IBJNews

ITT Educational Services accused of defrauding investors

Bloomberg News
March 12, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

ITT Educational Services Inc. has been sued by investors who accuse the for-profit college of making misstatements about its private student-loan program, which was the subject of a subpoena from U.S. regulators.

Investors said in a complaint filed Monday in federal court in Manhattan that ITT’s shares dropped after the company revealed in February that it had received the subpoena.

The company failed to properly account for a 2009 risk- sharing agreement which helped it establish the private student-loan program, the investors alleged.

The stock “traded at artificially inflated prices” from April 2010 to Feb. 25, 2013, lawyers for the plaintiffs said in the complaint. “After the above revelations seeped into the market, the company’s shares were hammered by massive sales, sending them down 86 percent,” from an April 2010 high of $112.69, according to the complaint.

Carmel-based ITT said in a Feb. 22 filing that the Securities and Exchange Commission demanded documents related to “actions and accounting” for the loan programs, which helped students pay for education costs that weren’t covered by public funding sources. The following Monday, on Feb. 25, ITT fell 17 percent, to $15.53 a share, in trading in New York.

Federal and state investigators have been probing for-profit colleges’ recruitment practices and students’ debt loads after leaving school. ITT said in the filing that it was cooperating with the SEC.

Lauren Littlefield, a spokeswoman for ITT, didn’t immediately respond to a call seeking comment on the investor lawsuit.

The college, which specializes in technical fields, offers degree programs to about 73,000 students at locations 39 states, as well as online programs in 48 states, according to the suit.

ITT shares rose 9 cents Tuesday morning, to $12.94 each, but have fallen nearly 30 percent in the past month and 67 percent in the past six months.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT