially owns approximately 70% of the voting power of our outstanding common equity. So long as we remain a “controlled company,” the Apollo Stockholder will have the ability to control matters requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election of directors, amendments to our certificate of incorporation and major corporate transactions such as mergers, tender offers, and the sale of all or substantially all of our assets and issuance of additional debt or equity. The interests of Apollo and its affiliates, including the Apollo Stockholder, could conflict with or differ from our interests or the interests of our other stockholders. For example, the concentration of ownership held by the Apollo Stockholder could delay, defer, or prevent a change in control of our company or impede a merger, takeover, or other business combination that may otherwise be favorable for us. Furthermore, the concentration of ownership could deprive you of an opportunity to receive a premium for your shares of common stock as part of a sale of our company and ultimately might affect the market price of our common stock. Apollo and its affiliates, including the Apollo Stockholder, may also have an interest in pursuing acquisitions, divestitures, and other transactions that, in their judgment, could enhance their investment, even though such transactions might involve risks to you. Additionally, Apollo and its affiliates are in the business of making investments in companies and may, from time to time, acquire and hold interests in or provide advice to businesses that compete directly or indirectly with us, or are suppliers or customers of ours. Apollo and its affiliates may also pursue acquisition opportunities that may be complementary to our business and, as a result, those acquisition opportunities may not be available to us. Any such investment may increase the potential for the conflicts of interest discussed in this risk factor. So long as the Apollo Stockholder continues to directly or indirectly beneficially own a significant amount of our equity, even if such amount is less than 50%, the Apollo Stockholder

will continue to be able to substantially influence or effectively control our decisions, including our ability to enter into corporate transactions.

The Apollo Stockholder also has a right to nominate a number of directors comprising a percentage of our board of directors in accordance with its beneficial ownership of the voting power of our outstanding common stock (rounded up to the nearest whole number), which currently represents at least a majority of our board of directors. These directors have fiduciary duties to us and, in addition, may have similar duties to the Apollo Stockholder and its affiliates. As a result, these directors may face real or apparent conflicts of interest with respect to matters affecting both us and the Apollo Stockholder, whose interests may be adverse to ours in some circumstances.

We are a “controlled company” within the meaning of the NYSE rules and, as a result, qualify for and intend to rely on exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements. You will not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to such requirements.

As of November 11, 2025, the Apollo Stockholder beneficially owns approximately 70% of the voting power of our outstanding common stock and, as a result, we are a controlled company within the meaning of the NYSE corporate governance standards. The Apollo Stockholder currently has effective control over the outcome of votes on all matters requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election of directors, the amendment of our governing documents and the entry into significant corporate transactions. Under the NYSE rules, a company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by another person or group of persons acting together is a controlled company and may elect not to comply with certain stock exchange corporate governance requirements, including the requirements that:

•
a majority of the board of directors consist of “independent directors” as defined under the rules of the NYSE;

•
the nominating and corporate governance committee be composed entirely of independent directors;

•
the compensation committee be composed entirely of independent directors; and

•
there be an annual performance evaluation of the nominating and corporate governance committee and compensation committee.

We intend to utilize some or all of these exemptions as long as we remain a controlled company. As a result, our board of directors may not have a majority of independent directors, and our nominating and corporate governance and compensation functions may not be decided solely by independent directors. Accordingly, you may not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of the NYSE.

We are a holding company and rely on dividends, distributions, and other payments, advances, and transfers of funds from our subsidiaries to meet our obligations.

We are a holding company that does not conduct any business operations of our own. As a result, we are largely dependent upon cash dividends and distributions and other transfers from our subsidiaries, including the University, to meet our obligations. Agreements governing any future indebtedness of us or our subsidiaries, may impose restrictions on our subsidiaries’ ability to pay dividends or other distributions to us. See Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources.” Each of our subsidiaries is a distinct legal entity, and under certain circumstances, legal and contractual restrictions may limit our ability to obtain cash from them, and we may be limited in our ability to cause any future joint ventures to distribute their earnings to us. The deterioration of the earnings from, or other available assets of, our subsidiaries for any reason could also limit or impair their ability to pay dividends or other distributions to us. Delaware law may also impose requirements that may restrict our ability to pay dividends to holders of our common stock. See “—We cannot guarantee the payment of dividends on our common stock, or the timing or amount of any such dividends, and in the event we determine not to pay any cash dividends in the future, stockholders may not receive any return on investment unless they sell their common stock for a price greater than that which they paid for it.”

Future sales of our common stock in the public market, or the perception in the public market that such sales may occur, could reduce our stock price.

As of November 11, 2025, we had 35,652,963 shares of common stock outstanding and 1,802,966 shares of common stock potentially issuable in respect of the Company’s outstanding share-based awards and 5,028,648 shares of common stock potentially issuable in respect of the University’s outstanding share-based awards.

In addition, the Apollo Stockholder, the Vistria Stockholder and certain of our existing stockholders have certain rights to require us to register the sale of common stock held by them including in connection with underwritten offerings. Additionally, we have filed a registration statement in respect of all shares of common stock that we may issue under our 2025 Omnibus Incentive Plan, our Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and the University of Phoenix, Inc. Management Equity Plan. After registration, such shares can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance. Sales of significant amounts of stock in the public market upon the expiration or early release of lock-up agreements, the exercise by existing stockholders of their registration rights or the perception that such sales may occur could adversely affect prevailing market prices of our common stock or make it more difficult to sell shares of common stock.

We cannot guarantee the payment of dividends on our common stock, or the timing or amount of any such dividends, and in the event we determine not to pay any cash dividends on our common stock in the future, stockholders may not receive any return on investment unless they sell their common stock for a price greater than that which they paid for it.

Although we currently intend to pay a quarterly cash dividend to holders of our common stock, we have no obligation to do so, and our dividend policy may change at any time without notice to our shareholders. Any declaration and payment of cash dividends in the future, if any, will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend upon such factors as earnings levels, cash flows, capital requirements, levels of indebtedness, receipt of cash dividends from our operating subsidiaries, restrictions imposed by applicable law, our overall financial condition, restrictions in our revolving credit facility and other debt agreements that we or our subsidiaries may enter into in the future, and any other factors deemed relevant by our board of directors. If we pay such dividends, we may in the future reduce or discontinue entirely the payment of such dividends at any time. We are a holding company and our operations are conducted through our operating subsidiaries. In the event that we do pay a dividend, we intend to cause our operating subsidiaries to make distributions to us in an amount sufficient to cover such dividend. Further, to the extent that the other risks described in this section materialize, they could adversely affect our ability to pay dividends in the future. We cannot assure you that we will pay our anticipated dividend in the same amount or frequency, or at all, in the future. If we decide not to pay future dividends, then stockholders may not receive any return on an investment in our common stock unless they sell our common stock for a price greater than the purchase price, which may not occur. See “Dividend Policy.”