Use these links to rapidly review the document
TABLE OF CONTENTS1
TABLE OF CONTENTS2

Table of Contents


UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K


ý

 

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016

OR

o

 

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from                        to                       

Commission file number 001-38002

LOGO

Laureate Education, Inc.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

DELAWARE
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization)
  52-1492296
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)

650 S. Exeter Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(410) 843-6100

(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including
area code, of registrant's principal executive offices)

          Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class registered   Name of each exchange on which registered
Class A common stock, par value $0.004 per share   The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(Nasdaq Global Select Market)

          Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

          Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes o    No ý

          Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes o    No ý

          Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes o    No ý

          Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes o    No ý

          Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ý

          Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large accelerated filer o   Accelerated filer o   Non-accelerated filer ý
(Do not check if a
smaller reporting company)
  Smaller Reporting Company o

          Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes o    No ý

          The registrant completed the initial public offering of its Class A common stock, par value $0.004 per share, on February 6, 2017. There was no public market for the registrant's common stock as of June 30, 2016, the last business day of the registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter.

          Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

Class   Outstanding at March 15, 2017
Class A common stock, par value $0.004 per share   35,199,466 shares
Class B common stock, par value $0.004 per share   133,205,013 shares


Table of Contents

INDEX

 
   
  PAGE
NUMBER
 

PART I

    5  

Item 1.

 

Business

    5  

Item 1A.

 

Risk Factors

    91  

Item 1B.

 

Unresolved Staff Comments

    152  

Item 2.

 

Properties

    152  

Item 3.

 

Legal Proceedings

    153  

Item 4.

 

Mine Safety Disclosures

    155  


PART II


 

 

156

 

Item 5.

 

Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

    156  

Item 6.

 

Selected Financial Data

    159  

Item 7.

 

Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

    166  

Item 7A.

 

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

    219  

Item 8.

 

Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

    221  

Item 9.

 

Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

    348  

Item 9A.

 

Controls and Procedures

    348  

Item 9B.

 

Other Information

    348  


PART III


 

 

348

 

Item 10.

 

Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance

    348  

Item 11.

 

Executive Compensation

    355  

Item 12.

 

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

    390  

Item 13.

 

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

    396  

Item 14.

 

Principal Accountant Fees and Services

    402  


PART IV


 

 

404

 

Item 15.

 

Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules

    404  

Item 16.

 

Form 10-K Summary

    416  

Signature

    417  

        As used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K (this "Form 10-K"), unless otherwise stated or the context otherwise requires, references to "we," "us," "our," the "Company," "Laureate" and similar references refer collectively to Laureate Education, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Unless otherwise stated or the context requires, references to the Laureate International Universities network include Santa Fe University of Art and Design ("SFUAD"), which is owned by Wengen Alberta, Limited Partnership, an Alberta limited partnership ("Wengen"), our controlling stockholder. Laureate is affiliated with SFUAD, but does not own or control it and, accordingly, SFUAD is not included in the financial results of Laureate presented in this Form 10-K.

2


Table of Contents

Trademarks and Tradenames

        LAUREATE, LAUREATE INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITIES and the leaf symbol are trademarks of Laureate Education, Inc. in the United States and other countries. This Form 10-K also includes other trademarks of Laureate and trademarks of other persons, which are properties of their respective owners.

Industry and Market Data

        We obtained the industry, market and competitive position data used throughout this Form 10-K from our own internal estimates and research as well as from industry publications and research, surveys and studies conducted by third parties. This Form 10-K also contains the results from studies by Millward Brown and Gallup, Inc. ("Gallup"). We commissioned the Millward Brown study as part of our periodic evaluation of employment rates and starting salary information for our graduates. In addition, we commissioned the Gallup survey to explore the relationship between the experiences of students at Walden University, our online university located in the United States, and long-term outcomes of those students based on the survey responses.

        Industry publications, studies and surveys generally state that they have been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, although they do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of such information. While we believe that each of these publications, surveys and studies is reliable, we have not independently verified industry, market and competitive position data from third-party sources. While we believe our internal business research is reliable and the market definitions are appropriate, neither such research nor these definitions have been verified by any independent source.

Presentation Of Financial Information

        On May 2, 2016, we announced a change to our operating segments in order to align our structure more geographically. Our institution in Italy, Nuova Accademia di Belle Arti Milano ("NABA"), including Domus Academy, moved from our GPS segment (as defined herein) into our Europe segment (as defined herein). Media Design School ("MDS"), located in New Zealand, moved from our GPS segment into our AMEA segment (as defined herein). Our GPS segment now focuses on Laureate's fully online global operations and on its campus-based institutions in the United States. This change has been reflected in the financial statements for all periods presented.

        On January 10, 2017, we announced that we plan to combine our Europe and AMEA (each as defined herein) operations, effective March 31, 2017, in order to reflect our belief that we will be able to operate the institutions in those operations more successfully and efficiently under common management. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of this combination on its operating segments. All information in this Form 10-K is presented consistently with our operating segments as in effect on December 31, 2016, and on the date of this Form 10-K, and does not reflect any possible segment realignment.

        On January 1, 2016, Laureate adopted Accounting Standards Update 2015-03, which simplified the presentation of debt issuance costs by requiring debt issuance costs to be presented as a deduction from debt. At adoption, the new guidance was applied retrospectively to all prior periods presented in this Form 10-K.

        Our consolidated financial statements included in this Form 10-K are presented in U.S. dollars ($) rounded to the nearest thousand, with many amounts in this Form 10-K rounded to the nearest tenth of a million. Therefore, discrepancies in the tables between totals and the sums of the amounts listed may occur due to such rounding.

Forward-Looking Statements

        This Form 10-K contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the federal securities laws, which involve risks and uncertainties. You can identify forward-looking statements because they

3


Table of Contents

contain words such as "believes," "expects," "may," "will," "should," "seeks," "approximately," "intends," "plans," "estimates" or "anticipates" or similar expressions that concern our strategy, plans or intentions. All statements we make relating to estimated and projected earnings, costs, expenditures, cash flows, growth rates and financial results are forward-looking statements. In addition, we, through our senior management, from time to time make forward-looking public statements concerning our expected future operations and performance and other developments. All of these forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that may change at any time, and, therefore, our actual results may differ materially from those we expected. We derive most of our forward-looking statements from our operating budgets and forecasts, which are based upon many detailed assumptions. While we believe that our assumptions are reasonable, we caution that it is very difficult to predict the impact of known factors, and, of course, it is impossible for us to anticipate all factors that could affect our actual results. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from our expectations, including, without limitation, in conjunction with the forward-looking statements included in this Form 10-K, are disclosed under various sections throughout this Form 10-K, including, but not limited to, Item 1—Business, Item 1A—Risk Factors, and Item 7—Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us, or persons acting on our behalf, are expressly qualified in their entirety by the factors discussed in this Form 10-K. Some of the factors that we believe could affect our results include:

        We caution you that the foregoing list of important factors may not contain all of the material factors that are important to you. In addition, in light of these risks and uncertainties, the matters referred to in the forward-looking statements contained in this Form 10-K may not in fact occur. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as otherwise required by law.

4


Table of Contents


PART I

ITEM 1.    BUSINESS

General

        We are the largest global network of degree-granting higher education institutions, with more than one million students enrolled at our 70 institutions in 25 countries on more than 200 campuses, which we collectively refer to as the Laureate International Universities network. We participate in the global higher education market, which was estimated to account for revenues of approximately $1.5 trillion in 2015, according to GSV Advisors ("GSV"). We believe the global higher education market presents an attractive long-term opportunity, primarily because of the large and growing imbalance between the supply and demand for quality higher education around the world. Advanced education opportunities drive higher earnings potential, and we believe the projected growth in the middle class population worldwide and limited government resources dedicated to higher education create substantial opportunities for high-quality private institutions to meet this growing and unmet demand. Our outcomes-driven strategy is focused on enabling millions of students globally to prosper and thrive in the dynamic and evolving knowledge economy.

        In 1999, we made our first investment in higher education and, since that time, we have developed into the global leader in higher education, based on the number of students, institutions and countries making up our network. Our global network of 70 institutions comprises 58 institutions we own or control, and an additional 12 institutions that we manage or with which we have other relationships. Our institutions are recognized for their high-quality academics. For example, we own and operate Universidad del Valle de México ("UVM Mexico"), the largest private university in Mexico, which in 2016 was ranked seventh among all public and private higher education institutions in the country by Guía Universitaria, an annual publication of Reader's Digest. Our track record for delivering high-quality outcomes to our students, while stressing affordability and accessibility, has been a key reason for our long record of success, including 16 consecutive years of enrollment growth. We have generated compound annual growth rates ("CAGRs") in total enrollment and revenues of 9.9% and 8.7%, respectively, from 2009 through December 31, 2016.

        Since being taken private in August 2007, we have undertaken several initiatives to continually improve the quality of our programs and outcomes for our students, while expanding our scale and geographic presence, and strengthening our organization and management team. From 2007 to December 31, 2016, we have expanded into 12 new countries, added over 100 campuses worldwide and grown enrollment from approximately 300,000 to more than one million students with a combination of strong organic revenue growth of 8.5% (average annual revenue growth from 2007 to 2016 excluding acquisitions and dispositions) and the successful integration of 41 strategic acquisitions. Key to this growth were expansions into Brazil, where we owned 13 institutions with a combined enrollment of approximately 259,000 students, and expansions into Asia, the Middle East and Africa, where we owned or controlled 21 institutions with a combined enrollment of approximately 85,700 students. Further, we have made significant capital investments and continue to make operational improvements in technology and human resources, including key management hires, and are developing scalable back-office operations to support the Laureate International Universities network, including implementing a vertically integrated information technology, finance, accounting and human resources organization that, among other things, are designed to enhance our analytical capabilities. Finally, over the past several years, we have invested heavily in technology-enabled solutions to enhance the student experience, increase penetration of our hybrid offerings and optimize efficiency throughout our network. We believe these investments have created an intellectual property advantage that has further differentiated our offerings from local market competitors.

        The Laureate International Universities network enables us to educate our students locally, while connecting them to an international community with a global perspective. Our students can take

5


Table of Contents

advantage of shared curricula, optional international programs and services, including English language instruction, dual-degree and study abroad programs and other benefits offered by other institutions in our network. We believe that the benefits of the network translate into better career opportunities and higher earnings potential for our graduates.

        The institutions in the Laureate International Universities network offer a broad range of undergraduate and graduate degrees through campus-based, online and hybrid programs. Approximately 93% of our students attend traditional, campus-based institutions offering multi-year degrees, similar to leading private and public higher education institutions in the United States and Europe. In addition, approximately two thirds of our students are enrolled in programs of four or more years in duration. Our programs are designed with a distinct emphasis on applied, professional-oriented content for growing career fields and are focused on specific academic disciplines, or verticals, that we believe demonstrate strong employment opportunities and provide high earnings potential for our students, including:

GRAPHIC

        Across these academic disciplines, we continually and proactively adapt our curriculum to the needs of the market, including emphasizing the core STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) and business disciplines. We believe the STEM and business disciplines present attractive areas of study to students, especially in developing countries where there exists a strong and ongoing focus to develop and retain professionally trained individuals. Since 2009, we have more than doubled our enrollment of students pursuing degrees in Business & Management, Medicine & Health Sciences and Engineering & Information Technology, our three largest disciplines. We believe the work of our graduates in these disciplines creates a positive impact on the communities we serve and strengthens our institutions' reputations within their respective markets.

        Across the world, we operate institutions that address regional, national and local supply and demand imbalances in higher education. As the global leader in higher education, we believe we are uniquely positioned to effectively deliver high-quality education across different brands and tuition levels in the markets in which we operate. In many developing markets, traditional higher education students (defined as 18-24 year olds) have historically been served by public universities, which have limited capacity and are often underfunded, resulting in an inability to meet growing student demands and employer requirements. Our institutions in these markets offer traditional higher education students a private education alternative, often with multiple brands and price points in each market, with innovative programs and strong career-driven outcomes. In many of these same markets, non-traditional students such as working adults and distance learners have limited options for pursuing higher education. Through targeted programs and multiple teaching modalities, we are able to serve the differentiated needs of this unique demographic. Our flexible approach across geographies allows Laureate to access a broader addressable market of students by efficiently tailoring institutions to meet the needs of a particular geography and student population.

        We have four reporting segments, which are summarized in the table below. We group our institutions by geography in Latin America ("LatAm"), Europe ("Europe") and Asia, Middle East and

6


Table of Contents

Africa ("AMEA") for reporting purposes. Our Global Products and Services ("GPS") segment includes our fully online universities and our campus-based institutions in the United States.

GRAPHIC

        The following information for our operating segments is presented as of December 31, 2016, except where otherwise indicated, and reflects the operating segment change discussed in the section entitled "Presentation of Financial Information" above. For further information related to our segment revenues, see "Item 7—Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation—Results of Operations—Segment Results."

 
  LatAm   Europe   AMEA   GPS   Total  

Countries

  8   7   8   2   25  

Institutions

  29   13   21   7   70  

Enrollments (rounded to nearest hundred)

  823,600   61,700   85,700   72,200   1,043,200  

LTM ended December 31, 2016 Revenues ($ in millions)‡

  $2,442.0   $480.4   $431.3   $900.5   $4,244.2  

% Contribution to LTM ended December 31, 2016 Revenues‡

  58 % 11 % 10 % 21 % 100 %

The elimination of inter-segment revenues and amounts related to Corporate, which total $10.0 million, is not separately presented.

Our Industry

        We are the leader in the global market for higher education, which is characterized by a significant imbalance between supply and demand, especially in developing economies. In many countries, demand for higher education is large and growing. GSV estimates that higher education institutions accounted for total revenues of approximately $1.5 trillion globally in 2015, with the higher education market expected to grow by approximately 5% per annum through 2020. Global growth in higher education is being fueled by several demographic and economic factors, including a growing middle class, global growth in services and technology-related industries and recognition of the significant personal and economic benefits gained by graduates of higher education institutions. At the same time, many governments have limited resources to devote to higher education, resulting in a diminished ability by the public sector to meet growing demand, and creating opportunities for private education providers

7


Table of Contents

to enter these markets and deliver high-quality education. As a result, the private sector plays a large and growing role in higher education globally. While the Laureate International Universities network is the largest global network of degree-granting higher education institutions in the world, our total enrollment of more than one million students represents only 0.5% of worldwide higher education students.

        Large, Growing and Underpenetrated Population of Qualified Higher Education Students.    According to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ("UNESCO"), 207.5 million students worldwide were enrolled in higher education institutions in 2014, more than double the 99.7 million students enrolled in 2000, and approximately 90% of those students were enrolled at institutions outside of the United States as of 2013. In many countries, including throughout Latin America, Asia and other developing regions, there is growing demand for higher education based on favorable demographics, increasing secondary completion rates and increasing higher education participation rates, resulting in continued growth in higher education enrollments. While global participation rates have increased for traditional higher education students (defined as 18-24 year olds), the market for higher education is still significantly underpenetrated, particularly in developing countries. Given the low penetration rates, many governments in developing countries have a stated goal of increasing the number of students participating in higher education. For example, Mexico's participation rate increased from approximately 16% to approximately 23% from 2003 to 2014, and the Mexican government has set a goal of increasing the number of students enrolled in higher education by 17% over the next three years. Other developing countries with large addressable markets are similarly underpenetrated as evidenced by the following participation rates for 2014: Saudi Arabia 40%, Brazil 35%, China 28% and India 20%, all of which are well below rates of developed countries such as the United States and Spain, which in 2013 had participation rates of approximately 63% and approximately 61%, respectively.

        Strong Economic Incentives for Higher Education.    According to the Brookings Institution, approximately 3.2 billion people in the world composed the middle class in 2016, a number that is expected to be over five billion people by 2028. We believe that members of this large and growing group seek advanced education opportunities for themselves and their children in recognition of the vast differential in earnings potential with and without higher education. According to data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ("OECD"), in certain European markets in which we operate, the earnings from employment for an adult completing higher education were approximately 55% higher than those of an adult with just an upper secondary education, while in the United States the differential was approximately 68%. This income gap is even more pronounced in many developing countries around the world, including a differential of approximately 139% in Chile and approximately 141% in Brazil. OECD statistics also show that overall employment rates are greater for individuals completing higher education than for those who have not completed upper secondary education. In addition, we believe as economies around the world are increasingly based on the services sector, they will require significant investment in human capital, advanced education and specialized training to produce knowledgeable professionals. We believe the cumulative impact of favorable demographic and socio-economic trends, coupled with the superior earnings potential of higher education graduates, will continue to expand the market for private higher education.

        Increasing Role of the Private Sector in Higher Education.    In many of our markets, the private sector plays a meaningful role in higher education, bridging supply and demand imbalances created by a lack of capacity at public universities. In addition to capacity limitations, we believe that limited public resources, and the corresponding policy reforms to make higher education systems less dependent on the financial and operational support of local governments, have resulted in increased enrollments in private institutions relative to public institutions.

8


Table of Contents

        According to the OECD, from 2003 to 2013, the number of students enrolled in private institutions grew from approximately 26% to approximately 31% of total enrollments within OECD countries. For example, Brazil and Chile rely heavily upon private institutions to deliver quality higher education to students, with approximately 71% (in 2012) and approximately 84% (in 2013), respectively, of higher education students in these countries enrolled in private institutions.

        The decrease in government funding to public higher education institutions in recent years has served to spur the growth of private institutions, as tuitions have been increasingly funded by private sources. On average, OECD countries experienced a decrease in public funding from approximately 69% of total funding in 2000 to approximately 65% in 2012. For example, Mexico experienced a decrease in public funding as a percentage of total funding of approximately ten percentage points during the same period. We believe these trends have increased demand for competitive private institutions as public institutions are unable to meet the demand of students and families around the world, especially in developing markets.

        Greater Accessibility to Higher Education through Online and Hybrid Offerings.    Improving Internet broadband infrastructure and new instruction methodologies designed for the online medium have driven increased acceptance of the online modality globally. According to a survey conducted by the Babson Survey Research Group, approximately 71% of academic leaders rated online learning outcomes as the same or superior to classroom learning in 2014, up from approximately 57% in 2003. GSV estimates that the online higher education market will grow by a CAGR of approximately 25%, from $49 billion in 2012 to $149 billion in 2017. Additionally, new online and hybrid education offerings have enabled the cost-effective delivery of higher education, while improving overall affordability and accessibility for students. We believe that increasing student demand, coupled with growing employer and regulatory acceptance of degrees obtained through online and hybrid modalities, will continue to drive significant growth in the online and hybrid higher education market globally.

Our Strengths and Competitive Advantages

        We believe our key competitive strengths that will enable us to execute our growth strategy include the following:

        First Mover and Leader in Global Higher Education.    In 1999, we made our first investment in global higher education. Since that time, the Laureate International Universities network has grown to include 70 institutions in 25 countries that enroll more than one million students, of which approximately 95% are outside of the United States and over 85% reside in developing countries. Our growth has been the result of numerous organic initiatives, supplemented by successfully completing and integrating 41 acquisitions since August 2007, substantially all of which were completed through private negotiations and not as part of an auction process. Given our size and status as the first mover in many of our markets, we have been able to acquire many marquee assets, which we believe will help us maintain our market-leading position due to the considerable time and expense it would take a competitor to establish an integrated network of international universities of similar scale with the brands, intellectual property and accreditations that we possess.

        Long-Standing and Reputable University Brands Delivering High Quality Education.    We believe we have established a reputation for providing high-quality higher education around the world, and that our schools are among the most respected higher education brands in their local markets. Many of our institutions have over 50-year histories. In addition to long-standing presences in their local communities, many of our institutions are ranked among the best in their respective countries. For example, the Barómetro de la Educación Superior has ranked Universidad Andrés Bello as the top private university in Chile. Similarly, in Brazil, Universidade Anhembi Morumbi is ranked by Guia do Estudante as one of São Paulo's top universities, and in Europe, Universidad Europea de Madrid is the second largest private university in Spain and received four stars in the prestigious 2015 QS StarsTM

9


Table of Contents

international university rating. Our U.S.-based institutions have been recognized for their quality and value. Walden University, a member of the Laureate International Universities network, was singled out in the U.S. Senate Report on For Profit Higher Education in 2012 as "perhaps the best of any company examined." More recently, Walden ranked 19th on the list of the top 100 universities for adult learners in the Washington Monthly 2016 College Rankings.

        Our strong brands are perpetuated by our student-centric focus and our mission to provide greater access to cost-effective, high-quality higher education, which allows more students to pursue their academic and career aspirations. We are committed to continually evaluating our institutions to ensure we are providing the highest quality education to our students. Our proprietary management tool, the Laureate Education Assessment Framework ("LEAF"), is used to evaluate institutional performance based on 44 unique criteria across five different categories: Employability, Learning Experience, Personal Experience, Access & Outreach and Academic Excellence. LEAF, in conjunction with additional external assessment methodologies, such as QS StarsTM, allows us to identify key areas for improvement in order to drive a culture of quality and continual innovation at our institutions. For example, more than 81% of students attending Laureate institutions in Brazil are enrolled in an institution with an IGC score (an indicator used by the Brazilian Ministry of Education ("MEC") to evaluate the quality of higher education institutions) that has improved since 2010. In addition, our Brazilian institutions' IGC scores have increased by more than 22% on average from 2010 to 2015, placing three of our institutions in the top quarter, and all of our institutions are ranked in the top half of all private higher education institutions in the country.

        Many of our institutions and programs have earned the highest accreditation available, which provides us with a strong competitive advantage in local markets. For example, we serve more than 200,000 students in the fields of medicine and health sciences on over 100 campuses throughout the Laureate International Universities network, including 22 medical schools and 19 dental schools. Medical school licenses are often the most difficult to obtain and are only granted to institutions that meet rigorous standards. We believe the existence of medical schools at many of our institutions further validates the quality of our institutions and programs. Similarly, other institutions have received numerous specialized accreditations, including those for Ph.D. programs. For example, UNAB, UDLA Ecuador, and UPC are three of only 11 universities in all of Latin America to receive a U.S. accreditation, which is highly regarded and difficult to attain. Finally, in addition to Universidad Europea de Madrid, 14 institutions in our network were also rated by QS Stars™ international university rating, which is a prestigious external assessment. In 2015, many Laureate institutions received three and four stars as indicated below:

10


Table of Contents

        Superior Outcomes for Our Students.    We offer high-quality undergraduate, graduate and specialized programs in a wide range of disciplines that generate strong interest from students and provide attractive employment prospects. We design our programs to prepare students to contribute productively in their chosen professions upon employment. Our curriculum development process includes employer surveys and ongoing research into business trends to determine the skills and knowledge base that will be required by those employers in the future. This information results in timely curriculum upgrades, which helps ensure that our graduates acquire the skills that will make them marketable to employers. In 2014, we commissioned a study by Millward Brown, a leading third-party market research organization, of graduates at Laureate institutions representing over 60% of total Laureate enrollments. Graduates at 12 of our 13 surveyed international institutions achieved, on average, equal or higher employment rates within 12 months of graduation as compared to graduates of other institutions in the same markets, and in all of our premium institutions surveyed, graduates achieved higher starting salaries as compared to graduates of other institutions in those same markets (salary premium to market benchmarks ranged from approximately 6% to approximately 118%). In addition, a joint study by Laureate and the IFC/World Bank Group in 2014 showed that graduates of Laureate institutions in Mexico experienced higher rates of social mobility, finding jobs and moving up in socioeconomic status than their peers in non-Laureate institutions. In 2016, we conducted a similar study with the IFC in Peru for two of our network institutions, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas and Cibertec, which showed that graduates from the larger programs of both institutions had higher salaries than their control group counterparts. Additionally, graduates from UPC were found to experience a larger positive change in their socioeconomic status than their peers who completed studies at non-Laureate institutions.

        In 2016, Walden University commissioned Gallup to conduct a survey of Walden University's graduate-degree alumni using its Gallup-Purdue Index. The survey explored the relationship between Walden University's graduates' experiences and long-term outcomes based on their responses. Gallup administered a custom survey, developed in partnership with Walden University, to Walden University graduate degree holders and a national sample of graduate degree holders to allow comparison of outcomes in the areas of professional success, return on investment and civic engagement. The study included 8,677 adults who received graduate degrees from Walden University between 1990 and 2015 as well as 6,687 graduates from the national sample. Within the national sample, Gallup created an additional comparison group of graduates who completed half or more of their graduate degree online, the "half-plus graduate alumni," more closely resembling the Walden University sample set of online alumni. The Walden University sample is more likely than the half-plus online graduate alumni sample to be female (76% vs. 60%) and from a racial or ethnic minority group (36% vs. 28%), and the Walden University alumni are more likely than half-plus online graduate alumni to be the first generation in their families to attend college (61% vs. 48%). As evidenced by the demographic distinctions, Walden University graduates reflect a more diverse population compared with both national comparison groups. The survey results illustrate how many Walden University graduates went on to advance their careers, including that Walden University graduates were more likely than comparison groups to cite their degree as being important or very important toward getting promoted, achieving a salary raise and changing careers. The Gallup survey states that half-plus online graduate alumni are more likely than

11


Table of Contents

Walden University alumni to have degrees in well-compensated professions, including those with degrees in business and management (20% half-plus graduate alumni vs. 12% for Walden University alumni) and engineering (5% half-plus graduate alumni vs. 0% for Walden University alumni). Conversely, Walden University alumni are predominantly in professions that typically earn less: education (23% half-plus graduate alumni vs. 29% for Walden University alumni), teaching (8% half-plus graduate alumni vs. 14% for Walden University alumni) and nursing (6% half-plus graduate alumni vs. 24% for Walden University alumni). According to Gallup's survey, career advancement following receipt of a Walden University graduate degree may be contributing to the vast majority of Walden University graduates (88%) saying they are satisfied with their personal life today, on par with half-plus online graduate alumni (86%) and graduate degree holders nationally (89%). Additionally, 83% of Walden University graduates agree or strongly agree that they were challenged academically by Walden University, higher than the 75% of half-plus online graduate alumni surveyed but similar to graduate degree holders nationally (83%).

        Robust Technology and Intellectual Property Platform.    By virtue of our 17 years of experience operating in a global environment, managing campus-based institutions across multiple disciplines and developing and administering online programs and curricula, we have developed an extensive collection of intellectual property. We believe this collection of intellectual property, which includes online capabilities, campus design and management, recruitment of transnational students, faculty training, curriculum design and quality assurance, among other proprietary solutions, provides our students a truly differentiated learning experience and creates a significant competitive advantage for our institutions over competitors.

        A critical element of our intellectual property is a suite of proprietary technology solutions. Select examples include OneCampus, which connects students across our network with shared online courses and digital experiences, and Slingshot, an online career orientation tool that enables students to explore career paths through state-of-the-art interest assessment and rich content about hundreds of careers. Our commitment to investing in technology infrastructure, software and human capital ensures a high-quality educational experience for our students and faculty, while also providing us with the infrastructure to manage and scale our business.

        Our intellectual property has been a key driver in developing partnerships with prestigious independent institutions and governments globally. For example, we have partnered with other traditional public and private higher education institutions as a provider of online services. We have operated this model for more than ten years with the University of Liverpool in the United Kingdom and, more recently, we have added new partnerships with the University of Roehampton in the United Kingdom and the University of Miami in the United States. Additionally, in 2013, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia launched the College of Excellence program with a long-term goal of opening 100 new technical colleges, and sought private operators to manage the institutions on its behalf under an operating model in which the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia funds the capital requirements to build the institutions, and the private operator runs the academic operations under a contract model. As of December 31, 2016, we have been awarded contracts to operate eight of the 33 colleges for which contracts have been awarded to date, more than any other provider in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

        Scale and Diversification of Our Global Network.    The Laureate International Universities network is diversified across 25 countries, 70 campus-based and online institutions and over 2,500 programs. Additionally, in many markets, we have multiple institutions serving different segments of the population, at different price points and with different academic offerings. Although the majority of our institutions serve the premium segment of the market, we also have expanded our portfolio of offerings in many markets to include high-quality value and technical-vocational institutions. By serving multiple segments of the market, all with high-quality offerings, we are able to continue to expand our enrollments during varying economic cycles. Our top five largest markets, as measured by revenue, represented 71% of our consolidated revenue and 79% of our total enrollments in 2016. Our top five largest markets are home to 15% of the world's higher education students. We believe there is no other public or private organization that commands comparable global reach or scale.

12


Table of Contents

        Our global network allows our institutions to bring their distinctive identities together with our proprietary international content, managerial best practices and international programs. Through collaboration across the global network, we can efficiently share academic curricula and resources, create dual degree programs and student exchanges, develop our faculty and incorporate best practices throughout the organization. In addition, our wide-ranging network allows us to continue to scale our business by facilitating the expansion of existing programs and campuses, the launch of new programs, the opening of new campuses in areas of high demand and the strategic acquisition and integration of new institutions into our network. For example, the resources and support of our global network have had a demonstrated impact on our Medicine & Health Sciences expansion effort, which has resulted in enrollment growth from approximately 75,000 students in 2009 to more than 200,000 students as of December 31, 2016. Furthermore, the existing breadth of our network allows us to provide a high-quality educational experience to our students, while simultaneously accessing the broadest addressable market for our offerings.

        In recognition of the benefits of our international scale, and in order to formalize our organizational focus on the opportunities presented by our established network, we created the Laureate Network Office ("LNO") in 2015. The LNO is an important resource that allows us, among other things, to better leverage our expertise in the online modality to increase the frequency and effectiveness of online and hybrid learning opportunities across the network.

        To further illustrate the breadth and diversity of our global network, the charts below show the mix of our geographic revenues, programs, modality and levels of study:


GRAPHIC

 

GRAPHIC
Based on 12/31/2016 revenues
Note: Europe includes revenues from Switzerland and the United Kingdom that are captured in GPS for segment reporting purposes and excludes revenues from Morocco (which are shown in "Rest of World" above)
  Based on 12/31/2016 revenues

GRAPHIC

 

GRAPHIC
Based on 12/31/2016 total enrollments   Based on 12/31/2016 revenues

13


Table of Contents

Attractive Financial Model.

        Proven Management Team.    We have an experienced and talented senior management team, with strong international expertise from a wide variety of industry-leading global companies. Our executive officers have been with us an average of 14 years and have led our transformation into the largest global network of degree-granting higher education institutions in the world. Douglas L. Becker, our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and founder, has led our Company since its inception in 1989 and has cultivated an entrepreneurial and collaborative management culture. This entrepreneurial leadership style has been complemented by an executive management team with broad global experience, enabling us to institute strong governance practices throughout our network. The strength of the management team has enabled the sharing of best practices, allowing us to capitalize on favorable market dynamics and leading to the successful integration of numerous institutions into the Laureate International Universities network. In addition, we have strong regional and local management teams with a deep understanding of the local markets, that are focused on meeting the needs of our students and communities, and maintaining key relationships with regulators and business leaders. Our

14


Table of Contents

management team has a proven track record of gaining the trust and respect of the many regulatory authorities that are critical to our business.

Our Growth Strategy

        We intend to continue to focus on growing the Laureate International Universities network through the following key strategies:

        Expand Programs, Demographics and Capacity.    We will continue to focus on opportunities to expand our programs and the type of students that we serve, as well as our capacity in our markets to meet local demand. We also intend to continue to improve the performance of each of our institutions by adopting best practices that have been successful at other institutions in the Laureate International Universities network. We believe these initiatives will drive organic growth and provide an attractive return on capital. In particular, we intend to:

        We have successfully implemented these strategies at many of our institutions. For example, at UVM Mexico we grew total enrollments from approximately 37,000 students in 2002 to approximately 130,000 in 2016. This growth was the result of the introduction of new programs, including in the fields of health sciences, engineering and hospitality, the addition of 23 new campus locations (from 13 in 2002 to 37 in 2016), and the ability to serve new market segments such as working adults. While UVM Mexico has grown into the largest private institution in Mexico, our relentless focus on academic quality remains. In fact, UVM Mexico has improved from the 9th ranked institution in 2004 to the 7th ranked institution in 2016 according to Guía Universitaria. Further examples of our successes in implementing these strategies include:

15


Table of Contents

        Expand Penetration of Online and Hybrid Offerings.    We intend to increase the number of our students who receive their education through fully online or hybrid programs to meet the growing demand of younger generations that continue to embrace technology. Over the past decade, the global population with Internet access has continued to grow, and Forrester Research, Inc. ("Forrester") estimates a total of 3.5 billion people will have Internet access by 2017, representing nearly half of the world's population. Additionally, in many of our markets, online education is becoming more accepted by regulators and education professionals as an effective means of providing quality higher education. As the quality and acceptance of online education increases globally, we plan to continue investing in both expanding our stand-alone online course offerings and enhancing our traditional campus-based course offerings via complementary online delivery, creating a hybrid delivery model. We believe our history of success with Walden University, a fully online institution in the United States, and our well-developed online program offerings will provide a considerable advantage over local competitors, enabling us to combine our strong local brands with our experience in delivering online education. By the end of 2019, our goal is to increase the number of student credit hours taken online, which was approximately 15% as of the end of 2016, to approximately 25%. Some of our network institutions are already implementing online programs with significant progress being made. Our online initiative is designed to not only provide our students with access to the technology platforms and innovative programs they expect, but also to increase our enrollment in a more capital efficient manner, leveraging current infrastructure and improving classroom utilization.

        Expand Presence in AMEA.    AMEA represents the largest higher education market opportunity in the world with more than 130 million students enrolled in higher education institutions in 2014, according to UNESCO. Despite the large number of students enrolled, participation rates in the region suggest significantly underpenetrated enrollment given the strong imbalance between the supply and demand for higher education.

        In 2008, we entered the AMEA higher education market with our acquisition of an interest in INTI Education Group in Malaysia. In the last eight years, we have grown our AMEA footprint to

16


Table of Contents

include 21 institutions in eight countries, serving approximately 85,700 students, representing an enrollment CAGR of approximately 19% since entering the region in 2008. Recent expansion in the AMEA region includes eight Colleges of Excellence in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and our first institution in Sub-Saharan Africa in 2013, Monash South Africa. In anticipation of continued growth, we have made significant investments in the region, including hiring an experienced regional management team and establishing the infrastructure to help facilitate growth and further expand our footprint in the region. We plan to continue to expand our presence in AMEA by prioritizing markets based on demographic, market and regulatory factors, while seeking attractive returns on capital.

        Accelerate Partnership and Services Model Globally.    As the global leader in higher education, we believe we are well-positioned to capitalize on additional opportunities in the form of partnership and service models that are designed to address the growing needs of traditional institutions and governments around the world.

        Increasingly more complex services and operating capabilities are required by higher education institutions to address the needs of students effectively, and we believe our expertise and knowledge will allow us to leverage our intellectual property and technology to serve this market need. We have partnered with traditional public and private education institutions as a provider of online services and we believe there will be opportunities to expand that platform under similar relationships with other prestigious independent institutions in the future. Additionally, we are continually adding to our suite of solutions, and we believe many of these products and services will provide additional contractual and licensing opportunities for us in the future. For example, in recent years we have significantly advanced our digital teaching and learning efforts through proprietary technology-enabled solutions such as:

        Additionally, governments around the world are increasingly focused on increasing participation rates and often do not have an established or scalable public sector platform with the necessary expertise to accomplish that objective, and therefore are willing to fund private sector solutions. We believe our current partnership with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where we were selected as their largest partner for the Colleges of Excellence program, is a demonstration of how our distinct portfolio of solutions differentiates us from other providers who participated in the selection process. We are in active discussion with other governments regarding similar partnerships, as well as other solutions that we can provide to existing and new partners, and we anticipate this could be a source of additional revenue for us in the future.

        Increase Operating Efficiencies through Centralization and Standardization.    In 2014, we launched EiP as an enterprise-wide initiative to optimize and standardize our processes to enable sustained growth and margin expansion. The program aims to enable vertical integration of procurement, information technology, finance, accounting and human resources, thus enabling us to fully leverage the growing size and scope of our local operations. Specifically, we have developed and begun to deploy regional SSOs around the world, which will process most back-office and non-student facing transactions for the institutions in the Laureate International Universities network, such as accounting, finance and procurement. The implementation of EiP and regional SSOs are expected to generate significant cost savings throughout the network as we eliminate redundant processes and better leverage our global scale. In addition, centralized information technology, product development and content management will allow us to propagate best practices throughout the Laureate International Universities network and capitalize on efficiencies to help improve performance. We anticipate EiP will require an investment of

17


Table of Contents

approximately $180 million from 2015 to 2017, with the first significant investments already having been made in 2015. These investments have already begun to generate cost savings and, upon completion of the project, we expect these efficiencies to generate approximately $100 million in annual cost savings in 2019, while also enhancing our internal controls and the speed of integration of new acquisitions. We also believe these initiatives will enhance the student experience by improving the quality of our operations and by enabling additional reinvestment in facilities, faculty and course offerings.

        Target Strategic Acquisitions.    Since being taken private in August 2007, we have made 41 acquisitions with an aggregate purchase price of approximately $2.0 billion, including assumed debt. Substantially all of these acquisitions were completed through private negotiations and not as part of an auction process, which we believe demonstrates our standing as a partner of choice. We intend to continue to expand through the selective acquisition of institutions in new and existing markets. We employ a highly disciplined approach to acquisitions by focusing on key characteristics that make certain markets particularly attractive for private higher education, such as demographics, economic and social factors, the presence of a stable political environment and a regulatory climate that values private higher education. When we enter a new market or industry sector, we target institutions with well-regarded reputations and which are well-respected by regulators. We also invest time and resources to understand the managerial, financial and academic resources of the prospect and the resources we can bring to that institution. After an acquisition, we focus on organic growth and financial returns by applying best practices and integrating, both operationally and financially, the institution into the Laureate International Universities network, and we have a strong track record of success. For all the institutions we acquired between 1999 and December 31, 2011, we achieved average enrollment and revenue CAGRs of approximately 15% and approximately 19%, respectively, in the four full years following the first anniversary of the acquisition. Further, we achieved operating income CAGRs (adjusted for impairment charges) of approximately 44%, translating into a margin expansion of nearly six percentage points for the same period. Additionally, we bring programs and expertise to increase the quality and reputation of institutions after we acquire them, and assist them in earning new forms of licenses and accreditations. We believe our experienced management team, history of strong financial performance rooted in the successful integration of previous acquisitions, local contacts and cultural understanding makes us the leading choice for higher education institutions seeking to join an international educational network.

Our History

        We were founded in 1989 as Sylvan Learning Systems, Inc., a provider of a broad array of supplemental and remedial educational services. In 1999, we made our first investment in global higher education with our acquisition of Universidad Europea de Madrid, and in 2001 we entered the market for online delivery of higher education services in the United States with our acquisition of Walden University. In 2003, we sold the principal operations that made up our then K-12 educational services business and certain venture investments deemed not strategic to our higher education business, and in 2004 we changed our name to Laureate Education, Inc. Between the time we sold the K-12 educational services business in 2003 and August 2007, we acquired nine institutions for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $160 million, including assumed debt, and entered seven new countries.

        In August 2007, we were acquired in a leveraged buyout by a consortium of investment funds and other investors affiliated with or managed by, among others, Douglas L. Becker, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and founder, Steven M. Taslitz, a director of the Company, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. (together with its affiliates, "KKR"), Point 72 Asset Management, L.P. (together with its affiliates, including Cohen Private Ventures, LLC ("Cohen Private Ventures"), "CPV"), Bregal Investments, Inc. (together with its affiliates, "Bregal"), StepStone Group LP (together with its affiliates, "StepStone"), Sterling Fund Management, LLC (together with its affiliates and investment funds managed by it, "Sterling Partners") and Snow Phipps Group, LLC (together with its affiliates,

18


Table of Contents

"Snow Phipps" and, collectively, the "the Wengen Investors"), for an aggregate total purchase price of $3.8 billion, including $1.7 billion of debt, all of which has been refinanced or replaced. See "Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Indebtedness—The fact that we have substantial debt could materially adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital to fund our operations and limit our ability to pursue our growth strategy or to react to changes in the economy or our industry." We believe that these investors have embraced our mission, commitment to academic quality and ongoing focus to provide a social benefit to the communities we serve.

        After being taken private in August 2007, we undertook several initiatives to continually improve the quality of our programs and outcomes for our students, while expanding our scale and geographic presence, and strengthening our organization and management team. Since August 2007, we have completed 41 acquisitions with an aggregate purchase price of approximately $2 billion, including assumed debt, and entered 12 new countries, and we now have a total institution count of 70.

        In early 2013, International Finance Corporation ("IFC"), a member of the World Bank Group, the IFC Africa, Latin American and Caribbean Fund, LP and the Korea Investment Corporation (together with the IFC, the "the IFC Investors") collectively invested $200 million in our common stock. IFC is a global development institution that helps developing countries achieve sustainable growth by financing investment in the private sector and providing advisory services to businesses and governments. The investment in Laureate received the unanimous approval of the Board of Directors of the IFC in 2012. We believe that the IFC made its investment in our common stock to underscore its long-term commitment to supporting education with strategic clients that have the ability to develop much-needed job-market skills, because of our substantial presence in emerging markets and because of its belief that working with us would have a significant impact on human development in the countries where we operate. Two Laureate institutions received IFC investments even before their affiliation with Laureate.

        In December 2013, the boards of directors of Wengen and Laureate authorized the combination of Laureate and Laureate Education Asia Limited ("Laureate Asia"). Laureate Asia was a subsidiary of Wengen that provided higher education programs and services to students through a network of licensed institutions located in Australia, China, India, Malaysia and Thailand. Wengen transferred 100% of the equity of Laureate Asia to Laureate. The transaction is accounted for as a transfer between entities under common control and, accordingly, the accounts of Laureate Asia are retrospectively included in the financial statements and notes thereto included elsewhere in this Form 10-K.

        We consummated our initial public offering ("IPO") on February 6, 2017. On January 31, 2017, in connection with our initial public offering, our Amended and Restated Certificate of Corporation was accepted for filing by the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware, and effective upon such filing, a 4 to 1 reverse stock split for our common stock was consummated and each share of our common stock then outstanding was automatically reclassified into Class B Common Stock, a newly established class of the Company's common stock, with any resulting fractional shares rounded down to the next whole share. On February 2, 2017, we filed a Prospectus for our initial public offering with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. We issued 35,000,000 shares of our Class A common stock and began trading on the Nasdaq under the symbol "LAUR". The net proceeds to us from the offering, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions, were $456.5 million.

Public Benefit Corporation Status

        In October 2015, we redomiciled in Delaware as a public benefit corporation as a demonstration of our long-term commitment to our mission to benefit our students and society. Public benefit corporations are a relatively new class of corporations that are intended to produce a public benefit and to operate in a responsible and sustainable manner. Under Delaware law, public benefit

19


Table of Contents

corporations are required to identify in their certificate of incorporation the public benefit or benefits they will promote and their directors have a duty to manage the affairs of the corporation in a manner that balances the pecuniary interests of the stockholders, the best interests of those materially affected by the corporation's conduct, and the specific public benefit or public benefits identified in the public benefit corporation's certificate of incorporation. Public benefit corporations organized in Delaware are also required to assess their benefit performance internally and to disclose publicly at least biennially a report detailing their success in meeting their benefit objectives.

        We do not believe that an investment in the stock of a public benefit corporation differs materially from an investment in a corporation that is not designated as a public benefit corporation. We believe that our ongoing efforts to achieve our public benefit goals will not materially affect the financial interests of our stockholders. Holders of our Class A common stock have voting, dividend and other economic rights that are the same as the rights of stockholders of a corporation that is not designated as a public benefit corporation. See "Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Investing in Our Class A Common Stock—As a public benefit corporation, our focus on a specific public benefit purpose and producing a positive effect for society may negatively influence our financial performance."

        Our public benefit, as provided in our certificate of incorporation, is: to produce a positive effect (or a reduction of negative effects) for society and persons by offering diverse education programs delivered online and on premises operated in the communities that we serve. By doing so, we believe that we provide greater access to cost-effective, high-quality higher education that enables more students to achieve their academic and career aspirations. Most of our operations are outside the United States, where there is a large and growing imbalance between the supply and demand for quality higher education. Our stated public benefit is firmly rooted in our company mission and our belief that when our students succeed, countries prosper and societies benefit. Becoming a public benefit corporation underscores our commitment to our purpose and our stakeholders, including students, regulators, employers, local communities and stockholders.

Certified B Corporation

        While not required by Delaware law or the terms of our certificate of incorporation, we have elected to have our social and environmental performance, accountability and transparency assessed against the proprietary criteria established by an independent non-profit organization. As a result of this assessment, we have been designated as a "Certified B CorporationTM" under the standards set by an independent organization, which refers to companies that are certified as meeting certain levels of social and environmental performance, accountability and transparency.

        The following description of the certification processes and standards was provided to us by the independent organization that designated us as a Certified B Corporation. The first step in becoming a Certified B Corporation is taking and passing a comprehensive and objective assessment of a business's positive impact on society and the environment. The assessment varies depending on the company's size (number of employees), sector and location. The standards in the assessment are created and revised by an independent governing body that determines eligibility to be a Certified B Corporation.

        By completing a set of over 200 questions, which are customized for the company being assessed, that reflect impact indicators, best practices and outcomes, a company receives a composite score on a 200-point scale representative of its overall impact on its employees, customers, communities and the environment. Representative indicators in the assessment range from payment above a living wage, employee benefits, charitable giving/community service, use of renewable energy and, in the case of educational institutions like Laureate, student outcomes such as retention, graduation and employment rates.

20


Table of Contents

        Certification as a Certified B Corporation requires that a company achieve a reviewed assessment score of at least an 80. The review process includes a phone review, a random selection of indicators for verifying documentation and a random selection of company locations for onsite reviews, including employee interviews and facility tours. In the case of Laureate's assessment, each subsidiary, as well as the corporate office in Baltimore, was required to complete an individual assessment for review that would be aggregated based on size to calculate an overall score. The assessment also includes a disclosure questionnaire, including any sensitive practices, fines and sanctions related to the company or its partners.

        For Laureate, certification also required us to adopt the public benefit corporation structure, a step we have already completed. Once certified, every Certified B Corporation must make its assessment score transparent on the independent non-profit organization's website. Acceptance as a Certified B Corporation and continued certification is at the sole discretion of the independent organization.

Social Responsibility

        We are serious about making an enduring commitment to the communities we serve. We do this through a range of scholarships and awards, donations to non-profits aligned with our mission and through creating international opportunities for our students.

        As part of this commitment, since 2003, we have provided financial support to the International Youth Foundation ("IYF") directly and through our affiliated charitable foundation. The IYF was founded in 1990 with a grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. IYF is a highly regarded international non-profit, with a mission to build partnerships, initiatives, and curricula that prepare young women and men to succeed as citizens, employees, entrepreneurs, and change-makers around the world.

        IYF was started before we made our first investment in higher education and 13 years before we provided it with any financial support. Neither we nor our founder Mr. Becker controls or manages IYF, which is an independent and respected charitable organization. Mr. Becker has served as an unpaid volunteer member of the IYF's 14-member board, and the only IYF board member affiliated with us, since 2003 and as the board's chair since 2006. IYF has a longstanding relationship with the United States Agency for International Development ("USAID"), dating to 1999, and was cited for excellence by USAID during the George W. Bush administration. IYF has worked in partnership with USAID, the U.S. government agency that provides foreign assistance and promotes democracy in over 100 countries, on youth capacity-building, employability and civic engagement programs all across the world. These grants are awarded on a competitive basis, based on an organization's proven track record using funding to accomplish USAID goals.

        Since 2003, we and our affiliated foundation have donated approximately $9 million to IYF. We have never received any funds from IYF.

Support of Recognized World Leaders

        In 2010, former U.S. President Bill Clinton signed a five-year contract to serve as the Laureate International Universities network's Honorary Chancellor. During his term, President Clinton advised the network on issues such as social responsibility, youth leadership and civic engagement, while also speaking to students, faculty and staff worldwide. During his term, President Clinton visited 19 Laureate campuses in 14 countries. Immediately following the end of his term on its originally scheduled expiration date, the former president of Mexico, Ernesto Zedillo, assumed the similar role of Presidential Counselor for the Laureate International Universities network.

21


Table of Contents

Our Programs

        We believe the diversity afforded by our program offerings helps insulate us against an economic downturn in any one area of study. We offer our programs through traditional classroom instruction as well as partially or fully online methods that we believe are attractive to both traditional students and working adults, a fast-growing cohort that we expect to represent an increasing part of our revenue mix in the future. Our fully online programs offer our students a convenient and cost-effective alternative to traditional classroom instruction and currently enroll students from over 175 countries worldwide. Our educational institutions offer a diverse range of academic programs, at the undergraduate and graduate level, including:

        Our educational institutions also offer upper secondary programs in Mexico. Our operational infrastructure and management approach are highly flexible and enable us to adapt quickly to unique situations and evolving international market trends. We continually monitor our programs that have been successful in their native markets and assess the ability to successfully provide a similar offering in other markets. This approach allows us to readily disseminate global best practices across different fields of study, optimize our educational delivery for the benefit of our students and further differentiate us from our locally based competition. We also provide convenient and flexible instructional delivery methods that allow students to attend classes, complete coursework and pursue a degree partially or entirely via distance learning, thereby increasing the convenience, accessibility and flexibility of our campus-based educational programs. We expect to leverage our already strong standing in these program areas through the continued development of rich media content, while bolstering our degree programs in other areas of study. We believe these flexible offerings distinguish us from many traditional universities that currently do not effectively address the flexibility required by students.

        Many of our institutions have medical, dental and other health sciences programs that include providing clinical training to their students. As part of our commitment to civic engagement, we

22


Table of Contents

provide free or low-cost medical care to local community members. In 2015, approximately 150,000 patients were served by our institutions.

Our Operating Segments

        On May 2, 2016, we announced a change to our operating segments in order to align our structure more geographically. Our institution in Italy, NABA, including Domus Academy, moved from our GPS segment into our Europe segment. MDS, located in New Zealand, moved from our GPS segment into our AMEA segment. Our GPS segment now focuses on Laureate's fully online global operations and on its campus-based institutions in the United States. We determine our operating segments based on information utilized by our chief operating decision maker to allocate resources and assess performance. See Note 6, Business and Geographic Segment Information, in our consolidated financial statements for financial information regarding our operating segments and financial information about geographic areas; see also "Item 7—Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation—Results of Operations—Segment Results and—Overview—Factors Affecting Comparability—Seasonality."

LatAm

        As of the date of this Form 10-K, our LatAm segment consists of 29 licensed higher education institutions and has operations in Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, Panama and Peru at which we enrolled approximately 823,600 students as of December 31, 2016. Our LatAm segment includes one institution in Ecuador with which we have contractual arrangements that are managed within the segment. The institutions primarily serve 18- to 24-year-old students and offer an education that emphasizes professional-oriented fields of study with undergraduate and graduate degrees in a wide range of disciplines, including business, education, hospitality management, law, health sciences, information technology and engineering.

23


Table of Contents

        The following table presents information about the institutions in our LatAm segment (unless otherwise noted, we own each of these institutions):

Country
  Higher Education Institution   Year Joined
Laureate
Network
  Year
Founded
 

Brazil

 

Universidade Anhembi Morumbi (UAM Brazil)

    2005     1970  

 

Universidade Potiguar (UnP)

    2007     1981  

 

Centro Universitário dos Guararapes (CUG)

    2007     2002  

 

Faculdade Internacional da Paraíba (FPB)

    2007     2005  

 

Business School São Paulo (BSP)

    2008     1994  

 

Centro Universitário do Norte (UniNorte)

    2008     1994  

 

FADERGS Centro Universitário (FADERGS)

    2008     2004  

 

Instituton Brasileiro de Medicina de Reabilitação (Uni IBMR)

    2009     1974  

 

Universidade Salvador (UNIFACS)

    2010     1972  

 

Centro Universitário Ritter dos Reis (UniRitter)

    2010     1971  

 

Faculdade dos Guararapes de Recife (FGR)

    2012     1990  

 

FMU Education Group (FMU)

    2014     1968  

 

Faculdade Porto-Alegrense (FAPA)

    2014     2008  

Chile

 

Universidad de Las Américas (UDLA Chile)

    2000 *   1988  

 

Instituto Profesional AIEP (AIEP)

    2003     1960  

 

Universidad Andrés Bello (UNAB)

    2003 *   1989  

 

Instituto Profesional Escuela Moderna de Música (EMM)

    2008     1940  

 

Universidad Viña del Mar (UVM Chile)

    2009 *   1988  

Costa Rica

 

Universidad Latina de Costa Rica (ULatina)

    2003     1989  

 

Universidad Americana (UAM Costa Rica)

    2008     1998  

Ecuador

 

Universidad de Las Américas (UDLA Ecuador)

    2003   1995  

Honduras

 

Universidad Tecnológica Centroamericana (UNITEC Honduras)

    2005 *   1987  

Mexico

 

Universidad del Valle de México (UVM Mexico)

    2000     1960  

 

Universidad Tecnológica de México (UNITEC Mexico)

    2008     1966  

Panama

 

Universidad Interamericana de Panamá (UIP)

    2003     1994  

Peru

 

Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)

    2004     1994  

 

CIBERTEC

    2004     1983  

 

Universidad Privada del Norte (UPN)

    2007     1994  

 

Instituto Tecnológico del Norte (ITN)

    2007     1984  

*
Not-for-profit institution consolidated by Laureate as a variable interest entity.

Not-for-profit institution not consolidated by Laureate.

        Our LatAm institutions consist of:

Brazil

24


Table of Contents

Chile

25


Table of Contents

Costa Rica

Ecuador

Honduras

26


Table of Contents

Mexico

Panama

Peru

27


Table of Contents

Tuition and Fees

        Tuition varies at each of the higher education institutions in our LatAm segment depending on the curriculum and type of program. Tuition payment options vary by institution and primarily include monthly installment payment plans and lump sum payments at the beginning of the academic period. Historically, we have increased tuition as educational costs and inflation have risen. Students are generally responsible for transportation and housing expenses and costs related to textbook and supply purchases required for their educational programs. At some of the institutions, we offer these services to the student body, which generates incremental revenues.

        Students and their families typically self-finance their education or seek third-party financing programs. However, in certain markets in Latin America there are various forms of government-supported student financing programs as discussed below.

Government-Sponsored Student Financing Programs

        The Crédito con Aval del Estado (the "CAE Program"), a government sponsored student loan program in Chile, was enacted by the Chilean government in 2005 and formally implemented in 2006 to promote higher education in Chile for lower socio-economic level students with good academic standing. Chilean institutions in the Laureate International Universities network (universities and technical-vocational schools) participate in this program. The CAE Program involves tuition financing and guarantees that are shared by our institutions and the government. As part of the program, Chilean institutions provide guarantees resulting in contingent liabilities to third-party financing institutions ranging from 90% to 60% of the tuition loans made directly to qualified students enrolled through the CAE Program. The guarantees by the institutions are for the period during which the student is enrolled, and the guarantees are assumed entirely by the government upon the student's graduation. Additionally, when a student leaves one of our institutions and enrolls in another CAE-qualified institution, our institution will remain guarantor of the tuition loans that have been granted to him up to such date, and until the student's graduation from the new CAE-qualified institution. All loans under the CAE Program have an interest rate of 2% per annum, contain repayment terms that would not require a graduate to make combined principal and interest payments of more than 10% of his or her monthly income in any month during the 180-month repayment period and provide that any balance remaining be forgiven at the end of the 180-month repayment period. Institutional accreditation by the National Accreditation Commission is required for new students to participate in the CAE Program. One of our institutions in Chile, Universidad de Las Américas ("UDLA Chile"), lost its accreditation for the period from January 2014 to March 2016 so new students at that institution could not participate in the CAE Program during that period. UDLA Chile's accreditation was reinstated in March 2016 for three years, until March 2019. The Nuevo Milenio scholarship ("NMS") program was created by the Chilean government in 2001 to support access to vocational and technical education for students in the lowest two income quintiles who met or exceeded certain academic standards. Originally, it provided eligible students with an annual scholarship grant of up to CLP 360,000. Over the years, eligibility was extended first to students in the three lowest income quintiles and then, in 2015, to the lowest 70% who met or exceeded certain academic standards, and the annual amount of the scholarship was raised incrementally to CLP 600,000. For 2016, the NMS was divided into three parts: (i) NMS I, which grants eligible students scholarships of up to CLP 600,000 per year; (ii) NMS II, which grants students scholarships of up to CLP 850,000 per year, provided the students come from the first five income deciles and the tech/voc institution in which they are enrolled is organized as a not-for-profit legal entity or, if the tech/voc institution is not so organized, the institution has stated in writing its intention to become a not-for-profit entity and to be accredited; and (iii) NMS III, which grants students scholarships of up to CLP 900,000 per year, provided that such students and the institution in which they enroll meet the requirements for NMS II and the tech/voc institution was, on December 31, 2015, accredited for four years or more. The Chilean

28


Table of Contents

tech/voc institutions in the Laureate International Universities network do not meet each of these tests, so students at these institutions are only eligible for NMS I scholarships under the current law.

        There is no assurance that any legislation that is introduced or passed by the Chilean Congress will conform to the government's proposal. See "Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—Political and regulatory developments in Chile may materially adversely affect our operations." and "Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—Regulatory changes in Chile may reduce access to student financing for some of our students in Chile, which could reduce enrollments at our Chilean institutions."

        In Brazil, there are two main federal government programs that provide either financing or financial support to students, the Fundo de Financiamento Estudantil ("FIES") and the Programa Universidade Para Todos ("PROUNI"). Both are used by substantially all of our Brazilian institutions. FIES provides direct financing to students. PROUNI is a government program that provides federal taxes incentives to educational institutions in exchange for providing scholarships to lower income students. In previous years, the Brazilian government made efforts to improve the operation of FIES and to increase overall participation, creating more higher education opportunities for the economically disadvantaged. However, due to a series of recent programmatic changes described below, we experienced a decrease in the enrollment of students participating in FIES in 2015.

        FIES targets students from low socio-economic backgrounds enrolled at private post-secondary institutions. Eligible students receive loans with below market interest rates that are required to be repaid after an 18-month grace period upon graduation. FIES pays participating educational institutions tax credits which can be used to pay certain federal taxes and social contributions. FIES repurchases excess credits for cash. As part of the program, our institutions are obligated to pay up to 15% of any student default. The default obligation increases to up to 30% of any student default if the institution is not current with its federal taxes. In the past, FIES withheld between 1% and 3% of tuition paid to the institutions to cover any potential student defaults ("holdback"). If the student pays 100% of his or her loan, the withheld amounts will be paid to the participating education institutions.

        Since February 2014, all new students who participate in FIES must also enroll in Fundo de Garantia de Operações de Crédito Educativo ("FGEDUC"). FGEDUC is a government-mandated, private guarantee fund administered by the Bank of Brazil that allows participating educational institutions to insure themselves for 90% (or 13.5% of 15%) of their losses related to student defaults under the FIES program. The cost of the program is 6.25% of the amount covered, which represents 5.63% of a student's full tuition. Similar to FIES, the administrator withholds 5.63% of a student's full tuition to fund the guarantee by FGEDUC.

        As of December 31, 2016, approximately 20% of our students in Brazil participated in FIES, representing approximately 29% of our 2016 Brazil revenues.

        In December 2014, the MEC along with the Brazilian Fund for Education Development ("FNDE"), the agency that directly administers FIES, announced several significant rule changes to the FIES program beginning in 2015. These changes limit the number of new participants and the annual budget of the program, and delay payments to post-secondary institutions with more than 20,000 FIES students that would otherwise have been due in 2015. The first change implements a minimum score on the high school achievement exam in order to enroll in the program. The second change alters the schedule for the payment and repurchase of credits as well as limits the opportunities for post-secondary institutions to sell any unused credits such that there is a significant delay between the time the post-secondary institution provides the educational services to the students and the time it receives payment from the government for 2015. In addition to these rule changes, FNDE implemented a policy for current students' loan renewals for 2015, which provides that returning students may not finance an amount that increases by more than 6.41%, which was later increased to 8.5%, from the amount financed in the previous semester, regardless of any increases in tuition or in the number of

29


Table of Contents

courses in which the student is enrolled, a policy that we believe violates the applicable law. For 2016, MEC announced that there will be no limitation to the tuition increase. Moreover, in the first and second intakes of 2015, the online enrollment and re-enrollment system that all post-secondary institutions and students must use to access the program has experienced numerous technical and programming faults that have also interfered with the enrollment and re-enrollment process. Numerous challenges to these changes and requests for judicial relief from the system's faults have been filed in the Brazilian courts, most of which are pending. The 2016 enrollment and re-enrollment schedule has been released and, so far, the system has not presented any major issues.

        In October 2015, FNDE initiated negotiations with the Brazilian Association of Post-Secondary Institutions ("ABRAES") aiming at settling the FIES payments that were delayed in 2015. The proposal from MEC, which was accepted by ABRAES, was to divide the total amount due into three annual installments to be paid one fourth in 2016, one fourth in 2017 and half in 2018. The parties also agreed that the yearly installments will be paid in June of each year, and the amounts will be adjusted to reflect an inflation index from the date of the respective maturity until the effective payment. FNDE also agreed not to take any discriminatory measures in the future related to the payment due to the post-secondary institutions, and not to impose any limitation on the issuance of certificates and repurchase of credits due to the post-secondary institutions, which basically means that all certificates will be issued and repurchased in their respective fiscal years, except for those intended to be issued and repurchased in December, which will be paid in January of the following year. The parties executed the settlement agreement on January 28, 2016 and it was approved by the office of the Attorney General of Brazil on February 3, 2016. The Federal Court of Brasilia ratified the settlement agreement on March 17, 2016. Our post-secondary institutions in Brazil are associated with ABRAES and signed the settlement agreement as well; therefore, it will apply to us.

        On December 11, 2015, MEC issued new FIES regulations ("Normative Ordinance No. 13"), which supersedes in all significant aspects the rules previously in force. Normative Ordinance No. 13 defined and clarified some rules for student eligibility and classification, higher education institution participation and selection of the vacancies that will be offered to the students in the first intake of 2016.

        Among other changes, it created a "waiting list" concept for students not selected in the first selection call. It also instituted a rule that allows the remaining vacancies that were not filled in by the waiting list students to be redistributed among other programs of the post-secondary institution.

        The rules for student eligibility are to have a gross household income of not more than 2.5 times the minimum wage per capita (which was raised by the MEC to 3.0 times on June 17, 2016) and to have taken the National High School Proficiency Exam at least once since 2010, with a minimum score of 450 points, and to have a score greater than zero in the test of writing.

        Regarding the participation of post-secondary institutions in FIES, institutions must sign a participation agreement that contains their proposal of the number of vacancies offered and the following information per shift (morning, evening) and campus location: (i) tuition gross amount for the entire course, including all semesters; (ii) total tuition gross amount per course for the first semester, which must reflect at least a five percent discount to the course list price; and (iii) the number of vacancies that will be offered through the FIES selection process. Also, only courses with scores of 3, 4 or 5 in the National Higher Education Evaluation System ("SINAES") evaluation are eligible to receive FIES students.

        On July 14, 2016, Provisional Presidential Decree No. 741/2016 (Medida Provisória No. 741/2016) revising the FIES payments rules was published in the official gazette. According to the new decree, higher education institutions became liable for the administration fees and expenses charged by the government banks that manage FIES loans. The decree became effective immediately and the government will withhold two percent of all FIES payments to cover such administration fees and

30


Table of Contents

expenses. Provisional presidential decrees are instruments with the force of law that the President of Brazil can issue in cases of importance and urgency. They have immediate effect and are valid for 60 days, extendable only once for the same period. Effectiveness beyond that period required approval of the National Congress, which took place on November 9, 2016, and it was enacted into law on December 2, 2016 (Law No. 13.366/2016).

        In August 2016, the MEC issued additional FIES regulations ("Normative Ordinance No. 17") expanding the guidelines previously defined in Normative Ordinance No. 13. Among other things, Normative Ordinance No. 17 describes in greater detail how to calculate remaining vacancies, sets forth procedures and deadlines for the completion of the filling of the remaining vacancies, and provides for dealing with exceptional situations where procedural errors or other obstacles have prevented students from accessing remaining vacancies in a timely manner.

        Another change in the new regulation was the number (or percentage) of vacancies that can be offered by the post-secondary institutions in relation to the score obtained in SINAES evaluation, which was reduced:

        The criteria for the selection of vacancies by MEC to be offered to students were also modified by Normative Ordinance No. 13 and the regionality provisions of the prior Normative Ordinances (i.e., vacancies offered in the Northeast, North and Central-West regions would have had priority over those offered in the South and Southeast regions) were excluded from the regulation. Normative Ordinance No. 13 replaces the regionality criterion with a new criterion of "social relevance determined by micro-regions," which means that for each micro-region they will take into consideration the demand for higher education for educational financing (calculated by FIES) and the Human Development Index of each micro-region. All of the other criteria provided in the previous regulation were maintained in the new one (i.e., (i) FIES budget and the availability of resources, (ii) course score under SINAES's evaluation and (iii) priority courses, as defined by the government (pedagogy, engineering and health sector courses)). Normative Ordinance No. 13 also contains two annexes, which address in great detail the selection and tiebreaker criteria for the vacancies, as well as the rules for redistribution of remaining vacancies.

        Brazil's economy continues to present challenges to growth and create pricing pressures in the education sector. Our new student enrollment in Brazil was negatively affected by these conditions as well as the changes to the FIES program. If economic conditions continue to weaken and the Brazilian government implements additional austerity measures, our ability to grow our student enrollment in Brazil may be further negatively affected. The Brazilian government's changes to the FIES program resulted in a substantial increase in the total number of new FIES contracts in that country in 2014, an election year, and then a reduction in the total number of new FIES contracts, from over 700,000 in 2014 to approximately 300,000 in 2015. As a result, Laureate's new enrollments of students in the FIES program also decreased similarly in 2015; however, this did not have a material impact on our 2015 results of operations since total enrollments for all students increased in 2015. Any potential impact on total enrollment would not occur until the FIES students from the expansion of the program have graduated, and would depend on the Brazilian government's commitment to the FIES program. In addition, the Brazilian government reduced the frequency of payments to participating institutions during 2015.

31


Table of Contents

        These programs are more fully described in "—Industry Regulation—Brazilian Regulation" and "—Industry Regulation—Chilean Regulation" and in Note 11, Commitments and Contingencies, to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Form 10-K.

Europe

        Our Europe segment consists of 13 licensed higher education institutions, and has operations in Cyprus, Germany, Morocco, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Turkey at which we enrolled approximately 61,700 students as of December 31, 2016. The institutions primarily serve 18- to 24-year-old students and offer an education that emphasizes professional-oriented fields of study with undergraduate and graduate degrees in a wide variety of disciplines, including business, hospitality management, health sciences, architecture, engineering and art and design.

        The following table presents information about our institutions in our Europe segment (unless otherwise noted, we own each of these institutions):

Country
  Higher Education Institution   Year Joined
Laureate
Network
  Year
Founded
 

Cyprus

 

European University Cyprus (EUC)

    2005     1961  

Germany

 

Business and Information Technology School (BiTS)

    2007     2000  

 

HTK Academy of Design (HTK)

    2011     1987  

Italy

 

Nuova Accademia di Belle Arti Milano (NABA)

    2009     1980  

Morocco

 

Université Internationale de Casablanca (UIC)

    2010     2010  

Portugal

 

Universidade Europeia (UE)

    2011     1962  

 

IADE-U—Instituto de Arte, Design e Empresa—Universitário (IADE-U)

    2015     1969  

 

Instituto Português de Administração de Marketing de Porto (IPAM Porto)

    2015     1984  

 

Instituto Português de Administração de Marketing de Lisboa (IPAM Lisboa)

    2015     1987  

Spain

 

Universidad Europea de Madrid (UEM)

    1999     1995  

 

Universidad Europea de Canarias (UEC)

    2010     2010  

 

Universidad Europea de Valencia (UEV)

    2012     2012  

Turkey

 

Istanbul Bilgi University

    2006 *   1996  

*
Not-for-profit institution consolidated by Laureate as a variable interest entity.

        Our Europe institutions consist of:

Cyprus

Germany

32


Table of Contents

Italy

Morocco

Portugal

Spain

33


Table of Contents

Turkey

Tuition and Fees

        Tuition varies at each of the institutions in our Europe segment depending on the curriculum and type of program. Tuition payment options vary by institution and primarily include monthly installment payment plans and lump sum payments at the beginning of the academic year. Historically, we have increased tuition as educational costs and inflation have risen.

        Students and their families are generally responsible for room and board fees, transportation expenses and costs related to textbook and supply purchases required for their educational programs. Several of our institutions in our Europe segment also have revenue-generating room and board fees.

        Students typically self-finance their education or seek third-party financing programs.

AMEA

        Our AMEA segment consists of 21 licensed higher education institutions, and has operations in Australia, China, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Thailand at which we enrolled approximately 85,700 students as of December 31, 2016 as adjusted for the realignment of MDS into our AMEA segment. The segment includes 9 licensed institutions in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and one institution in China that we manage through joint venture or other arrangements. The institutions primarily serve 18- to 24-year-old students and offer an education that emphasizes professional-oriented fields of study with undergraduate and graduate degrees in a wide range of disciplines, including business, engineering, information technology, law, arts, fashion and design, education, hospitality management and health sciences, as well as vocational diplomas.

34


Table of Contents

        We have historically focused on entering new geographic markets through acquiring institutions with an established name and operational history; however, we also occasionally work with local partners to enter markets through joint ventures to launch new higher education institutions. Through these partnerships, we can apply our programmatic and management expertise to help develop the institutions, while benefiting from our partner's local market knowledge and experience and limiting our financial exposure.

        The following table presents information about the institutions in our AMEA segment (unless otherwise noted, we own each of these institutions):

Country
  Higher Education Institution   Year Joined
Laureate
Network
  Year Founded  

Australia

 

Blue Mountains International Hotel Management School (BMIHMS)

    2008     1991  

 

THINK Education Group (THINK)

    2013     2006  

 

Torrens University Australia (TUA)

    2014     2014  

China

 

Blue Mountains International Hotel Management School—Suzhou (Blue Mountains Suzhou)

    2008   2004  

 

Hunan International Economics University (HIEU)

    2009 *   1997  

India

 

Pearl Academy (Pearl)

    2011 *   1993  

 

University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (UPES)

    2013 *   2003  

 

University of Technology and Management (UTM)

    2013 *   2011  

Malaysia

 

INTI Education Group (INTI Malaysia)

    2008     1986  

New Zealand

 

Media Design School (MDS)

    2011     1998  

Saudi Arabia

 

Riyadh Polytechnic Institute (RPI)

    2010   2010  

 

International Tourism and Hospitality College at Riyadh (ITHCR)

    2013 #   2013  

 

International Technical College at Jeddah (ITCJ)

    2013 #   2013  

 

International Technical Female College at Makkah (ITCM)

    2013 #   2013  

 

International Technical Female College at Al-Kharj (ITCAK)

    2013 #   2013  

 

International Tourism and Hospitality College at Al-Madinah (ITHCAM)

    2014 #   2014  

 

International Technical Female College at Al-Nammas (ITCAN)

    2015 #   2015  

 

International Technical Female College at Buraydah (ITCB)

    2015 #   2015  

 

International Technical Female College at Wadi Al-Dawaser (ITCWAD)

    2014 #   2014  

South Africa

 

Monash South Africa (MSA)

    2013     2001  

Thailand

 

Stamford International University (SIU)

    2011 *   1995  

*
Not-for-profit institution consolidated by Laureate as a variable interest entity.

Managed by Laureate as part of a joint venture arrangement.

#
Managed by Laureate under contract with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

        Our AMEA institutions consist of:

Australia

35


Table of Contents

        Until 2016, THINK also provided specialized higher education programs through the following institutions:

        In 2016, these higher education programs transitioned to and are now offered by Torrens University Australia.

36


Table of Contents

China

India

Malaysia

New Zealand

Saudi Arabia

37


Table of Contents

South Africa

38


Table of Contents

Thailand

Tuition and Fees

        Tuition varies at each of the institutions in our AMEA segment depending on the curriculum and type of program. Tuition payment options vary by institution and primarily include monthly installment payment plans and lump sum payments at the beginning of the academic year. Historically, we have increased tuition as educational costs and inflation have risen.

        Students and their families are generally responsible for room and board fees, transportation expenses and costs related to textbook and supply purchases required for their educational programs. Blue Mountains International Hotel Management School, our Chinese institutions, Monash South Africa, Stamford International University, the INTI Group and our Indian institutions have revenue-generating room and board fees.

        Students typically self-finance their education or seek third-party financing programs. However, in certain markets in the AMEA region there are various forms of government-supported student financing programs, as discussed below.

Government-Sponsored Student Financing Programs

        In Australia, the Commonwealth government has established income-contingent loan schemes that assist eligible fee-paying students to pay all or part of their tuition fees (separate schemes exist for higher education and vocational courses). Under the schemes the relevant fees are paid directly to the institutions. A corresponding obligation then exists from the participating student to the Commonwealth government. The Australian institutions have no responsibility in connection with the repayment of these loans by students and, generally, this assistance is not available to international students. In December 2016, the Australian government introduced a new loan scheme for vocational courses. This will replace the previous funding model for loans for vocational studies (which will be phased out during 2017). Under the new arrangements vocational educational providers will be required to reapply for registration for their students to be eligible to receive loans for vocational courses. To be eligible for registration vocational educational providers, among other matters, will be required to demonstrate a minimum of 50% completion rates. Relevant fees will be paid monthly in arrears and caps will be placed on the amount of loans available for particular categories of courses. THINK made a provisional application to be approved for these purposes and that application was approved until June 30, 2017, which is the maximum period available. THINK has submitted a further formal application for approval which, if granted, will apply from July 1, 2017 for a period of up to seven years. BMIHMS and TUA currently provide only higher education programs which are not affected by these changes. However, TUA has also made a formal application to cover vocational courses it may wish to offer in the future. The Australia institutions have been deliberately placing emphasis on higher education courses in TUA in anticipation of these changes.

        In China, Thailand and Malaysia there are also government programs available to our students, however, they do not represent a material portion of the revenues of our institutions in these countries. In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, our students' tuition is fully funded by the government and the government pays the tuition for each student either directly to us or, in the case of RPI, to the institution which, in turn, pays us. The government also provides a monthly stipend to each student enrolled at the eight colleges of excellence, while at RPI, the private companies sponsoring the students

39


Table of Contents

pay the stipend. The payments are based on our enrollments, with minimum payments set for each institution.

GPS

        Institutions in our GPS segment have products and services that span the Laureate International Universities network, with a total enrollment of approximately 72,200 students as of December 31, 2016, as adjusted for the segment change. Institutions in our GPS segment provide fully online degree programs through a U.S.-based accredited institution, Walden University, and internationally, through Laureate Online Education B.V., which is based in Amsterdam and partners with the University of Liverpool and the University of Roehampton in the United Kingdom. We provide professional-oriented fully online undergraduate and graduate degree programs largely to working professionals through distance learning and offer online degree programs in education, psychology, health and human services, management, nursing and information technology. These fully online institutions provide us expertise in online education that we can leverage throughout the campus-based institutions in our LatAm, Europe and AMEA segments. Our fully online institutions enrolled approximately 68,200 students as of December 31, 2016.

        In addition, within this segment, we owned three smaller, campus-based institutions in the United States. Our GPS segment also provides support services to SFUAD. These campus-based institutions primarily serve 18- to 24-year-old students and offer an education that emphasizes professional-oriented fields of study. The curriculum in these institutions is leveraged throughout the Laureate International Universities network through student exchange programs, dual degrees and certificate offerings. These campus-based institutions enrolled approximately 4,000 students as of December 31, 2016.

        The following table presents information about the institutions in our GPS segment (unless otherwise noted, we own each of these institutions):

Country
  Higher Education Institution   Year Joined
Laureate
Network
  Year
Founded
 
Global Online                  
United Kingdom             Laureate Online Education B.V. (University of Liverpool)     2004     1881  
    Laureate Online Education B.V. (University of Roehampton)     2012     2004  
United States   Walden University     2001     1970  
Campus-Based                  
United States   NewSchool of Architecture and Design     2008     1980  
    Kendall College     2008     1934  
    Santa Fe University of Art and Design (SFUAD)     2009   1859  
    University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences (St. Augustine)     2013     1979  

SFUAD is separately owned by Wengen. Laureate provides support services to SFUAD pursuant to contractual arrangements. See "Item 13—Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence—Agreements with Wengen—SFUAD Shared Services Agreement." On May 17, 2016, LEI Holdings—US I, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Wengen, entered into an agreement to sell SFUAD to Joshua Education, Inc., a U.S. subsidiary of Raffles Education Corporation Limited, subject to all necessary regulatory approvals. This agreement was terminated by the parties thereto on March 29, 2017. As used herein, our "U.S. Institutions" refers to NewSchool of Architecture and Design, Kendall College, St. Augustine and Walden University.

40


Table of Contents

Online Institutions

United States

Tuition and Fees

        Tuition varies at each of the institutions in our GPS segment depending on the curriculum and type of program. Tuition payment options vary by institution and primarily include monthly installment payment plans and lump sum payments at the beginning of the academic year. Historically, we have increased tuition as educational costs and inflation have risen.

        Students at U.S. campus-based programs are generally responsible for room and board fees, transportation expenses and costs related to textbook and supply purchases required for their educational programs.

        Currently there are no company-sponsored financing arrangements in our GPS segment. However, students in our U.S. Institutions are eligible for the U.S. Department of Education (the "DOE") Title IV program federal financial aid under the U.S. Higher Education Act (the "HEA").

41


Table of Contents

Marketing

        We believe that effective marketing is a key to the success of our business, enabling us to attract prospective students to our institutions and increase enrollment. We focus on marketing as a way to increase awareness of the institutions in each of their respective markets and to highlight the benefits provided by the Laureate International Universities network. We leverage best practices across our entire network to help our institutions develop effective marketing programs.

        We recognize that the vast majority of our students reside within the communities where our campuses are located. Because our target market is in close proximity to our institutions, developing and maintaining a powerful local presence is one of the cornerstones of our brand building strategy. We believe a strong brand is one of the key variables for future sustainable growth. We promote activities that encourage direct participation and interaction between the community and our institutions. For example, many of our institutions provide valuable services to the residents in the local communities including access to our veterinary and medical facilities at reduced costs, legal aid support and use of our facilities, including remedial course offerings and gym memberships. Additionally, many of our institutions' sports teams serve as a source of civic pride for the local residents including our students and their families. These informal interactions serve to enhance the trusted nature of our local brands, which in turn facilitates a word-of-mouth referral network that helps to attract quality students beyond the use of traditional student recruitment practices.

        During enrollment campaigns, we augment our long-term brand building activities with professional advertising campaigns employing a variety of media, including television, radio, outdoor and print advertising. We also use direct mail, web advertising and one-on-one meetings with students and their families. Each institution is responsible for implementing its own marketing campaigns, although we provide a forum for the network's marketing departments to share best practices. During the last several years, we have increased the amounts spent on marketing and advertising to meet the large demand for our programs, and we anticipate that this trend will continue.

        Additionally, we strive to develop strong relationships with local high schools that serve as feeder schools for many of our institutions. We believe we have developed strong relationships with many of these feeder schools and expect that will continue to provide a valuable source of referrals for many of the institutions in our network.

Competition

        We face competition in each of our operating segments. We believe competition focuses on price, educational quality, reputation, location and facilities.

LatAm, Europe and AMEA

        The market for higher education outside the United States is highly fragmented and marked by large numbers of local competitors. The target demographics are primarily 18- to 24-year-olds in the individual countries in which we compete. We generally compete with both public and private higher education institutions on the basis of price, educational quality, reputation and location. Public institutions tend to be less expensive, if not free, but more selective and less focused on practical programs aligned around career opportunities. We believe we compare favorably with competitors because of our focus on quality, professional-oriented curriculum and the competitive advantages provided by our global network. At present, we believe no other company has a similar network of international institutions. There are a number of other private and public institutions in each of the countries in which we operate. Because the concept of private higher education institutions is fairly new in many countries, it is difficult to predict how the markets will evolve and how many competitors there will be in the future. We expect competition to increase as the markets mature.

42


Table of Contents

GPS

        The market for fully online higher education is highly fragmented and competitive, with no single institution having any significant market share. The target demographics for our Global Online institutions are adult working professionals who are over 25 years old. Our Global Online institutions compete with traditional public and private nonprofit institutions and for-profit schools. Typically, public institutions charge lower tuitions than our Global Online institutions because they receive state subsidies, government and foundation grants, and tax-deductible contributions and have access to other financial sources not available to our Global Online institutions. However, tuition at private nonprofit institutions is typically higher than the average tuition rates charged by our Global Online institutions. Our Global Online institutions compete with other educational institutions principally based upon price, educational quality, reputation, location, educational programs and student services.

        See "Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—The higher education market is very competitive, and we may not be able to compete effectively."

Recent Developments

Sale of Glion and Les Roches Hospitality Management Schools

        On March 15, 2016, we signed an agreement with Eurazeo, a publicly traded French investment company, to sell Glion and Les Roches and associated institutions (the "Swiss Institution Sale") for a total transaction value of CHF 380 million (approximately $385 million at the signing date), subject to certain adjustments. The sale included the operations of Glion in Switzerland and the United Kingdom, with a total of approximately 1,800 students, and the operations of Les Roches in Switzerland and the United States, as well as LRG in Switzerland, Les Roches Jin Jiang in China, RACA in Jordan and Les Roches Marbella in Spain, with a combined total of approximately 3,000 students. The transaction closed on June 14, 2016 and we received total net proceeds of approximately $339 million. We are continuing to provide certain back-office services to Glion and Les Roches, and programs of those institutions will continue on various campuses in the Laureate International Universities network throughout the world.

Sale of Operations in France

        On April 19, 2016, we signed an agreement with Apax Partners, a private equity firm, under which Apax Partners acquired LIUF SAS (the "French Institution Sale"), our French holding company ("LIUF"), for a total transaction value of EUR 201 million (approximately $228 million at the signing date), subject to certain adjustments. LIUF comprised our five institutions located in France with a total student population of approximately 7,500: École Supériure du Commerce Extérieur, Institut Français de Gestion, European Business School, École Centrale d'Electronique and Centre d'Études Politiques et de la Communication. The transaction closed on July 20, 2016 and we received total net proceeds of approximately $207 million.

Senior Note Exchange Transaction

        On April 15, 2016, we entered into separate, privately negotiated note exchange agreements (the "Note Exchange Agreements") with certain existing holders (the "Existing Holders") of our outstanding 9.250% Senior Notes due 2019 (the "Senior Notes due 2019," or the "Senior Notes") pursuant to which we will exchange $250.0 million in aggregate principal amount of Senior Notes for shares of our Class A common stock. We expect the exchange to be completed within one year and one day after the consummation of our initial public offering. The number of shares of Class A common stock issuable will equal 104.625% of the aggregate principal amount of Senior Notes to be exchanged, or $261.6 million, divided by $14.00, the initial public offering price per share of Class A common stock in our initial public offering. Following our initial public offering, but prior to the exchange, the Senior

43


Table of Contents

Notes subject to the exchange will continue to receive interest at the same rate as the Senior Notes that are not subject to the exchange.

        Pursuant to the Note Exchange Agreements, on June 15, 2016 and March 1, 2017, we also repurchased from the existing holders approximately $85.1 million aggregate principal amount of Senior Notes at par value, plus accrued and unpaid interest and special interest.

        Upon consummation of all of the transactions described above, we will have retired up to $335.1 million in aggregate principal amount of Senior Notes.

        At the initial public offering price of $14.00 per share, and assuming the completion of the exchange transaction one year and one day after the date of our initial public offering, we expect to issue an aggregate of 18,683,036 shares of Class A common stock in connection with the exchange transaction.

        The exchange of Senior Notes for shares of Class A common stock will be effected in reliance on the exemption from registration provided by Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act. Nothing herein shall constitute or be deemed to constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy the Senior Notes.

Series A Preferred Stock Offering

        On December 4, 2016, we signed a subscription agreement (the "Subscription Agreement") with six investors, including KKR and Snow Phipps, pursuant to which we agreed to issue and sell to those investors an aggregate of 400,000 shares of a new series of our convertible redeemable preferred stock (the "Series A Preferred Stock") in a private offering for total gross proceeds of $400 million and net proceeds of approximately $383 million. Closing of the first tranche of funding for this transaction (the "Closing") occurred on December 20, 2016 and we received net proceeds, after issuance costs, of approximately $328 million. One investor funded a portion of its purchase price equal to $57 million (approximately $55 million net of issuance costs) on January 18, 2017 and the remainder on January 23, 2017. The proceeds from the Series A Preferred Stock offering have and will be used primarily to, among other things, repay a portion of our outstanding debt, including our revolving credit facility.

        Dividends compound quarterly and, if not paid in shares of Series A Preferred Stock on a quarterly basis or in cash, accrue when, as and if declared by the board of directors of the Company, on each share of Series A Preferred Stock. The holders of shares of Series A Preferred Stock are entitled to the payment of their liquidation preference in cash in certain circumstances, including upon the sale of the Company or the sale of all or substantially all of our assets, and upon a change in control of Wengen. The holders of Series A Preferred Stock do not have any voting rights except as required by law and with respect to certain extraordinary actions.

        The shares of Series A Preferred Stock are only convertible into shares of our Class A common stock under certain circumstances, including upon the closing of a sale of the Company or Wengen, in the event Wengen no longer exclusively controls us and, following our initial public offering and except in certain circumstances, by us and the holders of the Series A Preferred Stock into shares of our Class A common stock commencing on the earlier to occur of one day following the first anniversary of the closing of our initial public offering and the time immediately prior to the effectiveness of a registration statement filed by us in connection with our first follow-on public offering following our initial public offering in which the holders of shares of Series A Preferred Stock receive net proceeds not less than the Priority Amount. "Priority Amount" means, generally, shares of our Class A common stock in a dollar amount equal to, as of any date of determination, the greater of (a) 25% of the aggregate offering price of all Class A common stock proposed to be offered and sold in our first follow-on public offering following our initial public offering and (b) $275 million.

44


Table of Contents

        The shares of Series A Preferred Stock are redeemable (i) at our option subject to certain conditions, and (ii) by the holders of the Series A Preferred Stock after the fifth anniversary of the issue date, in each case, at a redemption price per share equal to 115% of the sum of the issue amount per share plus any accrued and unpaid dividends. If we fail to redeem the shares of Series A Preferred Stock when required after the fifth anniversary of the issue date, the holders of the Series A Preferred Stock are entitled to certain remedies, including the ability to take control of a majority of our board of directors and cause a sale of the Company and/or cause us to raise debt or equity capital in an amount sufficient to redeem the remaining outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock.

        Upon the closing and funding of the purchase price of the Series A Preferred Stock offering in full, which was a qualified equity issuance under our Senior Secured Credit Facilities (as defined below), the applicable LIBOR margin for the 2021 Extended Term Loan (as defined below) under our Senior Secured Credit Facilities was reduced to 7.5% and the applicable ABR margin was reduced to 6.5%. The applicable LIBOR margin for the revolving credit line under our Senior Secured Credit Facilities was reduced to 3.75% and the applicable ABR margin was reduced to 2.75%. In addition, the additional scheduled payment on such 2021 Extended Term Loan in the amount of $62.5 million will not be required under our Senior Secured Credit Facilities.

Intellectual Property

        We currently own, or have filed applications for, trademark registrations for the word "Laureate," for "Laureate International Universities" and for the Laureate leaf logo in the trademark offices of all jurisdictions around the world where we operate institutions of higher learning. We have also registered or filed applications in the applicable jurisdictions where we operate for the marks "Laureate Online International" and "Laureate Online Education." In addition, we have the rights to trade names, logos, and other intellectual property specific to most of our higher education institutions, in the countries in which those institutions operate.

Employees

        As of December 31, 2016, we had approximately 65,000 employees, of which approximately 9,000 were full-time academic teaching staff and 21,000 were part-time academic teaching staff. In addition, we have approximately 560 part-time academic teaching staff who are classified as contractors, principally in Chile and Brazil. Our employees at many of our institutions outside the United States are represented by labor unions under collective bargaining agreements, as is customary or required under local law in those jurisdictions. At various points throughout the year, we negotiate to renew collective bargaining agreements that have expired or that will expire in the near term. We consider ourselves to be in good standing with all of the labor unions of which our employees are members and believe we have good relations with all of our employees.

Effect of Environmental Laws

        We believe we are in compliance with all applicable environmental laws, in all material respects. We do not expect future compliance with environmental laws to have a material adverse effect on our business.

Available Information

        Our principal executive offices are located at 650 S. Exeter Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, telephone (410) 843-6100. Our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports are available free of charge to shareholders and other interested parties through the "Investor Relations" portion of our website at http://investors.laureate.net as soon as reasonably practical after they are filed with the Securities and

45


Table of Contents

Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The SEC maintains a website, www.sec.gov, which contains reports and other information filed electronically with the SEC by us. Various corporate governance documents, including our Audit Committee Charter, Compensation Committee Charter, Nominations and Corporate Governance Committee Charter, and Code of Conduct and Ethics are available without charge through the "Investor Relations," "Corporate Governance" portion of our investor relations website, listed above.

Industry Regulation

Brazilian Regulation

        The Brazilian educational system is organized according to a system of cooperation among federal, state and local governments. Higher education (i.e., undergraduate and graduate level education provided by public and private higher education institutions ("HEI")) is regulated primarily at the federal level, particularly in terms of public policy goals, accreditation and academic oversight; however, the state and municipal governments are also involved, principally in relation to taxation, real estate and operational permitting issues.

        With respect to the federal role, The National Educational Basis and Guidelines Law ("LDB"), provides the general framework for the provision of educational services in Brazil and establishes the duty of the federal government to:

        The responsibility of the Federal Government in regulating, monitoring and evaluating higher education institutions and undergraduate programs is exercised by MEC, along with a number of other federal agencies and offices that are related to MEC.

MEC

        MEC is the highest authority of the higher education system in Brazil and has the power to:

46


Table of Contents

CNE—National Board of Education

        CNE is a consultative advisory and deliberative body of MEC. It consists of the Board of Basic Education and the Board of Higher Education, each composed of 12 members appointed by the President of Brazil. The Board of Higher Education has the power to:

INEP—National Institute of Educational Studies Anísio Teixeira

        INEP is a federal agency linked to MEC that is the primary statistical and information-gathering body for the entire Brazilian education system. The performance data it collects and publishes is used by MEC, the legislature and the rest of the executive branch, as well as the public, to debate and make policy and programmatic decisions about education. INEP has the power to:

CONAES—National Commission on Higher Education Evaluation

        CONAES is a committee under MEC supervision composed of 13 members. CONAES has the power to:

47


Table of Contents

SERES—Higher Education Regulation and Supervision Secretariat

        In 2011, SERES, which operates as an arm of MEC, became the specific agency directly responsible for regulation and supervision of public and private HEIs, as well as undergraduate courses and lato sensu post-graduate programs, both in-person and distance learning modalities. Its mission is to elevate the quality level of all higher education through the establishment of guidelines for the expansion of HEIs and their courses, in accordance with national curriculum guidelines and proprietary quality parameters, and include:

        According to the LDB, higher education can be offered by public or private higher education institutions. A private institution of higher education shall be controlled, managed and maintained by an individual person(s) or legal entity, in either case referred to as the "mantenedora." The mantenedora is responsible for obtaining resources to meet the needs of the duly authorized HEI, which in regulatory terms is referred to as the "mantida." A mantenedora may be authorized to operate more than one mantida. In any case, the mantenedora is legally and financially responsible for all of its mantidas. Each of our HEIs in Brazil is maintained by a Laureate-controlled mantenedora.

        Private institutions of higher education may be:

48


Table of Contents

        According to organizational and academic prerogatives, institutions of undergraduate learning can be:

        Among the HEI in the Laureate International Universities network, there are three faculdades (Faculdade Internacional da Paraíba, located in João Pessoa, PB; Faculdades Porto-Alegrense, located in Porto Alegre, RS; and Faculdade dos Guararapes de Recife, located in Recife, PE), six university centers (FADERGS Centro Universitário, located in Porto Alegre, RS; Centro Universitário dos Guararapes, located in Jaboatão dos Guararapes, PE; FMU Education Group, located in São Paulo, SP; Centro Universitário Ritter dos Reis, located in Porto Alegre, RS; Centro Universitário do Norte, located in Manaus, AM; and Instituto Brasileiro de Medicina de Reabilitação—IBMR, located in Rio de Janeiro, RJ), as well as three universities (Universidade Potiguar, located in Natal, RN; UNIFACS—Universidade Salvador, located in Salvador, BA; and Universidade Anhembi Morumbi, located in São Paulo, SP). In addition, Business School São Paulo, which is a professional degree-granting institution, is owned and operated by Universidade Anhembi Morumbi, and CEDEPE Business School, which is a professional degree-granting institution, is operated as a division of Faculdade dos Guararapes de Recife. As noted below, each form of HEI is entitled to a different level of autonomy within the regulatory framework. In turn, we factor the respective levels of autonomy into the operational strategy for each HEI, as the requirement of prior or post-facto MEC approval can delay or nullify specific new campus expansion projects, new course offerings, and increases in the number of authorized seats per course.

        Legislation provides for specific levels of didactic, scientific and administrative autonomy to universities, university centers and colleges in differing degrees with the aim of limiting outside influence by other institutions or persons outside of the HEI's internal governance structure.

49


Table of Contents

        LDB provides that the following powers are guaranteed to universities and university centers in the exercise of their autonomy:

        LDB provides that the following powers are guaranteed to colleges in the exercise of their autonomy:

        Although colleges have administrative autonomy, they do not enjoy academic autonomy and, therefore, are subject to MEC's prior authorization to create new programs and degree programs.

        Accreditation.    The first accreditation of an institution of higher education is necessarily as a college. The accreditation as a university or university center is only granted after the institution has operated as a college for at least six years and has demonstrated that it has met satisfactory quality standards, including positive evaluation by the SINAES, as well as met legal requirements applicable to each type of institution of undergraduate learning, including minimum degree attainment and terms of faculty employment.

        LDB establishes that higher education shall include the following programs:

50


Table of Contents

        Following accreditation, colleges must obtain MEC permission to offer new undergraduate degree programs. As a consequence of their autonomy, universities and university centers do not require MEC authorization to create programs in the city where the university's or university center's seat is located. They need only inform MEC about the programs they offer for registration, evaluation and subsequent recognition. However, the creation of graduate programs in law, medicine, dentistry and psychology, whether by colleges, universities or university centers, are subject to the opinion of the proper professional associations. These associations are also consulted in the reaccreditation process.

        Additionally, and as a consequence of their autonomy, universities also can apply for accreditation of campuses and the authorization and recognition of programs outside the municipality where the university's seat is located. The campuses and programs not located in the city of the university's seat are not entitled to the autonomy of the main university and must be controlled and supervised by the university. Effectively, these campuses are treated like colleges for educational regulatory purposes. Within the network in Brazil, the UnP Mossoró Campus, the UNIFACS Feira de Santana Campus and the UniRitter Canoas Campus fall into this category.

        Once a university has obtained the authorization to provide a particular program, the HEI, including university centers and universities, also must obtain the recognition of such course, as a condition for national validation of the diploma. The application for recognition must be made at least one year after the start of the program and no later than half of the time required for its completion. The authorization and the recognition of programs and accreditation of institutions of higher education must be renewed periodically in accordance with the regularly applicable MEC evaluation process.

        Evaluation.    SINAES was established to evaluate HEI as institutions of higher education, traditional degree and technology degree programs and student academic performance. The main objective of this evaluation system is to improve the quality of higher education in Brazil. In practice, the CONAES conducts the monitoring and coordination efforts of SINAES. The results of the institutional and course evaluations are represented on a scale of five levels and are considered in the process of accreditation, recognition and renewal of accreditation of programs and accreditation and reaccreditation of institutions.

        In the case of unsatisfactory results, the HEI will be required to enter into an agreement with MEC that establishes a remediation program that includes among other requirements: (i) diagnosis of the unsatisfactory conditions; (ii) development and implementation of measures to be taken to remedy the unsatisfactory conditions; and (iii) establishment of deadlines and goals for remediation.

        Failure to comply, in whole or in part, with the conditions provided in the term of commitment may result in one or more penalties imposed by MEC, including temporary suspension of the opening of the selective process for undergraduate programs and cancellation of accreditation or reaccreditation of the institution and the authorization for operation of its programs.

        External evaluations of institutions of higher education are carried out by the INEP in two instances, first, when an institution applies for its first accreditation and second, by the end of each evaluation cycle of SINAES. Institutions of higher education are evaluated based on the following criteria, among others: (i) institutional development plan; (ii) social and institutional responsibility; (iii) infrastructure and financial condition; and (iv) pedagogical monitoring of student academic performance.

        The evaluation of undergraduate programs is made at the time of the first accreditation by MEC, and consists of the analysis of academic methodology, faculty, student and technical-administrative bodies and the infrastructure of the institution and is periodically updated at the end of each evaluation cycle of SINAES.

51


Table of Contents

        The evaluation of graduate programs is made by the Coordinating Agency for the Improvement of Highly Educated Persons ("CAPES"), which is responsible for establishing the quality standard required of masters and doctoral programs along with the identification and evaluation of the courses that meet this standard. Its recommendations are subject to the approval of the CNE. Programs are evaluated according to the requirements established for each specific program. CAPES updates its evaluation of graduate programs every three years, which is the validity period of an authorization.

        The evaluation of student academic performance is conducted by INEP, which requires each student to sit for the ENADE in order to verify the knowledge and technical skill of the student body. Each ENADE test is developed in accordance with the content and specific curriculum of each educational program. Students enrolled in undergraduate programs take the ENADE every three years. In this system, students are evaluated at the end of the last year of each program.

        The overall grade for each class of students is calculated based on the weighted arithmetic average of all students in a specific program selected for the exam. INEP evaluates the standard deviation of the student's evolution in each program in order to compare it with national standards.

        Transfer of control of mantenedoras.    The change of control of mantenedoras does not require prior approval from MEC. A change of control need only be reported to MEC after the fact. However, the transfer of an HEI (mantida) to another mantenedora must be previously approved by MEC. The new mantenedora must meet the necessary requirements for accreditation of an institution of higher education and provide all appropriate documentation proving economic, financial and academic capacity to do so. Laureate's usual method for the acquisition of control is to acquire an interest in a pre-existing mantenedora. There may be circumstances in the future that warrant a departure from this course of conduct, in which case Laureate will follow the prescribed MEC requirements.

        Although changes of control exercised by Laureate do not ordinarily need MEC prior approval or review, due to the level of Laureate's consolidated gross revenues throughout Brazil, current Brazilian law requires that every control transaction, with limited exceptions, that Laureate enters into must be submitted to the Brazilian anti-trust authority, the Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Economico (the "CADE"), for approval. Such request for approval must be granted prior to the definitive closing of such transaction. CADE has the power to reject and/or alter any transaction or any part of a transaction that it deems to unduly restrict competition.

        Incentive program.    PROUNI is a federal program of tax benefits designed to increase higher education participation rates by making college more affordable. PROUNI provides private HEI with an exemption from certain federal taxes in exchange for granting partial and full scholarships to low-income students enrolled in traditional and technology undergraduate programs. All of our HEI adhere to PROUNI.

        HEI may join PROUNI by signing a term of membership valid for ten years and renewable for the same period. This term of membership shall include the number of scholarships to be offered in each program, unit and class, and a percentage of scholarships for degree programs to be given to indigenous and Afro-Brazilians. To join PROUNI, an educational institution must maintain a certain relationship between the number of scholarships granted to regular paying students. The relationship between the number of scholarships and regular paying students is tested annually. If this relationship is not observed during a given academic year due to the departure of students, the institution must adjust the number of scholarships in a proportional manner the following academic year.

        An HEI that has joined PROUNI and remains in good standing is exempted, in whole or in part, from the following taxes during the period in which the term of membership is in effect:

52


Table of Contents

        A number of municipal and state governments have sought to replicate PROUNI by creating their own programs that, for example, offer tax incentives through a reduction in, or credits against, the ISS (Municipal Services Tax) in exchange for scholarships to targeted social groups or professions. Laureate owns and operates HEI in several jurisdictions where such local incentive programs are in force.

        Student financing program.    FIES is a federal program established to provide financing to students enrolled in courses in private institutions of higher education that have maintained a minimum satisfactory evaluation according to SINAES and receive a grade of 3 or higher out of 5 on the ENADE. The primary factor in determining whether a student is eligible to receive full or partial financing is how he or she scores on the program's means testing of household income relative to the cost of tuition.

        Under this basic structure, FIES targets both of the government's education policy goals: increased access and improved academic quality outcomes. The HEI receives the benefit of the FIES program through its participation in the intermediation of CFT-E (Certificado Financeiro do Tesouro) bonds, which are public bonds issued to the HEI by the federal government that the HEI may use to pay the national social security tax imposed by the INSS (National Social Security Institute) and certain other federal tax obligations. If the HEI is current with its taxes (i.e., it possesses a tax clearance certificate and is not otherwise involved in any tax-related disputes with the federal government that are not being defended in compliance with applicable security/bond requirements) then the HEI also has the option to sell the bonds for cash in a public auction conducted by one of the government-sponsored banks.

        Although the federal government is the direct creditor to the students, federal law stipulates that the HEI bear a portion of the credit risk, which level of risk has been subject to change in recent years. There are two different types of guarantees in FIES contracts:

        Since February 2014, all new students who participate in FIES must also enroll in FGEDUC. FGEDUC allows participating educational institutions to insure themselves for 90% (or 13.5% of 15%) of their losses related to student defaults under the FIES program. The cost of the program is 6.25% of the amount covered, which represents 5.63% of a student's full tuition. Similar to FIES, the administrator withholds 5.63% of a student's tuition to fund the guarantee by FGEDUC.

53


Table of Contents

        As of December 31, 2016, approximately 20% of our students in Brazil participated in FIES, representing approximately 29% of our Brazil 2016 revenues.

        In December 2014, the MEC along with FNDE, the agency that directly administers FIES, announced several significant rule changes to the FIES program beginning in 2015. These changes raise the eligibility requirements, reduce the annual budget of the program and delay payments to post-secondary institutions with more than 20,000 FIES students that would otherwise have been due in 2015. The first change implements a minimum score on the high school achievement exam in order to enroll in the program. The second change alters the schedule for the payment and repurchase of credits as well as limits the opportunities for post-secondary institutions to sell any unused credits such that there is a significant delay between the time the post-secondary institution provides the educational services to the students and the time it receives payment from the government for 2015. In addition to these rule changes, FNDE implemented a policy for current students' loan renewals for 2015, which provides that returning students may not finance an amount that increases by more than 6.41%, which was later increased to 8.5%, from the amount financed in the previous semester, regardless of any increases in tuition or in the number of courses in which the student is enrolled, a policy that we believe violates the applicable law. For 2016, MEC announced that there will be no limitation to the tuition increase. Moreover, in the first and second intakes of 2015, the online enrollment and re-enrollment system that all post-secondary institutions and students must use to access the program has experienced numerous technical and programming faults that have also interfered with the enrollment and re-enrollment process. Numerous challenges to these changes and requests for judicial relief from the system's faults have been filed in the Brazilian courts, most of which are pending. The 2016 enrollment and re-enrollment schedule has been released and, so far, the system has not presented any material issues.

        In October 2015, FNDE initiated negotiations with ABRAES aiming at settling the FIES payments that were delayed in 2015. The proposal from MEC, which was accepted by ABRAES, was to divide the total amount due into three annual installments to be paid one fourth in 2016, one fourth in 2017 and half in 2018. The parties also agreed that the yearly installments will be paid in June of each year, and the amounts will be adjusted to reflect an inflation index from the date of the respective maturity until the effective payment. FNDE also agreed not to take any discriminatory measures in the future related to the payment due to the post-secondary institutions, and not to impose any limitation on the issuance of certificates and repurchase of credits due to the post-secondary institutions, which basically means that all certificates will be issued and repurchased in their respective fiscal years, except for those intended to be issued and repurchased in December, which will be paid in January of the following year. The parties executed the settlement agreement on January 28, 2016 and it was approved by the office of the Attorney General of Brazil on February 3, 2016. The Federal Court of Brasilia ratified the settlement agreement on March 17, 2016. Our post-secondary institutions in Brazil are associated with ABRAES and signed the settlement agreement as well; therefore, it will apply to us.

        On December 11, 2015, MEC issued Normative Ordinance No. 13, which supersede in all significant aspects the rules previously in force. Normative Ordinance No. 13 defined and clarified some rules for student eligibility and classification, higher education institution participation and selection of the vacancies that will be offered to the students in the first intake of 2016.

        Among other changes, it created a "waiting list" concept for students not selected in the first selection call. It also instituted a rule that allows the remaining vacancies that were not filled in by the waiting list students to be redistributed among other programs of the post-secondary institution.

        The rules for student eligibility are to have a gross household income of not more than 2.5 times the minimum wage per capita (which was raised by the MEC to 3.0 times on June 17, 2016) and to have taken the National High School Proficiency Exam at least once since 2010, with a minimum score of 450 points, and to have a score greater than zero in the test of writing.

54


Table of Contents

        Regarding the participation of post-secondary institutions in FIES, institutions still must sign a participation agreement that contains their proposal of the number of vacancies offered and the following information per shift (morning, evening) and campus location: (i) tuition gross amount for the entire course, including all semesters; (ii) total tuition gross amount per course for the first semester, which must reflect at least a five percent discount to the course list price; and (iii) the number of vacancies that will be offered through the FIES selection process. Also, only courses with scores of 3, 4 or 5 in the SINAES evaluation are eligible to receive FIES students.

        On July 14, 2016, Provisional Presidential Decree No. 741/2016 (Medida Provisória No. 741/2016) revising the FIES payments rules was published in the official gazette. According to the new decree, higher education institutions became liable for the administration fees and expenses charged by the government banks that manage FIES loans. The decree became effective immediately and the government will withhold two percent of all FIES payments to cover such administration fees and expenses. Provisional presidential decrees are instruments with the force of law that the President of Brazil can issue in cases of importance and urgency. They have immediate effect and are valid for 60 days, extendable only once for the same period. Effectiveness beyond that period required approval of the National Congress, which took place on November 9, 2016, and it was enacted into law on December 2, 2016 (Law No. 13.366/2016).

        In August 2016, the MEC issued Normative Ordinance No. 17 expanding the guidelines previously defined in Normative Ordinance No. 13. Among other things, Normative Ordinance No. 17 describes in greater detail how to calculate remaining vacancies, sets forth procedures and deadlines for the completion of the filling of the remaining vacancies, and provides for dealing with exceptional situations where procedural errors or other obstacles have prevented students from accessing remaining vacancies in a timely manner.

        Another change in the new regulation was the number (or percentage) of vacancies that can be offered by the post-secondary institutions in relation to the score obtained in SINAES evaluation, which was reduced:

        The criteria for the selection of vacancies by MEC to be offered to students were also modified by Normative Ordinance No. 13 and the regionality provisions of the prior Normative Ordinances (i.e., vacancies offered in the Northeast, North and Central-West regions would have had priority over those offered in the South and Southeast regions) were excluded from the regulation. Normative Ordinance No. 13 replaces the regionality criterion with a new criterion of "social relevance determined by micro-regions," which means that for each micro-region they will take into consideration the demand for higher education for educational financing (calculated by FIES) and the Human Development Index of each micro-region. All of the other criteria provided in the previous regulation were maintained in the new one (i.e., (i) FIES budget and the availability of resources, (ii) course score under SINAES's evaluation and (iii) priority courses, as defined by the government (pedagogy, engineering and health sector courses)). Normative Ordinance No. 13 also contains two annexes, which address in great detail the selection and tiebreaker criteria for the vacancies, as well as the rules for redistribution of remaining vacancies.

        Brazil's economy continues to present challenges to growth and create pricing pressures in the education sector. Our new student enrollment in Brazil was negatively affected by these conditions as

55


Table of Contents

well as the changes to the FIES program. If economic conditions continue to weaken and the Brazilian government implements additional austerity measures, our ability to grow our student enrollment in Brazil may be further negatively affected. The Brazilian government's changes to the FIES program resulted in a substantial increase in the total number of new FIES contracts in that country in 2014, an election year, and then a reduction in the total number of new FIES contracts, from over 700,000 in 2014 to approximately 300,000 in 2015. As a result, Laureate's new enrollments of students in the FIES program also decreased similarly in 2015; however, this did not have a material impact on our 2015 results of operations since total enrollments for all students increased in 2015. Any potential impact on total enrollment would not occur until the FIES students from the expansion of the program have graduated, and would depend on the Brazilian government's commitment to the FIES program. In addition, the Brazilian government reduced the frequency of payments to participating institutions during 2015. In 2017, a new rule was adopted as part of the FIES regulations that limits the total amount financed each semester to BRL 30,000 per student and allows the students to pay any amount in excess of such limit directly to the HEI (Normative Ordinance No. 04/2017).

        Distance education.    Distance Education, or Educação à Distância ("EaD") in Brazil, is regulated by the LDB. The law defines EaD as an educational modality in which the didactic and pedagogical measurement in teaching and learning processes occur with the use of media, information and communication technologies, with students and teachers developing educational activities at different places and/or times.

        EaD programs can be offered at different levels and types of higher education, like professional education, including technical, medium and technological level of higher education, higher education, covering continuing education programs, undergraduate, specialization, masters and PhD. EaD programs may only be offered by HEI that are regularly accredited by the MEC. The accreditation request and respective renewal for EaD programs is separate from the accreditation process for the in-person programs delivered by the HEI.

        Universities and university centers accredited to offer EaD programs may create, organize and extinguish courses or higher education programs, upon notice to MEC, and the courses or programs created can only be offered within the limits of the scope defined in the HEI's accreditation act. Colleges (faculdades), must request MEC authorization to offer each specific EaD program.

        The list of requirements for accreditation in the federal education system comprehends physical infrastructure, academic facilities, and details the characteristics and equipment for the library and laboratory operations, along with the accessibility plan and priority seating. Once issued, the EaD accreditation license issued by MEC defines the scope of the HEI's EaD operations in the country, and any expansion beyond the licensed area may only occur with specific MEC permission. The HEI accreditation for the provision of EaD programs is valid for the evaluation cycle term and is renewable.

        EaD programs must be designed with the same duration as their respective in-person course programs. Moreover, the EaD regulatory scheme requires that the HEI perform some aspects in-person as follows: (i) student assessments; (ii) compulsory trainee programs, when provided for in the relevant legislation; (iii) dissertation defense for course completion, when provided for in the relevant legislation; and (iv) activities related to teaching laboratories, where applicable. The in-person events must be performed at the HEI's campus or at a specific, brick and mortar learning center duly accredited for this purpose, referred to as a "polo."

        It is also noteworthy that the HEI offering EaD programs, particularly the polos, are subject to inspection by the MEC at any time. Those inspections aim to demonstrate whether those HEI are compliant with legal and regulatory requirements. In the event of any irregularity not corrected within the given deadlines, the HEI may be subject to certain penalties, including disqualification.

56


Table of Contents

        EaD certificates or diplomas issued by accredited HEI have national validity with the same force and effect as those certificates or diplomas issued for the completion of in-person programs.

Chilean Regulation

        The Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile guarantees every individual's right to education and sets forth the state's obligation to promote the development of education at all levels. It also provides for liberty in teaching, which includes the right to open, organize and maintain educational institutions, providing that a Constitutional Organic Law, which requires a super-majority vote in the Chilean Congress, must establish the requirements for the official recognition of educational institutions.

        The General Law on Education sets forth the requirements and the procedure for the official recognition of educational institutions, providing for an educational system that is mixed in nature, including a form of education owned and managed by the state and its bodies and another one that is privately provided. The principles that inspire the Chilean educational system include those of universality, by virtue of which education should be affordable to all individuals, quality of education, and respect for and promotion of the autonomy of the educational institutions, within the framework of the laws governing them.

        In the case of higher education, the law provides a licensing system for new institutions that, once completed, makes it possible for these institutions to achieve full autonomy. This autonomy consists of every higher education institution's right to govern itself, as provided in its bylaws, in all matters regarding the fulfillment of its purpose, and encompasses academic, economic and administrative autonomy. Academic autonomy includes the higher education entities' power to decide by themselves the manner in which their teaching, research and extension functions will be fulfilled and the establishment of their curricula and programs. Economic autonomy makes it possible for those establishments to manage their resources to fulfill their goals pursuant to their bylaws and the laws, while administrative autonomy empowers each higher education establishment to organize its operation in the form deemed most appropriate in accordance with its bylaws and the relevant laws.

        The Ministry of Education ("MINEDUC") is the department of state in charge of promoting the development of education at all levels. Its functions include those of proposing and assessing the policies and plans for educational and cultural development, assigning the necessary resources for the conduct of educational and cultural extension activities, evaluating the development of education, discussing and proposing general norms applicable to the sector and overseeing their enforcement, granting official recognition to educational institutions, supervising the activities of its dependent units and fulfilling the other functions assigned by the law.

        The MINEDUC's Higher Education Division is the unit in charge of overseeing compliance with the legal and regulatory norms that govern higher education, of providing advice on the proposal of policies at this level of education and of establishing institutional relations with the officially recognized higher education institutions.

        The National Education Council (Consejo Nacional de Educación) is an autonomous entity composed of ten members who must be academicians, professors or professionals with an outstanding career in teaching and educational management and whose functions, regarding higher education, consist of:

57


Table of Contents

        The National Accreditation Commission (Comisión Nacional de Acreditación) is an autonomous entity, the function of which is to verify and promote the quality of the autonomous universities, professional institutes and technical training centers and of the courses of study and programs offered by them. In particular, the National Accreditation Commission is required to deliver an opinion on the institutional accreditation of higher education institutions, authorize the private agencies in charge of accreditation of courses of study and undergraduate programs and bachelor programs and specialty programs in the area of health, and supervise their operation.

        The Managing Commission of the Credit System for Higher Education Studies (Comisión Administradora del Sistema de Créditos para Estudios Superiores) is an entity whose functions include defining and assessing policies for the development and implementation of financing arrangements for higher education studies, entering into and proposing modifications to any necessary agreements with both domestic and foreign public and private financing entities and implementing those arrangements, and defining and evaluating the policies for higher education loans guaranteed by the state.

        Organization and recognition of higher education institutions.    The law recognizes state-owned higher education institutions, which may only be created by a law, and private institutions that must be organized in accordance with provisions contained in the law. The Chilean legislation provides that the state will officially recognize the following higher education institutions:

        Private universities must be created in accordance with the procedures set forth by law, and must always be not-for-profit entities in order to be officially recognized.

        Private professional institutes and technical training centers may be created by any individual or legal entity, they may be organized as for-profit or not-for-profit entities, and their sole purpose must be the creation, organization and maintenance of a professional institute or technical training center.

58


Table of Contents

        In order to be officially recognized, universities, professional institutes and technical training centers must have the necessary teaching, didactic, economic, financial and physical resources to offer the academic degrees, professional certificates or technical certificates, as appropriate, which must be certified by the National Education Council. Additionally, these institutions must have a certification granted by the National Education Council evidencing that the entity has had both its institutional project and its academic programs approved and that it will have the progressive verification of its institutional development performed. Higher education institutions may only start their teaching activities once the official recognition has been granted.

        The official recognition of a higher education institution may be revoked and, in the case of universities, their legal existence may be revoked through a supported Statutory Decree of the MINEDUC, after a decision of the National Education Council adopted by the majority of its members in a meeting called for that sole purpose and after hearing the affected party, if that party (i) fails to comply with the objectives set forth in its bylaws, (ii) conducts activities contrary to morals, public order, good customs or national security, (iii) commits gross violations of its bylaws, or (iv) ceases to confer professional certificates to its graduates.

        The law provides for a system of license grants to higher education institutions, which includes the approval of institutional project and the evaluation, progress and materialization of its educational project for a period of no less than six years, at the end of which they may become fully autonomous.

        National system of quality assurance in higher education.    The law provides for a system of quality assurance in higher education that includes a system of institutional accreditation that consists of a process of analysis of existing mechanisms within the autonomous higher education institutions to guarantee their quality, bearing in mind both the existence of those mechanisms and their application and results, and a process of accreditation of courses of study or programs, consisting of a process of verification of the quality of the courses of study or programs offered by the autonomous higher education institutions, on the basis of their declared purposes and the criteria set forth by the respective academic and professional communities.

        Both the institutional accreditation and the accreditation of courses of study and undergraduate programs are voluntary, except that the courses of study and academic programs leading to the professional degrees of Surgeon, Elementary Education Teacher, Secondary Education Teacher, Differential Education Teacher and Nursery School Teacher are subject to mandatory accreditation.

        The institutional accreditation is filed with the National Accreditation Commission, whereas the accreditation of courses of study and undergraduate programs can be performed by domestic, foreign or international accreditation entities authorized by the National Accreditation Commission.

        Tax benefits.    Chilean universities recognized by the state, and the associations, corporations, partnerships and foundations that are created, organized or maintained by those universities, are exempted from paying tax on the income arising exclusively from their educational activities. Likewise, educational institutions are exempted from paying value-added tax, an exemption that is limited to the revenues arising from their teaching activities. Additionally, universities are exempted from paying withholding taxes for payments made abroad. There are also specific tax benefits for donations made to universities.

        Financing.    The Chilean state contributes to the direct financing of universities existing as of December 31, 1980 by means of contributions from the state. In addition, all universities, professional institutes and technical training centers recognized as higher education institutions receive an indirect contribution from the state, which is distributed on the basis of the scores obtained in the university admission test by the students enrolled in each higher education institution.

59


Table of Contents

        Under the CAE Program, the state guarantees up to 90% of the principal plus interest on loans granted by financial institutions to students of higher education at autonomous, accredited institutions officially recognized by the state that select their first-year students on the basis of the score obtained in the university admission test and that use the aforesaid indirect contribution by the state exclusively for institutional development purposes.

        The NMS program supports access to vocational and technical education for students in the lowest 70% who met or exceeded certain academic standards by providing annual scholarships (i) under NMS I in amounts up to CLP 600,000; (ii) under NMS II in amounts up to CLP 850,000 per year for students who come from the first five income deciles if the tech/voc institution in which they are enrolled is organized as a not-for-profit legal entity or, if the tech/voc institution is not so organized, the institution has stated in writing its intention to become a not-for-profit entity and to be accredited; and (iii) under NMS III in amounts up to CLP 900,000 per year, provided that such students and the institution in which they enroll meet the requirements for NMS II and the tech/voc institution was, on December 31, 2015, accredited for four years or more.

        Recent developments.    Because of an ongoing controversy in Chile with respect to the quality of higher education and compliance with the regulations applicable to higher education institutions, since July 2011 several reforms have been promoted by the Chilean government. Some of these reforms were approved during the previous administration, such as amendments to the CAE Program reducing from 6% to 2% per annum the interest rate that CAE debtors must pay, limiting principal and interest payments under that program to 10% of a debtor's monthly income, and providing for the termination of the debt after a 180-month period.

        Other legislative reforms were promoted by members of the previous Chilean Congress but were not supported by the previous Chilean government, including proposals to restrict related party transactions between higher education institutions and entities that control them. In November and December 2013, Chile held national elections. The presidential election was won by former president Michelle Bachelet, who assumed office on March 11, 2014, and a political coalition led by Ms. Bachelet won the elections for both houses of the Chilean Congress, in each case for four years beginning on March 11, 2014. Although the election platform of the new government mentioned that stronger regulation of higher education was required, it did not contain specific commitments with respect to the abovementioned reforms, other than the creation of a special agency to oversee higher education institutions' compliance with law and regulations. In the second quarter of 2014, the new government announced the withdrawal of all of the prior administration's higher education proposals and its intent to submit new bills to the Chilean Congress.

        In December 2014, the Chilean Congress adopted the Provisional Administrator Law, which provides for the appointment of a provisional administrator or closing administrator to handle the affairs of failing universities or universities found to have breached their bylaws (the "Provisional Administrator Law"). In addition, the Chilean Congress has approved legislation that would permit, but not require, universities and technical/vocational institutes to include in their bylaws provisions contemplating the participation of students, professors and employees in the governance of the institution.

        On November 27, 2015, the Chilean Congress passed the 2016 budget law (the "2016 Budget Law"). By means of the 2016 Budget Law, the administration sought to implement a policy to grant free access to higher education to students from the first five income deciles who attend certain universities or tech/voc institutions. For university students, the Budget Law would have required them to be enrolled in universities that either are members of the Consejo de Rectores de las Universidades Chilenas (the "CRUCh") or are private universities that are not members of the CRUCh that, on September 30, 2015, met the following requirements: (a) being accredited for four years or more; (b) not being related to for-profit legal entities; and (c) having a representative of the students or

60


Table of Contents

non-academic personnel as a member of their governing body. For tech/voc students, the 2016 Budget Law would have required them to be enrolled in institutions organized as not-for-profit legal entities that were accredited for four or more years.

        On December 21, 2015, the Constitutional Tribunal (the "CT") declared portions of the 2016 Budget Law dealing with higher education institutions to be unconstitutional, in particular those portions that would require students to attend institutions with specific characteristics in order to obtain free tuition as, under the Chilean Constitution, that would constitute arbitrary discrimination affecting students who are in the same economic condition.

        Before the CT published the text of its decision, the administration submitted a bill modifying the 2016 Budget Law that establishes different conditions to access free higher education (the ley corta or "Short Law") to the Chilean Congress. The Short Law was approved by Congress two days after its submission, on December 23, 2015, and published on December 26, 2015. The Short Law was effective only during 2016 and was not subject to a constitutional challenge.

        Under the Short Law, for university students to be eligible for free tuition, they had to come from the first five income deciles and enroll either in a State-owned university or in a private university that on December 27, 2015 was accredited for at least four years and controlled by individuals or not-for-profit legal entities. The Short Law excluded tech/voc students from eligibility for free tuition in 2016. However, the Short Law provided that free tuition for tech/voc students would be implemented within three years provided that they attend tech/voc institutions that were accredited for at least four years and were organized as not-for-profit legal entities. The Short Law provided that tech/voc institutions that were organized as for-profit entities should, not later than December 27, 2015, state their intention to reorganize as not-for-profit entities in order to be eligible to participate in NMS II and NMS III.

        For the period between the effective date of the Short Law and such time as students at tech/voc institutions became eligible to participate in the free tuition program, the Short Law modified the allocations of the NMS. The Short Law divided this scholarship program into three parts: (i) NMS I, which grants students who meet certain personal conditions scholarships of up to CLP 600,000 per year; (ii) NMS II, which grants students scholarships of up to CLP 850,000 per year, provided the students come from the first five income deciles and the tech/voc institution in which they are enrolled is organized as a not-for-profit legal entity or, if the tech/voc institution is not so organized, the institution has stated in writing its intention to become a not-for-profit entity and to be accredited; and (iii) NMS III, which grants students scholarships of up to CLP 900,000 per year, provided that such students and the institution in which they enroll meet the requirements for NMS II and the tech/voc institution was, on December 31, 2015, accredited for four years or more.

        The Chilean universities and tech/voc institutions in the Laureate International Universities network did not meet each of these tests, so students at these institutions were not eligible for free tuition or NMS II or NMS III scholarships under the Short Law.

        On November 11, 2016, the Chilean Congress passed the 2017 budget law (the "2017 Budget Law"). The 2017 Budget Law included changes to the policies for granting free access to higher education and scholarships to students from the first five and seven income deciles who attend certain universities or tech/voc institutions.

        For university students, the 2017 Budget Law provides for free access to higher education with the same requirements as were in the 2016 Budget Law but adds the requirement that eligible universities have a minimum of 80% of their newly enrolled students with an average result from the national university admissions examination, high school grades and high school rankings above a specified level, and have a transparent admission system that must have been published on the institution's website by December 1, 2016. For tech/voc institutions, the 2017 Budget Law provides for eligibility for free access

61


Table of Contents

for students if they are enrolled in institutions (i) organized as not-for-profit legal entities or as for-profit legal entities that have filed for transformation to not-for-profit legal entities under the "Transformation Law" passed by the Chilean Congress on November 16, 2016, before December 15, 2016, (ii) accredited for four years or more as of December 23, 2016, (iii) having as controllers not-for-profit legal entities or natural persons, (iv) having stated their intention to participate in the free access system before December 15, 2016, and (v) having a transparent admission system that must have been published on the institution's website by December 1, 2016.

        The 2017 Budget Law also modified the allocations of the Bicentenario Scholarship ("the BS Program"). The BS Program supports access to higher education for university students coming from one of the first seven income deciles and covers the full amount of tuition up to an amount authorized by the government. Historically, the BS Program solely benefited students of CRUCh universities. The 2017 Budget Law terminated the differentiation between CRUCh and non-CRUCh universities for eligibility for the BS Program. Thus, for 2017, 3,500 BS Program scholarships will be granted to students at non-CRUCh universities and 3,500 additional BS Program scholarships will be granted to students at non-CRUCh universities in 2018. By 2019, the government promises to have an equal BS Program scholarship policy for all universities, whether CRUCh or non-CRUCh. Students may apply for a BS Program scholarship if their university is accredited for at least four years and if 80% of the university's newly enrolled students have an average result from the national university admissions examination, high school grades and high school rankings above a specified level.

        Under the 2017 Budget Law, the NMS II and NMS III are available to all students enrolled in a tech/voc institution, whether for-profit or not-for-profit: (i) NMS II in an amount of CLP 860,000 per year, or up to the effective government-approved tuition fee if it is less than that amount, for students who come from the first five income deciles with an average high school grade of 5.0 and the tech/voc institution in which they are enrolled being accredited for at least three years; and (ii) NMS III, in an amount up to CLP 900,000 per year, or up to the effective government-approved tuition fee if it is less than that amount, provided that such students and the institution in which they enroll meet the requirements for NMS II and the tech/voc institution was, on December 31, 2016, accredited for four years or more. The NMS III scholarship will last until the tax benefit established in the Transformation Law for tech/voc institutions ends.

        Finally, under the 2017 Budget Law, the Comptroller General will be in charge of overseeing the use of the public resources in higher education.

        In April 2016, the Chilean Congress made reforms to specific career disciplines, including pedagogy. Law 20,903 created the teaching professional development system (Sistema de Desarrollo Profesional Docente), which aims to improve the quality of training for those who choose to study pedagogy by setting new program admission requirements and mandatory institutional accreditation standards for pedagogy career programs. As these changes have only taken effect in 2017, their impact cannot yet be determined; however, the Chilean universities in the Laureate International Universities network are preparing to adjust to the new regime and will be monitoring the effects on their pedagogy programs.

        On July 4, 2016, the Chilean President submitted to the Chilean Congress a bill (the "Higher Education Bill") that, if approved, would change the entire regulatory landscape of higher education in Chile, as it would amend and/or replace most of the currently applicable legislation, including repealing the current laws governing universities, professional institutes and technical training centers. The changes contemplated in the Higher Education Bill that are most relevant to us are:

62


Table of Contents

63


Table of Contents

64


Table of Contents

65


Table of Contents

        We are currently evaluating the effect the proposed Higher Education Bill would have on the Chilean institutions in the Laureate International Universities network if it is adopted in the form introduced in the Chilean Congress. We cannot predict whether or not the proposed Higher Education Bill will be adopted in this form, or if any higher education legislation will be adopted that would affect the institutions in the Laureate International Universities network. However, if any such legislation is adopted, it could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

        In June 2012, an investigative committee of the Chilean Chamber of Deputies issued a preliminary report on the Chilean higher education system alleging that certain universities, including the three universities that Laureate controls in Chile, have not complied with the requirements of Chilean law that universities be not-for-profit. Among the irregularities cited in the report are high salaries to board members or top executives, outsourcing of services to related parties, and that universities are being bought and sold by foreign and economic groups. The investigative committee referred its report to the MINEDUC and to the Public Prosecutor of Chile to determine whether there has been any violation of the law. The Public Prosecutor appointed a regional prosecutor to investigate whether any criminal charges should be brought for alleged violations of the laws on higher education and, more than three years later, no charges have been brought by the regional prosecutor against any institutions in the Laureate International Universities network. On July 19, 2012, the Chilean Chamber of Deputies rejected the report of the investigative committee. In December 2012, in light of the criminal prosecution of the former president of the National Accreditation Commission for alleged bribery, the Chilean Chamber of Deputies mandated its Education Commission to be an investigative committee regarding the functioning of the National Accreditation Commission, especially with respect to compliance with the National Accreditation Commission's duty to oversee higher education entities. The Education Commission delivered a report, which was approved by the Chamber of Deputies on October 1, 2013, containing several recommendations to improve regulation of the higher education accreditation system. Additionally, the Chilean Chamber of Deputies approved the creation of a special investigative committee to resume the investigation of higher education performed by the investigative committee that issued the June 2012 report that was previously rejected by the Chamber of Deputies. On January 15, 2014, that investigative committee approved a new report recommending, among other things, improvements to the Chilean higher education system regulations, amendments to the higher education financing system, particularly the CAE Program, imposition of criminal penalties for violation of the requirement that universities be not-for-profit, and support of legislation that would prohibit related party transactions, prohibit the transfer of control of universities, and require universities to have independent board members. The report was approved by the full Chamber of Deputies on April 1, 2014.

        On February 18, 2014, the MINEDUC disclosed that on November 15, 2013 and February 11, 2014, it had initiated internal investigations into UDLA Chile and UNAB, respectively. The investigations were initiated upon referrals from the National Education Council and the National Accreditation Commission, which had conveyed to the MINEDUC their concerns regarding certain agreements entered into by UDLA Chile and UNAB with their controlling entities, including concerns about the amount and real use made by the universities of the services provided under those agreements. The investigations are an initial step by the MINEDUC to determine whether the Ministry should begin formal sanction proceedings against the universities. The MINEDUC also disclosed that it had delivered relevant documentation on the matter to the Public Prosecutor. In January 2016, the MINEDUC announced that it had closed the investigation into UNAB.

        In May 2014, Servicio de Impuestos Internos Chile ("SII") instituted an audit of UVM Chile, UNAB and UDLA Chile questioning whether they had regularly paid their taxes as non-profit entities for the period 2011 to 2014, specifically in relation to their financial dealings with Laureate, for-profit entities. Any non-compliance with the non-profit laws would subject them to the payment of additional taxes and penalties. As of August 2015, SII had notified all three institutions that its audit detected "no

66


Table of Contents

differences" in the taxes paid and the taxes owed, and provided a written closure letter to each of the institutions. In December 2016, SII notified separately UDLA Chile and UNAB that as part of the general audit program called "Auditoría Integral a Universidades," it was requesting supporting documentation from them for the tax periods between November 2013 and October 2016. On March 21, 2017, SII sent a similar notification to UVM Chile regarding the tax periods from May 2014 to October 2016. Each institution will submit responsive documents that support taxes paid related to its revenues and expenses, including to the extent such revenues and expenses involve financial dealings with Laureate for-profit entities.

        In June 2016, the MINEDUC notified UNAB that it was opening an investigation into possible violations of the not-for-profit nature of UNAB. In September 2016, the MINEDUC notified UVM Chile that it was opening a similar investigation of UVM Chile. Each of the institutions continues to be responsive to the MINEDUC's requests as part of these investigations. Each investigation will be conducted by an investigator appointed by the MINEDUC under the Provisional Administrator Law, and both UNAB and UVM Chile have been advised that the investigations will last at least six months. Procedural safeguards in the investigation process include notice, the right to present written statements and evidence, and the requirement that the decision be based on the formal record. Under the Provisional Administrator Law, at the end of the investigation the MINEDUC can either close the investigation or issue a report imposing one of the following measures: (i) ordering a recovery plan for the investigated institution, should the MINEDUC verify severe breaches of the institution's financial, administrative, labor or academic commitments; (ii) with the prior consent of the National Education Council, naming a provisional administrator for the institution if the MINEDUC determines that (a) there are serious risks to the administrative or financial viability of the institution that may affect the continuity of its educational programs, (b) there are serious and recurring breaches of the academic commitments of the institution to its students due to a lack of educational or teaching resources available to grant professional or technical degrees, (c) it is impossible for the institution to maintain its academic functions due to sanctions, injunctions or foreclosures affecting the institution, its campuses or its assets, (d) the institution is declared bankrupt or (e) a recovery plan pursuant to (i) above has not been presented, has been rejected or has been breached by the institution; or (iii) initiating a process to revoke the institution's license, in which case it would name a closing administrator. If the MINEDUC were to impose any sanctions, UNAB or UVM Chile, as the case may be, would have several routes to appeal or challenge that decision, both within the MINEDUC and in the courts or other governmental bodies. UNAB and UVM Chile are cooperating with the investigation.

Mexican Regulation

        Mexican law provides that private entities are entitled to render education services in accordance with applicable legal provisions. These provisions regulate the education services rendered by the federal government, the states and private entities and contain guidelines for the allocation of the higher education role among the federal government, the states and the municipalities, including their respective economic contributions in order to jointly participate in the development and coordination of higher education.

        There are three levels of regulation in Mexico: federal; state; and municipal. The federal authority is the Federal Ministry of Public Education (Secretaría de Educación Pública). Each of the 31 states and Mexico City has the right to establish a local Ministry of Education, and each municipality of each state may establish a municipal education authority that only has authority to advertise and promote educational services and/or activities. Additionally, since February 26, 2013, the National Institute for the Evaluation of Educational Services (Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación) is in charge of, among other things, evaluating the quality of the study plans and programs for Basic and Mid-Superior education services (as further described below).

67


Table of Contents

        Some functions are exclusive to the Federal Ministry of Education such as the establishment of study plans and programs for Basic and Mid-Superior education services Other functions are exclusive to the state Ministries of Education such as the coordination and administration of the local registry of students, teachers, education institutions and schools. There are also concurrent functions such as the granting and withdrawal of governmental recognition of validity of studies (Reconocimiento de Validez Oficial de Estudios) ("REVOEs," for its acronym in Spanish).

        The General Law on Education (Ley General de Educación) in Mexico classifies studies in the following three categories: (i) Basic Education, which includes pre-school (kindergarten), elementary school and junior high school (secundaria); (ii) Mid-Superior Education, which includes high school (prepataroria) and equivalent studies, as well as professional education that does not consider preparatoria as a prerequisite; and (iii) Superior Education, which includes the studies taught after prepataroria, including undergraduate school (licenciatura), specialties (especialidades), masters studies, doctorate studies and studies for teachers (educación normal).

        The General Law on Education provides that in order for private entities to be able to provide Basic Education Services and studies for teachers (educación normal), a prior governmental authorization is required (the "Authorization"). For other studies, including Mid-Superior and Superior Education Services, no prior governmental authorization is required. However, if the private entities desire to provide Mid-Superior and Superior Education Services, and want those studies to be integrated into the federal and/or local public educational system, they must obtain a REVOE by the federal and/or local Ministry of Education, respectively.

        The REVOEs are issued by the Federal Ministry of Education under the General Law on Education, or by any of the state Ministries of Education under the applicable state law. REVOEs are granted for each program taught in each campus. If there is a change in the program or in the campus in which it is taught, the entity will need to get a new REVOE.

        The Federal Ministry of Education has issued a set of general resolutions (Acuerdos) that regulate the general requirements for obtaining REVOEs. The main Acuerdos are (i) Acuerdo 243 issued on May 27, 1998 to set the general guidelines for obtaining an Authorization or REVOE, and (ii) Acuerdo 279 issued on July 10, 2000 to set the procedures related to REVOEs for Superior Education studies. The Federal Ministry of Education recommends to the local Ministries of Education the adoption and inclusion of the provisions contained in Acuerdo 243 and Acuerdo 279 in the local Law on Education and other applicable local laws and regulations.

        In general terms, federal and state laws in Mexico provide for three requirements for granting REVOEs:

        Depending on each state, other requirements may apply, for example, that private institutions that provide educational services with REVOEs need to be registered with the corresponding local authorities.

        Acuerdo 279 regulates in detail the provisions contained under the General Law on Education to grant REVOEs for Superior Education studies, regarding faculty, plans and programs of studies, inspection visits, procedures, etc. Acuerdo 279 provides that the faculty that participate in programs taught by private institutions must be full-time faculty or faculty retained by subject. Acuerdo 279 regulates the qualifications that the faculty members have to meet depending on whether they are

68


Table of Contents

full-time or part-time, and provides that a minimum percentage of courses need to be taught by full-time faculty, which percentage depends on the type of program taught.

        Acuerdo 279 also provides that private institutions that provide Superior Education services in accordance with presidential decrees or secretarial resolutions (acuerdos secretariales) issued specifically to them may maintain the obligations provided to them thereunder and may function under the provisions of Acuerdo 279 to the extent the provisions of this latter Acuerdo benefit them. Currently, Universidad Tecnológica de México, S.C. and Universidad del Valle de México, S.C. have secretarial resolutions that were issued in their favor before the issuance of Acuerdo 279. The obligations contained in these secretarial resolutions generally conform to the obligations provided under Acuerdo 279.

        The regulatory authorities are entitled to conduct inspection visits to the facilities of educational institutions to verify compliance with applicable legal provisions. Failure to comply with applicable legal provisions may result in the imposition of fines, in the cancellation of the applicable REVOE and in the closure of the education facilities.

        Private institutions with REVOEs are required to grant a minimum percentage of scholarships to students. Acuerdo 279 provides that private institutions grant scholarships to at least five percent of the total students registered during each academic term. Scholarships consist, in whole or in part, of payment of the registration and tuition fees established by the educational institution. The granting of scholarships has to be provided for in the internal regulations of the educational institution, which regulations must provide:

        Acuerdo 279 provides for the minimum percentage of courses that must be taught by full-time faculty. Private education institutions that do not meet the minimum requirements must submit to the education authority, for approval, a detailed justification in that regard making reference to the area of knowledge of the plan of studies, level thereof, education mode, general purpose of the plan and educational model proposed for the referenced studies. In addition, for masters studies focused in research, the university must have at least one full-time active investigator for every 25 students and for doctorate studies, must have at least one full-time active investigator for every ten students.

        Private entities may also obtain the recognition of validity of their programs from the National Autonomous University of Mexico (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México or "UNAM"). The General Regulations of Incorporation and Validation of Studies issued by UNAM provide that programs followed in private entities may be "incorporated" to UNAM in order for UNAM to recognize their validity. For the programs to be incorporated the following general requirements must be met:

69


Table of Contents

        The UNAM regulations also provide that private entities incorporated to UNAM must grant scholarships to at least five percent of the total students registered in such entity. These scholarships shall consist of the exemption in whole of payment of the registration and tuition fees established by the educational entity. The students entitled to have this benefit will be selected by UNAM. Some of our high school programs and one of our medical programs are incorporated to UVM Mexico.

Peruvian Regulation

        We operate four post-secondary education institutions in Peru, two of which are universities and two of which are technical-vocational institutes. Peruvian law provides that universities and technical-vocational institutes can be operated as public or private entities, and that the private entities may be organized for profit. The Ministry of Education has overall responsibility for the national education system.

        In 2014, the Peruvian Congress enacted a new University Law to regulate the establishment, operation, monitoring and closure of universities. The law also promotes continuous improvement of quality at Peruvian universities. The law created a new agency, the Superintendencia de Educación Superior Universitaria ("SUNEDU"), which is responsible for carrying out the governmental role in university regulation, including ensuring quality. While institutional autonomy is still recognized, and universities are permitted to create their own internal governance rules and determine their own academic, management and economic systems, including curriculum design and entrance and graduation requirements, all of these matters are now subject to review and evaluation by SUNEDU through its periodic review of universities as part of a license renewal process.

        Under the new law, university licenses are temporary but renewable, and will be granted by SUNEDU for a maximum of six years. On November 24, 2015 the Board of SUNEDU promulgated regulations for the university licensing process. For licenses to be renewed, universities will have to demonstrate to SUNEDU that it comply with, at a minimum, certain Basic Quality Conditions ("BQCs") (i.e., that they have specified academic goals and that the degrees granted and plans of study are aligned with those goals, that their academic offerings are compatible with their planning goals, (e.g., there is sufficient labor demand for careers offered) that there are only two regular semesters of studies per year, that they have appropriate infrastructure and equipment, that they engage in research, that they have a sufficient supply of qualified teachers, at least 25% of whom will need to be full-time, that they supply adequate basic complementary educational services (e.g., medical and psychological services and sports activities), that they provide appropriate placement office services, and that they have transparency of institutional information). The relicensing process started on December 15, 2015 and will end on December 31, 2017 and is divided by groups. UPC and UPN have been included in Group 5, the review process for which will start in early 2017, although universities are permitted to apply earlier than their scheduled time. UPN applied early in July 2016, while UPC has until February 2017 to file. The review committee of SUNEDU will issue a license at the end of the relicensing process or, alternatively, not issue a license and provide for a remediation period if one or more of the BQCs are not, in its opinion, satisfied. Following a one-year period, SUNEDU will make a new verification visit after the university has presented and implemented its remediation plan.

        Technical-vocational institutes are regulated by the Ministry of Education, which grants operating licenses for not less than three nor more than six years, after which the Ministry conducts a revalidation process. The approval of new institute licenses is based on the evaluation by the Ministry of the institute's institutional goals, the curricula of its education programs and their link with careers needed in the Peruvian economy, the availability of adequate qualified teachers, the institute's infrastructure, the institute's financial resources, and the favorable opinion of the National System of

70


Table of Contents

Assessment, Accreditation and Certification of Education Quality ("SINEACES") regarding the appropriateness of the programs the institute is offering. SINEACES is also responsible for the accreditation of programs and careers at all higher education institutions. On November 2, 2016 a new law regarding technical-vocational institutes (the "Institutes Law") was enacted. Regulations are expected to be issued within 120 days from the date of passage. Under the Institutes Law, technical-vocational institutes are regulated by the Ministry of Education, which grants operating licenses. The Institutes Law has created two types of institutes, Higher Education Institutes ("Institutes") and Higher Education Colleges ("Colleges"). Institutes are dedicated to technical careers and Colleges are devoted to technical careers related to education as well as science and information Technology. Colleges grant Technical Bachelor Degrees and Professional Technical Degrees. The scope of such degrees will be defined more completely by the implementing regulations. Institutes and Colleges are subject to a mandatory license granted by the Ministry of Education, based on an evaluation to determine compliance with BQCs. BQCs include: an appropriate institutional management guaranteeing a proper relation with the educational model of the institution; appropriate academic management and proper program studies aligned with the Ministry of Education norms; appropriate infrastructure and equipment to develop educational activities; adequate teachers and staff which, at a minimum, should consist of 20% full-time staff; and appropriate financial and economic provisions. The licensing process of institutes is still to be determined by the regulations. However, the Law provides that the process will last no more than 90 days and will grant a license for a five-year period to be renewed once expired. Unlike licenses, quality accreditation is voluntary except for certain careers for which it might be mandatory as determined by law. Such accreditation will be taken into consideration for access to public grants for scholarships and research among other things. Private Institutes and Colleges may be organized as for-profit or not-for-profit entities under Peruvian law. Not-for-profit Colleges' and Institutes' income is exempt from taxes on their educational activities. For-profit Colleges and Institutes are subject to income taxes, but may qualify for a tax credit on 30% of their reinvested income, subject to a reinvestment program to be filed with the Ministry of Education for a maximum term of five years. The specific requirements of such programs are still to be determined by the regulations.

        There was a Presidential election in Peru during the second quarter of 2016, and the new President entered into office at the end of July 2016. In December 2016, the new President appointed a new Minister of Education following the impeachment by the Peruvian Congress of the prior Minister of Education. We do not expect any changes in policy as a result of the appointment of the new Minister of Education.

Turkish Regulation and Internal Investigation

        Through our European segment, we operate Istanbul Bilgi University, a network institution located in Turkey that consolidates under the variable interest entity model. Istanbul Bilgi University is established as a "Foundation High Education Institution" (a "Foundation University") under the Turkish higher education law, sponsored by an educational foundation (the "the Bilgi Foundation"). As such, it is subject to regulation, supervision and inspection by the Turkish Higher Education Council (the "YÖK"). In 2014, the Turkish parliament amended the higher education law to provide expanded authority to the YÖK with respect to Foundation Universities, including authorizing additional remedies for violations of the higher education law and of regulations adopted by the YÖK. On November 19, 2015, the YÖK promulgated an "Ordinance Concerned with Amendment to Foundation High Education Institutions" (the "Ordinance") the principal effects of which relate to the supervision and inspection of Foundation Universities by the YÖK. Under the Ordinance, the YÖK has expanded authority to inspect accounts, transactions, activities and assets of Foundation Universities, as well as their academic units, programs, projects and subjects. The Ordinance establishes a progressive series of five remedies that the YÖK can take in the event it finds a violation of the Ordinance, ranging from (1) a warning and request for correction to (2) the suspension of the Foundation University's ability to establish new academic units or programs to (3) limiting the number of students the Foundation

71


Table of Contents

University can admit, including ceasing new admissions, to (4) provisional suspension of the Foundation University's license to (5) cancellation of the Foundation University's license. Since the promulgation of the Ordinance, the YÖK has cancelled the licenses of 15 Foundation Universities.

        The Ordinance specifies that Foundation Universities cannot be established by foundations in order to gain profit for themselves, and prohibits specified types of fund transfers from Foundation Universities to their sponsoring foundation, with certain exceptions for payments made under contractual arrangements for various goods and services that are provided at or below current market rates. Istanbul Bilgi University has entered into contractual arrangements with a subsidiary of Laureate that is a member of the board of trustees of the Bilgi Foundation, and has affiliates that are also members of that board, to provide Istanbul Bilgi University with management, operational and student services and certain intellectual property at fair market rates. The YÖK conducts annual audits of the operations of Istanbul Bilgi University and currently is in the process of completing its most recent audit. If the YÖK were to determine that any of these contracts or the payments made by Istanbul Bilgi University to this Laureate subsidiary, or any other activities of Istanbul Bilgi University, including, as further described below, the donation of 40.0 million Turkish Liras made by the university to a charitable foundation that was subsequently reimbursed to the university by certain Laureate-owned entities, violate the Ordinance or other applicable law, the YÖK could take actions against Istanbul Bilgi University up to and including cancellation of its license. Further, if the YÖK were to determine that any administrators of Istanbul Bilgi University have directly taken any actions or supported any activities that are intended to harm the integrity of the state, the license of the university could be cancelled. In July 2016, a coup attempt increased political instability in Turkey, and the uncertainties arising from the failed coup in Turkey could lead to changes in laws affecting Istanbul Bilgi University or result in modifications to the current interpretations and enforcement of the Ordinance or other laws and regulations by the YÖK.

        As previously disclosed, during the fourth quarter of 2014, we recorded an operating expense of $18.0 million (the value of 40.0 million Turkish Liras at the date of donation) for a donation by our network institution in Turkey to a charitable foundation. We believed the donation was encouraged by the Turkish government to further a public project supported by the government and expected that it would enhance the position and ongoing operations of our institution in Turkey. The Company has learned that the charitable foundation which received the donation disbursed the funds at the direction of a former senior executive at our network institution in Turkey and other external individuals to a third party without our knowledge or approval.

        In June 2016, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors initiated an internal investigation into this matter with the assistance of external counsel. The investigation concerns the facts surrounding the donation, violations of the Company's policies, and possible violations of the FCPA and other applicable laws in what appears to be a fraud perpetrated by the former senior executive at our network institution in Turkey and other external individuals. This includes an investigation to determine if the diversion was part of a scheme to misappropriate the funds and whether any portion of the funds was paid to government officials. We have not identified that any other officers or employees outside of Turkey were involved in the diversion of the intended donation. Although we are pursuing efforts to recover the diverted funds, including through legal proceedings, there is no assurance that we will be successful.

        We have been advised by Turkish counsel that, under Turkish law, a Foundation University may not make payments that cause a decrease in the university's wealth or do not otherwise benefit the university. Given the uncertainty of recovery of the diverted donation and to mitigate any potential regulatory issues in Turkey relating to the donation, certain Laureate-owned entities that are members of the foundation that controls our network institution in Turkey have contributed an amount of approximately $13.0 million (the value of 40.0 million Turkish Liras on November 4, 2016, the date of contribution) to our network institution in Turkey to reimburse it for the donation.

72


Table of Contents

        As a result of the investigation, which is ongoing, we took steps to remove the former senior executive at our network institution in Turkey. Because of the complex organizational structure in Turkey, this took approximately one month and during that period our access to certain aspects of the business including the financial and other records of the university was interrupted. The former senior executive is now no longer affiliated with our network institution and we again have access to the financial and other records of the university.

        In September 2016, we voluntarily disclosed the investigation to the U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ") and the SEC. The Company is fully cooperating with these agencies in their investigations and inquiries relating to this matter. The Company has internal controls and compliance policies and procedures that are designed to prevent misconduct of this nature and support compliance with laws and best practices throughout its global operations. The Company is taking steps to enhance these internal controls and compliance policies and procedures. The investigations relating to the donation are ongoing, and we cannot predict the outcome at this time, or the impact, if any, to the Company's consolidated financial statements or predict how the resulting consequences, if any, may impact our internal controls and compliance policies and procedures, business, ability or right to operate in Turkey, results of operations or financial position. If we are found to have violated the FCPA or other laws applicable to us, we may be subject to criminal and civil penalties and other remedial measures, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

        See "Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—We currently have four material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting that, if not corrected, could result in material misstatements of our financial statements" and "Item 1A—Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—Our institutions are subject to uncertain and varying laws and regulations, and any changes to these laws or regulations or their application to us may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and result of operations."

U.S. Regulation

        Our institutions in the United States are subject to extensive regulation by the DOE, accrediting agencies and state educational agencies. The regulations, standards and policies of these agencies cover substantially all of our U.S. Institutions' operations, including their educational programs, facilities, instructional and administrative staff, administrative procedures, marketing, recruiting, finances, results of operations and financial condition.

        As institutions of higher education that grants degrees and diplomas, our U.S. Institutions are required to be authorized by appropriate state educational agencies. In addition, the DOE regulates our U.S. Institutions due to their participation in federal student financial aid programs under Title IV of the HEA, or Title IV programs. Title IV programs currently include grants and educational loans provided directly by the federal government, including loans to students and parents through the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (the "Direct Loan Program"). The Direct Loan Program offers Federal Stafford Loans, Federal Parent PLUS Loans, Federal Grad PLUS Loans and Federal Consolidation Loans. Prior to July 1, 2010, Title IV programs also included educational loans issued by private banks with below-market interest rates that are guaranteed by the federal government in the event of a student's default on repaying the loan. A significant percentage of students at our U.S. Institutions rely on the availability of Title IV programs to finance their cost of attendance.

73


Table of Contents

        To participate in Title IV programs, our U.S. Institutions are required to both maintain authorization by the appropriate state educational agency or agencies and be accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the DOE. The HEA requires accrediting agencies recognized by the DOE to review and monitor many aspects of an institution's operations and to take appropriate action if the institution fails to meet the accrediting agency's standards.

        We plan and implement our business activities to comply with the standards of these regulatory agencies. To monitor compliance with this regulatory environment, institutions participating in Title IV programs undergo periodic reviews to demonstrate, among other things, that they maintain proper accreditation, state authorization, and adequate financial resources. Historically, our U.S. Institutions have maintained eligibility to access Title IV funding.

State Education Licensure and Regulation

        Our U.S. Institutions are required by the HEA to be authorized by applicable state educational agencies in the states where we are located to participate in Title IV programs. To maintain requisite state authorizations, our U.S. Institutions are required to 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. These standards can be different than and conflict with the requirements of the DOE and other applicable regulatory bodies. State laws and regulations may limit our ability to offer educational programs and offer certain degrees. Some states may also prescribe financial regulations that are different from those of the DOE and many require the posting of surety bonds. Failure to comply with the requirements of applicable state educational agencies could result in us losing our authorization to offer educational programs in those states. If that were to occur, the applicable state educational agency could force us to cease operations in their state. Even if the applicable state educational agency does not require an institution to cease operations on an immediate basis, the loss of authorization by that state educational agency would then cause our institution in such state to lose eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, and such loss of Title IV program eligibility could force that institution to cease operations in such state. Alternatively, the state educational licensing agencies could restrict the institution's ability to offer certain degree or diploma programs. We may also be subject to review by applicable state educational agencies or associations.

        Each of our U.S. Institutions maintains an authorization from the pertinent state regulatory authority in which such institutions are physically located, or is exempt under current state law from a requirement to be specifically authorized. If any of the authorizations provided to one or more of our U.S. Institutions are determined not to comply with the DOE regulations, or one or more of our U.S. Institutions is unable to obtain or maintain an authorization that satisfies the DOE requirements, students at the pertinent institution may be unable to access Title IV funds, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations in the United States.

        On December 19, 2016, the DOE published final regulations regarding state authorization for programs offered through distance education and state authorization for foreign locations of institutions. Among other provisions, these final regulations require that an institution participating in the Title IV federal student aid programs and offering postsecondary education through distance education be authorized by each state in which the institution enrolls students, if such authorization is required by the state. The DOE would recognize authorization through participation in a state authorization reciprocity agreement, if the agreement does not prevent a state from enforcing its own laws. The final regulations also require that foreign additional locations and branch campuses be authorized by the appropriate foreign government agency and, if at least 50% of a program can be completed at the location/branch, be approved by the institution's accrediting agency and be reported to the state where the main campus is located. The final regulations would also require institutions to:

74


Table of Contents

document the state process for resolving complaints from students enrolled in programs offered through distance education or correspondence courses; and make certain public and individualized disclosures to enrolled and prospective students about their distance education programs. These final regulations are effective July 1, 2018.

        Independent of this matter of federal regulation, several states have asserted jurisdiction over educational institutions offering online degree programs that have no physical location or other presence in the state, but that have some activity in the state, such as enrolling or offering educational services to students who reside in the state, conducting practica or sponsoring internships in the state, employing faculty who reside in the state or advertising to or recruiting prospective students in the state. Thus, our activities in certain states constitute a presence requiring licensure or authorization under requirements of state law, regulation or policy of the state educational agency, even though we do not have a physical facility in such states. Therefore, in addition to the states where we maintain physical facilities, we have obtained, or are in the process of obtaining, approvals or exemptions that we believe are necessary in connection with our activities that may constitute a presence in such states requiring licensure or authorization by the state educational agency based on the laws, rules or regulations of that state. Some of our approvals are pending or are in the renewal process. St. Augustine does not have current approvals or exemptions from the state educational agencies of twelve states in which St. Augustine does not maintain physical locations but has enrolled a small number of students. For each such state, St. Augustine is either in the process of applying for such approval/exemption or has plans to submit such applications in 2017. In recent years, several states have voluntarily entered into State Authorization Reciprocity Arrangements ("SARA") that establish standards for interstate offering of postsecondary distance education courses and programs. If an institution's home state participates in SARA and authorizes the institution to provide distance education in accordance with SARA standards, then the institution need not obtain additional authorizations for distance education from any other SARA member state. None of our U.S. Institutions participate in SARA.

        Notwithstanding our efforts to obtain approvals or exemptions, state regulatory requirements for online education vary among the states, are not well developed in many states, are imprecise or unclear in some states and can change frequently. Because our U.S. Institutions enroll students in online degree programs, we expect that regulatory authorities in other states where we are not currently licensed or authorized may request that we seek additional licenses or authorizations for these institutions in their states in the future. If any of our U.S. Institutions fails to comply with state licensing or authorization requirements for a state, or fails to obtain licenses or authorizations when required, that institution could lose its state licensure or authorization by that state, which could prohibit it from recruiting prospective students or offering services to current students in that state. We could also be subject to other sanctions, including restrictions on activities in that state, fines and penalties. We review the licensure requirements of other states when we believe that it is appropriate to determine whether our activities in those states may constitute a presence or otherwise may require licensure or authorization by the respective state education agencies. In addition, state laws and regulations may limit our ability to offer educational programs and to award degrees and may limit the ability of our students to sit for certification exams in their chosen fields of study. New laws, regulations or interpretations related to offering educational programs online could increase our cost of doing business and affect our ability to recruit students in particular states, which could, in turn, adversely affect our U.S. Institutions' enrollments and revenues and have a material adverse effect on our business.

        We also are subject to extensive state laws and regulations, including standards for instruction, qualifications of faculty, administrative procedures, marketing, recruiting, financial operations and other operational matters. In recent years, the proprietary education industry has experienced broad-based, intensifying scrutiny in the form of increased investigations and enforcement actions. In October 2014,

75


Table of Contents

the DOE announced an interagency task force composed of the DOE, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC"), the U.S. Departments of Justice, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the "CFPB"), the SEC, and numerous state attorneys general. Attorneys general in several states have become more active in enforcing consumer protection laws, especially related to recruiting practices and the financing of education at proprietary educational institutions. In addition, several state attorneys general have recently partnered with the CFPB to review industry practices. The FTC has also recently issued civil investigative demands to several other U.S. proprietary educational institutions, which require the institutions to provide documents and information related to the advertising, marketing, or sale of secondary or postsecondary educational products or services, or educational accreditation products or services. If our past or current business practices are found to violate applicable consumer protection laws, or if we are found to have made misrepresentations to our current or prospective students about our educational programs, we could be subject to monetary fines or penalties and possible limitations on the manner in which we conduct our business, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. To the extent that more states or government agencies commence investigations, act in concert, or direct their focus on our U.S. Institutions, the cost of responding to these inquiries and investigations could increase significantly, and the potential impact on our business would be substantially greater.

        In addition to state or government agency actions, we are subject to litigation and complaints to state educational agencies by current and former students alleging violations of state consumer protection laws. See "Item 3—Legal Proceedings" for more information regarding student litigation matters. On September 8, 2016, the Minnesota Office of Higher Education ("MOHE") sent to Walden University an information request regarding its doctoral programs and complaints filed by doctoral students, as part of a program review that MOHE is conducting. We have been informed by MOHE that in an effort to better understand the context, background and issues related to doctoral student complaints in Minnesota, MOHE is initiating a full review of doctoral programs for institutions registered in Minnesota.

State Professional Licensure

        Many states have specific licensure requirements that an individual must satisfy to be licensed as a professional in specified fields, including fields such as education and healthcare. These requirements vary by state and by field. A student's success in obtaining licensure following graduation typically depends on several factors, including but not limited to: the background and qualifications of the individual graduate; whether the institution and the program were approved by the state in which the graduate seeks licensure; whether the program from which the student graduated meets all requirements for professional licensure in that state; whether the institution and the program are accredited and, if so, by what accrediting agencies; and whether the institution's degrees are recognized by other states in which a student may seek to work. Several states also require that graduates pass a state test or examination as a prerequisite to becoming certified in certain fields, such as teaching and nursing. In several states, an educational program must be approved by a professional association in order for graduates to be licensed in that professional field. In the field of psychology, an increasing number of states require approval by either the American Psychological Association ("APA") or the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards ("ASPPB"). To date, Walden University has been unable to obtain approval of its Ph.D. program in Counseling Psychology from the ASPPB or APA. Additionally, states often require a criminal background clearance before granting certain professional licensures or certifications. The catalogs for our U.S. Institutions inform students that it is incumbent upon the student to verify whether a specific criminal background clearance is required in their field of study prior to beginning course work.

76


Table of Contents

        Additionally, under the HEA, proprietary schools generally are eligible to participate in Title IV programs in respect of educational programs that lead to "gainful employment in a recognized occupation." As part of regulations promulgated by the DOE to more specifically define "gainful employment," which became effective on July 1, 2015 and are described in more detail below, the DOE requires each of our U.S. Institutions to certify that its educational programs meet the applicable requirements for graduates to be professionally or occupationally certified in the state in which the institution is located. Failure to provide such certification may result in such programs being ineligible for Title IV program funds. It is possible that several programs offered by our schools may be adversely affected by this requirement due to lack of specialized program accreditation or certification in the states in which such institutions are based.

Accreditation

        Accreditation is a private, non-governmental process for evaluating the quality of educational institutions and their programs in areas, including student performance, governance, integrity, educational quality, faculty, physical resources, administrative capability and resources and financial stability. To be recognized by the DOE, accrediting agencies must comply with DOE regulations, which require, among other things, that accrediting agencies adopt specific standards for their review of educational institutions, conduct peer review evaluations of institutions and publicly designate those institutions that meet their criteria. An accredited institution is subject to periodic review or review when necessary by its accrediting agencies to determine whether it continues to meet the performance, integrity and quality required for accreditation. Kendall College and Walden University are institutionally accredited by the Higher Learning Commission, a regional accrediting agency recognized by the DOE. NewSchool of Architecture and Design and St. Augustine are institutionally accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the Western Association of Colleges and Schools ("WASC"). Accreditation by these accrediting agencies is important to us for several reasons, one being that it enables eligible students at our U.S. Institutions to receive Title IV financial aid. In addition, other colleges and universities depend, in part, on an institution's accreditation in evaluating transfers of credit and applications to graduate schools. Employers also rely on the accredited status of institutions when evaluating candidates' credentials, and students and corporate and government sponsors under tuition reimbursement programs consider accreditation as assurance that an institution maintains quality educational standards. If any of our U.S. Institutions fails to satisfy the standards of its respective accrediting agency, that institution could lose its accreditation by that accrediting agency, which would cause it to lose its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs.

        The HEA and regulations issued by the DOE require accrediting agencies to monitor the growth of institutions that they accredit. Our U.S. Institutions' respective accrediting agencies require all affiliated institutions, including us, to complete an annual data report. If the non-financial data, particularly enrollment information, and any other information submitted by the institution indicate problems, rapid change or significant growth, the staff of the respective accrediting agency may require that the institution address any concerns arising from the data report in the next self-study and visit process or may recommend additional monitoring. In addition, DOE regulations require the Higher Learning Commission to notify the DOE if an institution it accredits that offers distance learning programs, such as Kendall College and Walden University, experiences an increase in its headcount enrollment of 50% or more in any fiscal year. The DOE may consider that information in connection with its own regulatory oversight activities.

        In addition to institution-wide accreditation, there are numerous specialized accrediting agencies that accredit specific programs or schools within their jurisdiction, many of which are in healthcare and professional fields. Accreditation of specific programs by one of these specialized accrediting agencies signifies that those programs have met the additional standards of those agencies. In addition to being

77


Table of Contents

accredited by regional and/or national accrediting agencies, our U.S. Institutions also have the following specialized accreditations:

        If we fail to satisfy the standards of any of these specialized accrediting agencies, we could lose the specialized accreditation for the affected programs, which could result in materially reduced student enrollments in those programs.

Congressional Hearings and Related Actions

        The U.S. Congress must authorize and appropriate funding for Title IV programs under the HEA and can change the laws governing Title IV programs at any time. The HEA was most recently reauthorized in August 2008 through federal fiscal year 2014, although the U.S. Congress has taken actions required to extend Title IV programs while a HEA reauthorization remains pending and the Title IV programs remain authorized and functioning. Congress continues to engage in HEA reauthorization hearings, with such hearings examining various subjects to be potentially addressed through reauthorization, including, but not limited to, college affordability, the role of consumer information in college choices by students and families, whether Title IV programs should include institutional risk-sharing, and the role of accrediting agencies in ensuring institutional quality, among

78


Table of Contents

other items. We cannot predict the timing and terms of any eventual HEA reauthorization, including any potential changes to institutional participation or student eligibility requirements or funding levels for particular Title IV programs.

        In addition to comprehensive reauthorizations of the HEA, Congress may periodically revise the law and other statutory requirements governing Title IV programs. In addition to Title IV programs, eligible veterans and military personnel may receive educational benefits under other federal programs. Congress must determine the funding levels for Title IV programs, and programs benefiting eligible veterans and military personnel, on an annual basis through the budget and appropriations process. A reduction in federal funding levels for Title IV programs, or for programs providing educational benefits to veterans and military personnel, could reduce the ability of some students to finance their education. The loss of, or a significant reduction in, Title IV program funds or other federal education benefits available to students at our U.S. Institutions could reduce our enrollments and revenues and have a material adverse effect on our business.

        In recent years, the House Education and Workforce Committee and the Senate Committee on Health Education Labor and Pensions (the "HELP Committee") in the U.S. Congress have increased the focus on the role of the for-profit post-secondary education industry. In the past, these and other congressional committees have held hearings focused on, among other things, the standards and procedures of accrediting agencies, student recruiting and admissions and outcomes of students, credit hours and program length, the portion of federal student financial aid going to proprietary institutions, and the receipt of veterans and military education benefits by students enrolled at proprietary institutions. This activity may result in legislation, further rulemaking affecting participation in Title IV programs, and other governmental actions. In addition, concerns generated by congressional activity may adversely affect enrollment in and revenues of for-profit educational institutions.

        Additionally, the U.S. Congress and the Department of Defense (the "DoD") have increased their focus in recent years on DoD tuition assistance that is used for distance education and programs at proprietary institutions. On multiple occasions since 2012, the DoD has revised its standard Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to include additional provisions applicable to all higher educational institutions providing educational programs through the DoD tuition assistance program. Among other things, the MOU requests that participating institutions provide meaningful information to students about the financial cost and attendance at an institution so military students can make informed decisions on where to attend school, will not use unfair, deceptive, and abusive recruiting practices and will provide academic and student support services to service members and their families. The revised MOU also implements rules to strengthen existing procedures for access to DoD installations by educational institutions, a DoD Postsecondary Education Complaint System for service members, spouses, and adult family members to register student complaints and established authorization for the military departments to establish service-specific tuition assistance eligibility criteria and management controls. Our U.S. Institutions utilizing tuition assistance have signed DoD's standard MOU. The DoD has begun to increase its enforcement activity in connection with the 2012 Executive Order.

Regulation of Federal Student Financial Aid Programs

        To be eligible to participate in Title IV programs, an institution must comply with specific requirements contained in the HEA and the regulations issued thereunder by the DOE. An institution must, among other things, be licensed or authorized to offer its educational programs by the state or states in which it is located and maintain institutional accreditation by an accrediting agency recognized by the DOE. The substantial amount of federal funds disbursed to schools through Title IV programs, the large number of students and institutions participating in these programs and allegations of fraud and abuse by certain for-profit educational institutions have caused Congress to require the DOE to exercise considerable regulatory oversight over for-profit educational institutions. As a result, for-profit

79


Table of Contents

educational institutions, including ours, are subject to extensive oversight and review. Because the DOE periodically revises its regulations and changes its interpretations of existing laws and regulations, we cannot predict with certainty how the Title IV program requirements will be applied in all circumstances.

        Significant aspects of Title IV programs include the following:

        Eligibility and certification procedures.    Each of our U.S. Institutions must apply periodically to the DOE for continued certification to participate in Title IV programs. Such recertification generally is required every six years, but may be required earlier, including when an institution undergoes a change in control. An institution may also come under the DOE's review when it expands its activities in certain ways, such as opening an additional location, adding a new educational program or modifying the academic credentials it offers. The DOE may place an institution on provisional certification status if it finds that the institution does not fully satisfy all of the eligibility and certification standards and in certain other circumstances, such as when an institution is certified for the first time or undergoes a change in control. During the period of provisional certification, the institution must comply with any additional conditions included in the institution's program participation agreement with the DOE. In addition, the DOE may more closely review an institution that is provisionally certified if it applies for recertification or approval to open a new location, add an educational program, acquire another institution or make any other significant change. If the DOE determines that a provisionally certified institution is unable to meet its responsibilities under its program participation agreement, it may seek to revoke the institution's certification to participate in Title IV programs without advance notice or opportunity for the institution to challenge the action. Students attending provisionally certified institutions remain eligible to receive Title IV program funds. Each of our U.S. Institutions currently is provisionally certified to participate in Title IV programs. They are also subject to a letter of credit for not satisfying the DOE's standards of financial responsibility, as described below. In addition, they are subject to additional cash management requirements with respect to their disbursements of Title IV funds, as well as certain additional reporting and disclosure requirements.

        Gainful employment.    Under the HEA, proprietary schools generally are eligible to participate in Title IV programs in respect of educational programs that lead to "gainful employment in a recognized occupation." On October 30, 2014, the DOE published final regulations to define "gainful employment," which become effective on July 1, 2015. Historically, the concept of "gainful employment" has not been defined in detail. The final regulations require each educational program offered by a proprietary institution to achieve threshold rates in two debt measure categories: an annual debt-to-annual earnings ("DTE") ratio and an annual debt-to-discretionary income ("DTI") ratio.

        The ratios are calculated under complex methodologies and definitions outlined in the final regulations and, in some cases, are based on data that may not be readily accessible to us. The DTE ratio is calculated by comparing (i) the annual loan payment required on the median student loan debt incurred by students receiving Title IV program funds who completed a particular program and (ii) the higher of the mean or median of those students' annual earnings approximately two to four years after they graduate. The DTI ratio is calculated by comparing (x) the annual loan payment required on the median student loan debt incurred by students receiving Title IV program funds who completed a particular program and (y) the higher of the mean or median of those students' discretionary income approximately two to four years after they graduate.

        An educational program must achieve a DTE ratio at or below 8% or a DTI ratio at or below 20% to be considered "passing." An educational program with a DTE ratio greater than 8% but less than or equal to 12% or a DTI ratio greater than 20% but less than or equal to 30% is considered to be "in the zone." An educational program with a DTE ratio greater than 12% and a DTI ratio greater than 30% is considered "failing." An educational program will cease to be eligible for students to receive Title IV program funds if its DTE and DTI ratios are failing in two out of any three consecutive award years or if both of those rates are failing or in the zone for four consecutive award years.

80


Table of Contents

        The final regulations also require an institution to provide warnings to current and prospective students in programs which may lose Title IV eligibility at the end of an award or fiscal year. If an educational program could become ineligible based on its ratios for the next award year, the institution must (1) deliver a warning to current and prospective students in the program and (2) not enroll, register or enter into a financial commitment with a prospective student until three business days after the warning is provided or a subsequent warning is provided, if more than thirty days have passed since the first warning. If a program becomes ineligible for students to receive Title IV program funds, the institution cannot seek to reestablish eligibility of that program, or establish the eligibility of a similar program having the same classification of instructional program ("CIP") code with the same first four digits of the CIP code of the ineligible program for three years.

        Additionally, the final regulations require an institution to certify to the DOE that its educational programs subject to the gainful employment requirements, which include all programs offered by our U.S. Institutions, meet the applicable requirements for graduates to be professionally or occupationally licensed or certified in the state in which the institution is located. If we are unable to certify that our programs meet the applicable state requirements for graduates to be professionally or occupationally certified in that state, then we may need to cease offering certain programs in certain states or to students who are residents in certain states.

        In January 2017, the DOE issued to institutions final DTE rates. Among the Classification of Instructional Programs reported within NewSchool of Architecture and Design, Kendall College and Walden University, the DOE has indicated that we had one that failed and five in the zone. This represents a total of one educational program that failed and 10 in the zone. St. Augustine had no programs that failed or were in the zone. The percentage of students enrolled in the educational program that failed represents approximately 1% of the students currently enrolled in our U.S. Institutions. The percentage of students enrolled in the educational programs that were in the zone represents approximately 5.3%. We are currently examining and implementing options for each of these programs and their students. The failure of any program or programs offered by any of our U.S. Institutions to satisfy any gainful employment regulations could render that program or programs ineligible for Title IV program funds. If a particular educational program ceased to become eligible for Title IV program funds, either because it fails to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation or due to other factors, we may choose to cease offering that program. It is possible that several programs offered by our schools may be adversely affected by the regulations due to lack of specialized program accreditation or certification in the states in which such institutions are based. We also could be required to make changes to certain programs at our U.S. Institutions or to increase student loan repayment efforts in order to comply with the rule or to avoid the uncertainty associated with such compliance.

        Administrative capability.    DOE regulations specify extensive criteria by which an institution must establish that it has the requisite "administrative capability" to participate in Title IV programs. To meet the administrative capability standards, an institution must, among other things: comply with all applicable Title IV program requirements; have an adequate number of qualified personnel to administer Title IV programs; have acceptable standards for measuring the satisfactory academic progress of its students; not have student loan cohort default rates above specified levels; have various procedures in place for awarding, disbursing and safeguarding Title IV program funds and for maintaining required records; administer Title IV programs with adequate checks and balances in its system of internal controls; not be, and not have any principal or affiliate who is, debarred or suspended from federal contracting or engaging in activity that is cause for debarment or suspension; provide financial aid counseling to its students; refer to the DOE's Office of Inspector General any credible information indicating that any student, parent, employee, third-party servicer or other agent of the institution has engaged in any fraud or other illegal conduct involving Title IV programs; submit all required reports and financial statements in a timely manner; and not otherwise appear to lack

81


Table of Contents

administrative capability. If an institution fails to satisfy any of these criteria, the DOE may require the institution to repay Title IV funds its students previously received, change the institution's method of receiving Title IV program funds, which in some cases may result in a significant delay in the institution's receipt of those funds, place the institution on provisional certification status or commence a proceeding to impose a fine or to limit, suspend or terminate the institution's participation in Title IV programs. If the DOE determines that any of our U.S. Institutions failed to satisfy its administrative capability requirements, then the institution's students could lose, or be limited in their access to, Title IV program funding.

        Financial responsibility.    The HEA and DOE regulations establish extensive standards of financial responsibility that institutions such as ours must satisfy to participate in Title IV programs. The DOE evaluates institutions for compliance with these standards on an annual basis based on the institution's annual audited financial statements as well as when the institution applies to the DOE to have its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs recertified. The most significant financial responsibility standard is the institution's composite score, which is derived from a formula established by the DOE based on three financial ratios: (1) equity ratio, which measures the institution's capital resources, financial viability and ability to borrow; (2) primary reserve ratio, which measures the institution's ability to support current operations from expendable resources; and (3) net income ratio, which measures the institution's ability to operate at a profit or within its means. The DOE assigns a strength factor to the results of each of these ratios on a scale from negative 1.0 to positive 3.0, with negative 1.0 reflecting financial weakness and positive 3.0 reflecting financial strength. The DOE then assigns a weighting percentage to each ratio and adds the weighted scores for the three ratios together to produce a composite score for the institution. The composite score must be at least 1.5 for the institution to be deemed financially responsible without the need for further DOE oversight. In addition to having an acceptable composite score, an institution must, among other things, provide the administrative resources necessary to comply with Title IV program requirements, meet all of its financial obligations including required refunds to students and any Title IV liabilities and debts, be current in its debt payments and not receive an adverse, qualified or disclaimed opinion by its accountants in its audited financial statements.

        If the DOE determines that an institution does not meet the financial responsibility standards due to a failure to meet the composite score or other factors, the institution is able to establish financial responsibility on an alternative basis permitted by the DOE. This alternative basis could include, in the Department's discretion, posting a letter of credit, accepting provisional certification, complying with additional DOE monitoring requirements, agreeing to receive Title IV program funds under an arrangement other than the DOE's standard advance funding arrangement, such as the reimbursement method of payment or heightened cash monitoring, or complying with or accepting other limitations on the institution's ability to increase the number of programs it offers or the number of students it enrolls.

        The DOE measures the financial responsibility of several of our U.S. Institutions on the basis of the Laureate consolidated audited financial statements and not at the individual institution level. Based on Laureate's composite score for its fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, the DOE determined that it and, consequently, Walden University, NewSchool of Architecture and Design, Kendall College and St. Augustine fail to meet the standards of financial responsibility. As a result, the DOE required us to either: 1) provide a letter of credit in an amount equal to 50% of Title IV program funds received by Laureate in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (calculated by the DOE to be $351,995,250) and have our U.S. Institutions qualify as financially responsible; or 2) provide a letter of credit in an amount equal to 15% of the Title IV program funds received by Laureate in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (calculated by the DOE to be $105,598,575) and for our U.S. Institutions to remain provisionally certified for a period of up to three complete Title IV program award years. The DOE also required us to comply with additional notification and reporting requirements. We have provided

82


Table of Contents

the DOE with a letter of credit in the amount of $105,598,575 and we are complying with the additional notification and reporting requirements.

        In December 2015, the DOE required us to provide a letter of credit in the amount of $14,967 for St. Augustine (25% of the total Title IV program refunds the institution made or should have made during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014). This requirement was due to the fact that St. Augustine was found to have untimely processed returns of Title IV program funds for withdrawn students for more than 5% of the students in its auditor's sample for the 2014 fiscal year. We have obtained this letter of credit. Any requirement to provide , maintain or increase a letter of credit or other sanctions that may be imposed by the DOE could increase our cost of regulatory compliance and could affect our cash flows. The DOE has the discretion to increase our letter of credit requirements at any time. If our U.S. Institutions are unable to meet the minimum composite score requirement or comply with the other standards of financial responsibility, and could not post a required letter of credit or comply with the alternative bases for establishing financial responsibility, then students at our U.S. Institutions could lose their access to Title IV program funding.

        On November 1, 2016, the DOE issued a final rule to revise its general standards of financial responsibility to include various actions and events that would require institutions to provide the DOE with irrevocable letters of credit. For additional information regarding this final rule, see "—DOE rulemaking activities." If we are required to repay the DOE for any successful DTR claims by students who attended our U.S. Institutions, or we are required to obtain additional letters of credit or increase our current letter of credit, it could materially affect our business, financial conditions and results of operations. We are currently assessing the impact of these final regulations on our U.S. Institutions.

        Return of Title IV funds for students who withdraw.    When a student who has received Title IV funds withdraws from school, the institution must determine the amount of Title IV program funds the student has "earned." The institution must return any unearned Title IV program funds to the appropriate lender or the DOE in a timely manner, which is generally no later than 45 days after the date the institution determined that the student withdrew. If such payments are not timely made, the institution will be required to submit a letter of credit to the DOE equal to 25% of the Title IV funds that the institution should have returned for withdrawn students in its most recently completed fiscal year. Under DOE regulations, late returns of Title IV program funds for 5% or more of the withdrawn students in the audit sample in the institution's annual Title IV compliance audit for either of the institution's two most recent fiscal years or in a DOE program review triggers this letter of credit requirement.

        A final program review determination issued by the DOE on March 3, 2015 found that Walden University failed to timely return Title IV program funds for more than 5% of the withdrawn students during its fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. The DOE noted that such a finding would usually require Walden to post a letter of credit to the DOE equal to 25% of the Title IV funds that the institution should have returned for withdrawn students in its most recently completed fiscal year; however, such an additional letter of credit was not required in this instance because of the letter of credit that was previously posted to the DOE based on our consolidated audited financial statements failing to meet the DOE's standards of financial responsibility.

        The "90/10 Rule."    A requirement of the HEA commonly referred to as the "90/10 Rule" provides that an institution loses its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, if, under a complex regulatory formula that requires cash basis accounting and other adjustments to the calculation of revenue, the institution derives more than 90% of its revenues for any fiscal year from Title IV program funds. This rule applies only to for-profit post-secondary educational institutions, including our U.S. Institutions. An institution is subject to loss of eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if it exceeds the 90% threshold for two consecutive fiscal years, and an institution whose rate exceeds 90% for any single fiscal year will be placed on provisional certification and may be subject to addition conditions or sanctions imposed by the DOE.

83


Table of Contents

        Using the DOE's formula under the "90/10 Rule," Kendall College derived approximately 34%, 36% and 35% of its revenues (calculated on a cash basis) from Title IV program funds in fiscal years 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. NewSchool of Architecture and Design derived approximately 37%, 43% and 47% of its revenues (calculated on a cash basis) from Title IV program funds in fiscal years 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. St. Augustine derived approximately 57%, 49% and 46% of its revenues (calculated on a cash basis) from Title IV program funds in fiscal years 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Walden University derived approximately 73%, 73% and 74% of its revenues (calculated on a cash basis) from Title IV program funds in fiscal years 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

        The ability of our U.S. Institutions to maintain 90/10 rates below 90% will depend on our enrollments, any increases in students Title IV funding eligibility in the future, and other factors outside of our control, including any reduction in government assistance for military personnel, including veterans, or changes in the treatment of such funding for the purposes of the 90/10 calculation. In recent years, several members of Congress have introduced proposals and legislation that would modify the 90/10 Rule. One such proposal would revise the 90/10 Rule to an 85/15 rule and would count DoD tuition assistance and GI Bill education benefits toward that limit. We cannot predict whether, or the extent to which, these actions could result in legislation or further rulemaking affecting the 90/10 Rule. To the extent that any such laws or regulations are enacted, our U.S. Institutions' financial condition could be adversely affected.

        Student loan defaults.    Under the HEA, an educational institution may lose its eligibility to participate in some or all Title IV programs if defaults by its students on the repayment of federal student loans received under Title IV programs exceed certain levels. For each federal fiscal year, the DOE calculates a rate of student defaults on such loans for each institution, known as a "cohort default rate." Under current regulations, an institution will lose its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if its three-year cohort default rate equals or exceeds 30% for three consecutive cohort years or 40% for any given year.

        The Department of Education generally publishes official cohort default rates annually in September for the repayment period that ended the prior September 30. Kendall College's official cohort default rates for the 2013, 2012 and 2011 federal fiscal years were 10.0%, 7.9% and 11.3%, respectively. NewSchool of Architecture and Design's official cohort default rates for the 2013, 2012 and 2011 federal fiscal years were 5.1%, 10.2% and 11.2%, respectively. St. Augustine's official cohort default rates for the 2013, 2012 and 2011 federal fiscal years were 0.2%, 0.5%, and 0.0%, respectively. Walden University's official cohort default rates for the 2013, 2012 and 2011 federal fiscal years were 6.7%, 6.8% and 7.8%, respectively. The average national student loan default rates published by the DOE for all institutions that participated in the federal student aid programs for 2013, 2012 and 2011 were 11.3%, 11.8% and 13.7%, respectively, and for all proprietary institutions that participated in the federal student aid programs for 2013, 2012 and 2011 were 15.0%, 15.8% and 19.1%, respectively.

        Incentive compensation rule.    Under the HEA, an educational institution that participates in Title IV programs may not make any commission, bonus or other incentive payments to any persons or entities involved in recruitment or admissions activities or in the awarding of financial aid pertaining to U.S. citizens, permanent residents and others temporarily residing in the United States with the intention of becoming a citizen or permanent resident. The DOE has taken the position that any commission, bonus or other incentive compensation based in any part, directly or indirectly, or securing enrollment or awarding financial aid is inconsistent with the statutory prohibition against incentive compensation. The DOE has maintained that institutions may make merit-based adjustments to employee compensation, provided that those adjustments are not based, in any part, directly or indirectly, upon securing enrollments or awarding financial aid. In sub-regulatory correspondence to institutions regarding its regulatory changes, the DOE provided additional guidance regarding the scope of the prohibition on incentive compensation and to what employees and types of activities the prohibition applies.

84


Table of Contents

        In addition, in recent years, other post-secondary educational institutions have been named as defendants to whistleblower lawsuits, known as "qui tam" cases, brought by current or former employees pursuant to the Federal False Claims Act, alleging that their institutions' compensation practices did not comply with the incentive compensation rule. A qui tam case is a civil lawsuit brought by one or more individuals (a "relator") on behalf of the federal government for an alleged submission to the government of a false claim for payment. The relator, often a current or former employee, is entitled to a share of the government's recovery in the case, including the possibility of treble damages. A qui tam action is always filed under seal and remains under seal until the government decides whether to intervene in the case. If the government intervenes, it takes over primary control of the litigation. If the government declines to intervene in the case, the relator may nonetheless elect to continue to pursue the litigation at his or her own expense on behalf of the government. Any such litigation could be costly and could divert management's time and attention away from the business, regardless of whether a claim has merit.

        Substantial misrepresentation.    An institution participating in Title IV programs is prohibited from making misrepresentations regarding the nature of its educational programs, the nature of financial charges and availability of financial assistance, or the employability of graduates. A misrepresentation is defined in the regulations as any false, erroneous or misleading statement to any student or prospective student, any member of the public, an accrediting agency, a state agency or the DOE, and, significantly, the regulations as promulgated by the DOE define misleading statements to broadly include any statements that have a likelihood or tendency to deceive. If any of our U.S. Institutions—or any entity, organization, or person with whom the institution has an agreement to provide educational programs or to provide marketing, advertising, recruiting, or admissions services—committed a misrepresentation for which a person could reasonably be expected to rely, or has reasonably relied, to that person's detriment, the DOE could initiate proceedings to revoke the institution's Title IV eligibility, deny applications made by the institution, impose fines, or initiate a limitation, suspension or termination proceeding against the institution.

        Compliance reviews.    Our U.S. Institutions are subject to announced and unannounced compliance reviews and audits by various external agencies, including the DOE, its Office of Inspector General, state licensing agencies, various state approving agencies for financial assistance to veterans and accrediting agencies. In general, after the DOE conducts a site visit and reviews data supplied by an institution, the DOE sends the institution a program review report and affords the institution with an opportunity to respond to any findings. The DOE then issues a final program review determination letter, which identifies any liabilities.

        On March 3, 2015, the DOE issued a final program review determination letter to Walden University for a September 2012 review of the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 Title IV award years. The letter required Walden University to return $34,281 in Title IV funds, and also found that Walden University failed to timely return Title IV program funds for more than 5% of the withdrawn students during its fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. The DOE noted that such a finding would usually require Walden to post a letter of credit to the DOE equal to 25% of the Title IV funds that the institution should have returned for withdrawn students in its most recently completed fiscal year; however, such an additional letter of credit was not required in this instance because of the letter of credit that was previously posted to the DOE based on our consolidated audited financial statements failing to meet the DOE's standards of financial responsibility. On September 11, 2015, the DOE issued an expedited final program review determination letter to Kendall College regarding a March-April 2015 program review. The letter determined that Kendall College has taken corrective actions necessary to resolve all findings. In addition, on September 21, 2015, the Higher Learning Commission notified Kendall College that the Higher Learning Commission placed the school on ongoing financial monitoring over the next 24 months. Such action was primarily due to concerns over the school's continued reliance upon Laureate to provide financial support to sustain its operations. In May 2017,

85


Table of Contents

Kendall College and Walden University are scheduled to host interim site visits from their institutional accreditor, Higher Learning Commission, as a condition of their ongoing accreditation. On September 8, 2016, MOHE sent to Walden University an information request regarding its doctoral programs and complaints filed by doctoral students, as part of a program review that MOHE is conducting. We have been informed by MOHE that in an effort to better understand the context, background and issues related to doctoral student complaints in Minnesota, MOHE is initiating a full review of doctoral programs for institutions registered in Minnesota.

        As part of the DOE's ongoing monitoring of institutions' administration of Title IV programs, the HEA also requires institutions to annually submit to the DOE a Title IV compliance audit conducted by an independent certified public accountant in accordance with applicable federal and DOE audit standards. In addition, to enable the DOE to make a determination of an institution's financial responsibility, each institution must annually submit audited financial statements prepared in accordance with DOE regulations.

        DOE rulemaking activities.    On October 30, 2015, the DOE published final regulations on cash management and debit card practices, retaking coursework, and clock-to-credit hour conversion. A majority of the provisions of the regulations took effect on July 1, 2016, and others took effect on later dates in 2016. The final regulations concerning cash management require, among other things, that institutions subject to heightened cash monitoring procedures for disbursements of Title IV funds must, effective July 1, 2016, pay to students any applicable Title IV credit balances before requesting such funds from the DOE. St. Augustine, Walden University, NewSchool of Architecture and Design and Kendall College are currently subject to heightened cash monitoring procedures. We have reviewed the regulations and made appropriate adjustments in our business operations to meet those requirements effective July 1, 2016.

        On October 31, 2016, the DOE published final regulations teacher preparation program accountability systems under the HEA, and additionally proposed amendments on teacher preparation program eligibility for TEACH Grant participation. On March 8, 2017, the U.S. Congress enacted a joint resolution disapproving these October 31, 2016 final regulations on teacher preparation pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. On March 27, 2017, the President signed the joint resolution nullifying these final regulations on teacher preparation and prohibiting the DOE from reissuing regulations in substantially the same form, or from issuing new regulations that are substantially the same, unless such reissued or new regulations are specifically authorized by the U.S. Congress subsequent to its joint resolution disapproving the October 31, 2016 final regulations.

        On December 19, 2016, the DOE published final regulations regarding state authorization for programs offered through distance education and state authorization for foreign locations of institutions. Among other provisions, these final regulations require that an institution participating in the Title IV federal student aid programs and offering postsecondary education through distance education be authorized by each state in which the institution enrolls students, if such authorization is required by the state. The DOE would recognize authorization through participation in a state authorization reciprocity agreement, if the agreement does not prevent a state from enforcing its own laws. The final regulations also require that foreign additional locations and branch campuses be authorized by the appropriate foreign government agency and, if at least 50% of a program can be completed at the location/branch, be approved by the institution's accrediting agency and be reported to the state where the main campus is located. The final regulations would also require institutions to: document the state process for resolving complaints from students enrolled in programs offered through distance education or correspondence courses; and make certain public and individualized disclosures to enrolled and prospective students about their distance education programs. These final regulations are effective July 1, 2018.

86


Table of Contents

        On November 1, 2016, the DOE published a final rule that, among other provisions, establishes new standards and processes for determining whether a Direct Loan Program borrower has a defense to repayment ("DTR") on a loan due to acts or omissions by the institution at which the loan was used by the borrower for educational expenses. The final regulations take effect on July 1, 2017. Among other topics, this final rule establishes permissible borrower defense claims for discharge, procedural rules under which claims will be adjudicated, time limits for borrowers' claims, and guidelines for recoupment by the DOE of discharged loan amounts from institutions of higher education. It also prohibits schools from using any pre-dispute arbitration agreements, prohibits schools from prohibiting relief in the form of class actions by student borrowers, and invalidates clauses imposing requirements that students pursue an internal dispute resolution process before contacting authorities regarding concerns about an institution. For proprietary institutions, the final rule describes the threshold for loan repayment rates that will require specific disclosures to current and prospective students and the applicable loan repayment rate methodology. The final rule also establishes important new financial responsibility and administrative capacity requirements for both not-for-profit and for-profit institutions participating in the Title IV programs. For example, certain events would automatically trigger the need for a school to obtain a letter of credit including, for publicly traded institutions, if the SEC warns the school that it may suspend trading on the school's stock, the school failed to timely file a required annual or quarterly report with the SEC, or the exchange on which the stock is traded notifies the school that it is not in compliance with exchange requirements or the stock is delisted. Other events would require a recalculation of a school's composite score of financial responsibility, including, for a proprietary institution whose score is less than 1.5, any withdrawal of an owner's equity by any means, including by declaring a dividend, unless the equity is transferred within the affiliated entity group on whose basis the composite score was calculated. The final rule also sets forth events that are discretionary triggers for letters of credit, meaning that if any of them occur, the DOE may choose to require a letter of credit, increase an existing letter of credit requirement or demand some other form of surety from the institution. The final rule provides that if an institution fails to meet the composite score requirement for longer than three years under provisional certification, the DOE may mandate additional financial protection from the institution or any party with "substantial control" over the institution. Such parties with "substantial control" must agree to jointly and severally guarantee the Title IV liabilities of the institution at the end of the three-year provisional certification period. Under current regulations, a party may be deemed to have "substantial control" over an institution if, among other factors, the party directly or indirectly holds an ownership interest of 25% or more of an institution, or is a member of the board of directors, a general partner, the chief executive officer or other executive officer of the institution. If we are required to repay the DOE for any successful DTR claims by students who attended our U.S. Institutions, or we are required to obtain additional letters of credit or increase our current letter of credit, it could materially affect our business, financial conditions and results of operations. We are in the process of evaluating the final regulations and cannot predict with certainty what impact the final regulations will have on our business and the educational programs offered by our U.S. Institutions.

        Privacy of student records.    The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 ("FERPA"), and the DOE's FERPA regulations require educational institutions to protect the privacy of students' educational records by limiting an institution's disclosure of a student's personally identifiable information without the student's prior written consent. FERPA also requires institutions to allow students to review and request changes to their educational records maintained by the institution, to notify students at least annually of this inspection right and to maintain records in each student's file listing requests for access to and disclosures of personally identifiable information and the interest of such party in that information. If an institution fails to comply with FERPA, the DOE may require corrective actions by the institution or may terminate an institution's receipt of further federal funds. In addition, our U.S. Institutions are obligated to safeguard student information pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (the "GLBA"), a federal law designed to protect consumers' personal financial

87


Table of Contents

information held by financial institutions and other entities that provide financial services to consumers. The GLBA and the applicable GLBA regulations require an institution to, among other things, develop and maintain a comprehensive, written information security program designed to protect against the unauthorized disclosure of personally identifiable financial information of students, parents or other individuals with whom such institution has a customer relationship. If an institution fails to comply with the applicable GLBA requirements, it may be required to take corrective actions, be subject to monitoring and oversight by the FTC, and be subject to fines or penalties imposed by the FTC. For-profit educational institutions are also subject to the general deceptive practices jurisdiction of the FTC with respect to their collection, use and disclosure of student information. The institution must also comply with the FTC Red Flags Rule, a section of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, that requires the establishment of guidelines and policies regarding identity theft related to student credit accounts.

        Potential effect of regulatory violations.    If any of our U.S. Institutions fails to comply with the regulatory standards governing Title IV programs, the DOE could impose one or more sanctions, including requiring us to repay Title IV program funds, requiring us to post a letter of credit in favor of the DOE as a condition for continued Title IV certification, taking emergency action against us, initiating proceedings to impose a fine or to limit, suspend or terminate our participation in Title IV programs or referring the matter for civil or criminal prosecution. Because our U.S. Institutions are provisionally certified to participate in Title IV programs, the DOE may revoke the certification of these institutions without advance notice or advance opportunity for us to challenge that action. If such sanctions or proceedings were imposed against us and resulted in a substantial curtailment or termination of our participation in Title IV programs, our enrollments, revenues and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

        In addition to the actions that may be brought against us as a result of our participation in Title IV programs, we are also subject to complaints and lawsuits relating to regulatory compliance brought not only by regulatory agencies, but also by other government agencies and third parties, such as current or former students or employees and other members of the public.

Regulatory Standards that May Restrict Institutional Expansion or Other Changes in the United States

        Many actions that we may wish to take in connection with expanding our operations or other changes in the United States are subject to review or approval by the applicable regulatory agencies.

        Adding teaching locations, implementing new educational programs and increasing enrollment.    The requirements and standards of state education agencies, accrediting agencies and the DOE limit our ability in certain instances to establish additional teaching locations, implement new educational programs or increase enrollment in certain programs. Many states require review and approval before institutions can add new locations or programs. Our U.S. Institutions' state educational agencies and institutional and specialized accrediting agencies that authorize or accredit our U.S. Institutions and their programs generally require institutions to notify them in advance of adding new locations or implementing new programs, and upon notification may undertake a review of the quality of the facility or the program and the financial, academic and other qualifications of the institution.

        With respect to the DOE, if an institution participating in Title IV programs plans to add a new location or educational program, the institution must generally apply to the DOE to have the additional location or educational program designated as within the scope of the institution's Title IV eligibility. As a condition for an institution to participate in Title IV programs on a provisional basis, as in our case, the DOE can require prior approval of such programs or otherwise restrict the number of programs an institution may add or the extent to which an institution can modify existing educational programs. If an institution that is required to obtain the DOE's advance approval for the addition of a

88


Table of Contents

new program or new location fails to do so, the institution may be liable for repayment of the Title IV program funds received by the institution or students in connection with that program or enrolled at that location.

        Provisional certification.    Each institution must apply to the DOE for continued certification to participate in Title IV programs at least every six years and when it undergoes a change in control. An institution may also come under the DOE's review when it expands its activities in certain ways, such as opening an additional location, adding an educational program or modifying the academic credentials that it offers.

        The DOE may place an institution on provisional certification status if it finds that the institution does not fully satisfy all of the eligibility and certification standards. In addition, if a company acquires an institution from another entity, the acquired institution will automatically be placed on provisional certification when the DOE approves the transaction. During the period of provisional certification, the institution must comply with any additional conditions or restrictions included in its program participation agreement with the DOE. Students attending provisionally certified institutions remain eligible to receive Title IV program funds, but if the DOE finds that a provisionally certified institution is unable to meet its responsibilities under its program participation agreement, it may seek to revoke the institution's certification to participate in Title IV programs without advance notice or advance opportunity for the institution to challenge that action. In addition, the DOE may more closely review an institution that is provisionally certified if it applies for recertification or approval to open a new location, add an educational program, acquire another institution or make any other significant change. All of our U.S. Institutions currently participate in Title IV programs pursuant to provisional participation agreements due to our conversion to a public benefit corporation and our initial public offering, as well as because we do not meet the DOE's standards of financial responsibility.

        Acquiring other institutions.    We have acquired other institutions in the past, and we may seek to do so in the future. The DOE and virtually all state education agencies and accrediting agencies require a company to obtain their approval if it wishes to acquire another institution. The level of review varies by individual state and accrediting agency, with some requiring approval of such an acquisition before it occurs while others only consider approval after the acquisition has occurred. The approval of the applicable state education agencies and accrediting agencies is a necessary prerequisite to the DOE certifying the acquired institution to participate in Title IV programs. The restrictions imposed by any of the applicable regulatory agencies could delay or prevent our acquisition of other institutions in some circumstances or could delay the ability of an acquired institution to participate in Title IV programs.

        Change in ownership resulting in a change in control.    The DOE and many states and accrediting agencies require institutions of higher education to report or obtain approval of certain changes in control and changes in other aspects of institutional organization or control. Under DOE's regulations, an institution that undergoes a change in control loses its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs and must apply to the DOE to reestablish such eligibility. If an institution files the required application and follows other procedures, the DOE may temporarily certify the institution on a provisional basis following the change in control, so that the institution's students retain continued access to Title IV program funds. In addition, the DOE may extend such temporary provisional certification if the institution timely files certain required materials, including the approval of the change in control by its state authorizing agency and accrediting agency and certain financial information pertaining to the financial condition of the institution or its parent corporation.

        The DOE previously notified us that it considers our recent initial public offering and our recent conversion to a Delaware public benefit corporation to be changes of ownership resulting in changes in control under the DOE's regulations. Also, the DOE will only formally review and approve change of ownerships resulting in changes in control after such changes have occurred. Accordingly, we applied to

89


Table of Contents

the DOE on behalf of Kendall College, NewSchool of Architecture and Design, St. Augustine and Walden University for approval of these institutions' continued participation in Title IV programs in connection with the recent conversion to a Delaware public benefit corporation. The DOE completed its review of the conversion and issued provisional program participation agreements to the institutions with respect to the conversion. We have similarly applied to the DOE on behalf of Kendall College, NewSchool of Architecture and Design, St. Augustine and Walden University for approval of these institutions' continued participation in Title IV programs in connection with our recent initial public offering. The DOE's review of the initial public offering remains pending. The DOE has issued temporary program participation agreements to the institutions, which will expire on March 31, 2017. If certain documents are submitted to DOE before the expiration of the temporary program participation agreements, the eligibility of the institutions to participate in the Title IV programs will be continued on a month-to-month basis while the DOE completes its review of the initial public offering. There can be no assurance that the DOE will formally approve our initial public offering and recertify our U.S. Institutions for continued Title IV program eligibility. If the DOE fails to recertify the institutions and to issue provisional program participation agreements to the institutions with respect to the initial public offering, students at the affected institutions would no longer be able to receive Title IV program funds. The DOE could also recertify our U.S. Institutions with respect to the initial public offering, but restrict or delay students' receipt of Title IV program funds, limit the number of students to whom an institution could disburse such funds, or impose other restrictions.

        The types of and thresholds for such reporting and approval vary among the states and accrediting agencies. Certain accrediting agencies may require that an institution must obtain its approval in advance of a change in control, structure or organization for the institution to retain its accredited status. In addition, in the event of a change in control, structure or organization, certain accrediting agencies may require a post-transaction focused visit or other evaluation to review the appropriateness of its approval of the change and whether the institution has met the commitment it made to the accrediting agency prior to the approval. Other specialized accrediting agencies also require an institution to obtain similar approval before or after the event that constitutes a change in control under their standards. Many states include the transfer of a controlling interest of common stock in the definition of a change in control requiring approval. Some state educational agencies that regulate us may require us to obtain approval of the change in control to maintain authorization to operate in that state, and in some cases such states could require us to obtain advance approval of a change in control.

        We sought confirmation from the accrediting agencies for Kendall College, NewSchool of Architecture and Design, St. Augustine and Walden University, as well as from the U.S. institutional accrediting agency for Universidad Andrés Bello, whether our initial public offering constitutes a change of control under their respective standards. We also sought guidance from applicable state educational agencies as to whether the recent initial public offering constitutes a change of control requiring approval under their respective regulations.

        Many states and accreditors have informed us that our initial public offering did not constitute a change of control, but some agencies have determined that the offering will need to be reviewed under their respective change of ownership standards. We have notified each agency regarding the offering and some have requested additional information in connection with the offering. For instance, the Florida Commission for Independent Education has determined that the initial public offering requires its review and approval with respect to St. Augustine, and we have filed the required applications for such approval. Our failure to obtain any required approval of our initial public offering from the DOE, the institutional accrediting agencies, or the pertinent state educational agencies could result in one or more of our U.S. Institutions losing continued eligibility to participate in the Title IV programs, accreditation or state licensure, which could have a material adverse effect on our U.S. business, financial condition and results of operations.

        In addition, we increased our ownership of St. Augustine from 80% to 100% on June 7, 2016. The 20% noncontrolling interest was previously held by Patris of St. Augustine, Inc. and subject to a put right, which Patris of St. Augustine, Inc. elected to exercise. We have notified St. Augustine's applicable regulators regarding the increase in the percentage of our ownership in St. Augustine.

90


Table of Contents

ITEM 1A.    RISK FACTORS

        The following are certain risks that could affect our business and our results of operations. The risks identified below are not all encompassing but should be considered in establishing an opinion of our future operations.

Risks Relating to Our Business

We are a global business with operations in 25 countries around the world and are subject to complex business, economic, legal, political, tax and foreign currency risks, which risks may be difficult to adequately address.

        In each of 2016, 2015 and 2014, over 80% of our revenues were generated from operations outside of the United States. We own or control 58 institutions and manage or have relationships with 12 other licensed institutions in 25 countries, each of which is subject to complex business, economic, legal, political, tax and foreign currency risks. As we continue to expand our international operations, we may have difficulty managing and administering a globally dispersed business and we may need to expend additional funds to, among other things, staff key management positions, obtain additional information technology infrastructure and successfully implement relevant course and program offerings for a significant number of international markets, which may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        Additional challenges associated with the conduct of our business overseas that may materially adversely affect our operating results include:

91


Table of Contents

        Our success in growing our business will depend, in part, on the ability to anticipate and effectively manage these and other risks related to operating in various countries. Any failure by us to effectively manage the challenges associated with the international expansion of our operations could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we do not effectively manage our growth and business, our results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

        We have expanded our business over the past eight years through the expansion of existing institutions and the acquisition of higher education institutions, and we intend to continue to do so in the future. We also have established and intend to establish new institutions in certain markets. Planned growth will require us to add management personnel and upgrade our financial and management systems and controls and information technology infrastructure. There is no assurance that we will be able to maintain or accelerate the current growth rate, effectively manage expanding operations, build expansion capacity, integrate new institutions or achieve planned growth on a timely or profitable basis. If our revenue growth is less than projected, the costs incurred for these additions and upgrades could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we cannot maintain student enrollments in our institutions and maintain tuition levels, our results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

        Our strategy for growth and profitability depends, in part, upon maintaining and, subsequently, increasing student enrollments in our institutions and maintaining tuition levels. Attrition rates are often due to factors outside our control. Students sometimes face financial, personal or family constraints that require them to drop out of school. They also are affected by economic and social factors prevalent in their countries. In some markets in which we operate, transfers between universities are not common and, as a result, we are less likely to fill spaces of students who drop out. In addition, our ability to attract and retain students may require us to discount tuition from published levels, and may prevent us from increasing tuition levels at a rate consistent with inflation and increases in our costs. If we are unable to control the rate of student attrition, our overall enrollment levels are likely to decline or if we are unable to charge tuition rates that are both competitive and cover our rising expenses, our business, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations may be materially adversely affected. In addition, student enrollment may be negatively affected by our reputation and any negative publicity related to us.

We have incurred net losses in two of the last three fiscal years.

        We had net income of $366.2 million in 2016 and net losses of $315.8 million and $162.5 million in 2015 and 2014, respectively. Our operating expenses may increase in the foreseeable future as we continue to expand our operations and the Laureate International Universities network. These efforts may prove more expensive than we currently anticipate, and we may not succeed in increasing our revenues sufficiently to offset any higher expenses. Any failure to increase our revenues could prevent us from attaining profitability. We cannot be certain that we will be able to attain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis. If we are unable to manage these risks and difficulties effectively as we encounter them, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

92


Table of Contents

We may not be able to identify, acquire or establish control of, and integrate additional higher education institutions, or effectively integrate previously acquired institutions, which could materially adversely affect our growth.

        We have previously relied on, and we expect to continue to rely on, acquisitions as an element of our growth. In 2016, we made no acquisitions, in 2015, we made two acquisitions totaling $11.6 million, in 2014, we made three acquisitions totaling $469.2 million, in 2013, we made four acquisitions totaling $321.7 million, in 2012, we made two acquisitions totaling $8.6 million and in 2011, we made six acquisitions totaling $58.9 million, including debt assumed. However, there is no assurance that we will be able to continue to identify suitable acquisition candidates or that we will be able to acquire or establish control of any acquisition candidate on favorable terms, or at all. In addition, in many countries, the approval of a regulatory agency is needed to acquire or operate a higher education institution, which we may not be able to obtain. Furthermore, there is no assurance that any acquired institution can be integrated into our operations successfully or be operated profitably. Acquisitions involve a number of risks, including:

        If we do not make acquisitions or make fewer acquisitions than we have historically, or if our acquisitions are not managed successfully, our growth and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

We may not be able to successfully establish new higher education institutions, which could materially adversely affect our growth.

        We have entered new markets primarily through acquisitions. As part of our expansion strategy, we may establish new higher education institutions in some markets where there are no suitable acquisition targets. We have only limited experience in establishing new institutions, such as the establishment of our universities in Morocco and Australia, and there is no assurance that we will be able to do this successfully or profitably. Establishing new institutions poses unique challenges and will require us to make investments in management, capital expenditures, marketing activities and other resources that are different, and in some cases may be greater, than those made to acquire and then operate an existing institution. To open a new institution, we will also be required to obtain appropriate governmental approvals, including a new license, which may take a substantial period of time to obtain. If we are unable to establish new higher education institutions successfully, our growth may be materially adversely affected.

Our success depends substantially on the value of the local brands of each of our institutions as well as the Laureate International Universities network brand, which may be materially adversely affected by changes in current and prospective students' perception of our reputation and the use of social media.

        Each of our institutions has worked hard to establish the value of its individual brand. Brand value may be severely damaged, even by isolated incidents, particularly if the incidents receive considerable

93


Table of Contents

negative publicity. There has been a marked increase in use of social media platforms, including weblogs (blogs), social media websites, and other forms of Internet-based communications that allow individuals access to a broad audience of interested persons. We believe students and prospective employers value readily available information about our institutions and often act on such information without further investigation or authentication, and without regard to its accuracy. In addition, many of our institutions use the Laureate name in promoting their institutions and our success is dependent in large part upon our ability to maintain and enhance the value of the Laureate and Laureate International Universities brands. Social media platforms and devices immediately publish the content their subscribers and participants post, often without filters or checks on the accuracy of the content posted. Information concerning our company and our institutions may be posted on such platforms and devices at any time. Information posted may be materially adverse to our interests, it may be inaccurate, and it may harm our performance, prospects and business.

Our reputation may be negatively influenced by the actions of other for-profit and private institutions.

        In recent years, there have been a number of regulatory investigations and civil litigation matters targeting post-secondary for-profit education institutions in the United States and private higher education institutions in other countries, such as Chile. These investigations and lawsuits have alleged, among other things, deceptive trade practices, false claims against the United States and noncompliance with state and DOE regulations, and breach of the requirement that universities in Chile be operated as not-for-profit institutions. These allegations have attracted adverse media coverage and have been the subject of federal and state legislative hearings and investigations in the United States and in other countries. Allegations against the post-secondary for-profit and private education sectors may affect general public perceptions of for-profit and private educational institutions, including institutions in the Laureate International Universities network and us, in a negative manner. Adverse media coverage regarding other for-profit or private educational institutions or regarding us directly or indirectly could damage our reputation, reduce student demand for our programs, materially adversely affect our revenues and operating profit or result in increased regulatory scrutiny.

Growing our online academic programs could be difficult for us.

        We anticipate significant future growth from online courses we offer to students, particularly in emerging markets. The expansion of our existing online programs, the creation of new online programs and the development of new fully online or hybrid programs may not be accepted by students or employers, or by government regulators or accreditation agencies. In addition, our efforts may be materially adversely affected by increased competition in the online education market or because of problems with the performance or reliability of our online program infrastructure. There is also increasing development of online programs by traditional universities, both in the public and private sectors, which may have more consumer acceptance than programs we develop, because of lower pricing or greater perception of value of their degrees in the marketplace, which may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our success depends, in part, on the effectiveness of our marketing and advertising programs in recruiting new students.

        In order to maintain and increase our revenues and margins, we must continue to develop our admissions programs and attract new students in a cost-effective manner. Over the last several years, in support of our admissions efforts in all the countries in which we operate, we have spent significant amounts globally on marketing and advertising. We spent $290.8 million in 2014, $278.3 million in 2015, and $274.9 million in 2016, and we anticipate that significant spending on marketing and advertising will continue. As part of our marketing and advertising, we also subscribe to lead-generating databases in certain markets, the cost of which is expected to increase. The level of marketing and advertising

94


Table of Contents

and types of strategies used are affected by the specific geographic markets, regulatory compliance requirements and the specific individual nature of each institution and its students. The complexity of these marketing efforts contributes to their cost. If we are unable to advertise and market our institutions and programs successfully, our ability to attract and enroll new students could be materially adversely affected and, consequently, our financial performance could suffer. We use marketing tools such as the Internet, radio, television and print media advertising to promote our institutions and programs. Our representatives also make presentations at upper secondary schools. Additionally, we rely on the general reputation of our institutions and referrals from current students, alumni and employers as a source of new enrollment. Among the factors that could prevent us from marketing and advertising our institutions and programs successfully are the failure of our marketing tools and strategies to appeal to prospective students, regulatory constraints on marketing, current student and/or employer dissatisfaction with our program offerings or results and diminished access to upper secondary campuses. In addition, in certain instances, local regulatory authorities set quotas each year for how many students we may enroll, which may further limit our ability to recruit new students or maintain our present enrollment level. In some of the countries in which we operate, enrollment growth in degree-granting, higher education institutions is slowing or is expected to slow. In order to maintain current growth rates, we will need to attract a larger percentage of students in existing markets and increase our addressable market by adding locations in new markets and rolling out new academic programs. Any failure to accomplish this may have a material adverse effect on our future growth.

Our institutions are subject to uncertain and varying laws and regulations, and any changes to these laws or regulations or their application to us may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        Higher education is regulated to varying degrees and in different ways in each of the countries in which we operate an institution. In general, our institutions must have licenses, approvals, authorizations, or accreditations from various governmental authorities and accrediting bodies. These licenses, approvals, authorizations, and accreditations must be renewed periodically, usually after an evaluation of the institution by the relevant governmental authorities or accrediting bodies. These periodic evaluations could result in limitations, restrictions, conditions, or withdrawal of such licenses, approvals, authorizations or accreditations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In some countries in which we operate, there is a trend toward making continued licensure or accreditation based on successful student outcomes, such as employment, which may be affected by many factors outside of our control. Once licensed, approved, authorized or accredited, some of our institutions may need approvals for new campuses or to add new degree programs.

        All of these regulations and their applicable interpretations are subject to change. Moreover, regulatory agencies may scrutinize our institutions because they are owned or controlled by a U.S.-based for-profit corporation. Outside the United States, we may be particularly susceptible to such treatment because, in several of the countries in which we operate, our institutions are among the largest private institutions and have a substantial share of the higher education market. Changes in applicable regulations may cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        Changes in laws governing student financing could affect the availability of government-sponsored financing programs for our non-U.S. students, such as the CAE Program, a government-sponsored student loan program in Chile, FIES, a government-sponsored loan program in Brazil, and PROUNI in Brazil, all of which are offered by governments as a means of increasing student access to post-secondary education programs. If those programs are changed, or if our institutions or our students are no longer permitted to participate in those programs, it could cause a material adverse

95


Table of Contents

effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. For example, in December 2014, the Brazilian government announced a number of changes to FIES beginning in 2015. These changes limit the number of new participants and the amount spent on the program, and delay payments to the post-secondary institutions that would otherwise have been due in 2015. For more information on the CAE Program, FIES and PROUNI, see "—If students who avail themselves of government-sponsored student financing programs in certain countries do not graduate and subsequently default on their loans, we may be responsible for repaying a significant portion of their loans" and "Item 1—Business—Our Operating Segments—LatAm—Government-Sponsored Student Financing Programs." As another example, in October 2013, one of our institutions in Chile, UDLA Chile was notified by the National Accreditation Commission that its institutional accreditation would not be renewed. UDLA Chile appealed this decision but received a final determination that the appeal was denied on January 22, 2014. UDLA Chile filed a new application for accreditation in October 2015 and was notified in March 2016 that it had been accredited for three years until March 2019. Institutional accreditation is required for new students to be eligible to participate in the CAE Program and new students at UDLA Chile were not eligible to participate in the CAE Program during the period that UDLA Chile was not accredited. For more information about possible changes in government regulation of higher education in Chile, including possible changes to student financing programs, see "—Political and regulatory developments in Chile may materially adversely affect our operations" and "Item 1—Business—Industry Regulation—Chilean Regulation—Recent Developments." In December 2016, the Australian government introduced a new student loan scheme for vocational courses. These changes, among other things, require relevant vocational education providers to demonstrate a minimum of 50% completion rates, provide for payment of fees monthly in arrears and impose caps on the amounts of loans available for particular categories of courses (see "Item 1—Business—Our Operating Segments—AMEA—Government Sponsored Student Financing Programs"). The Australian vocational operations comply with these requirements but the changes may affect the results of those operations.

        The laws of the countries where we own or control institutions and expect to acquire ownership or control of institutions in the future must permit both private higher education institutions and foreign ownership or control of them. For political, economic or other reasons, a country could decide to change its laws or regulations to prohibit or limit private higher education institutions or foreign ownership or control or prohibit or limit our ability to enter into contracts or agreements with these institutions. If this change occurred, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and we could be forced to sell an institution at a price that could be lower than its fair market value or relinquish control of an institution. A forced sale or relinquishment of control could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        Istanbul Bilgi University, a member of the Laureate International Universities network located in Turkey, is established as a Foundation University under the Turkish higher education law, sponsored the Bilgi Foundation. As such, it is subject to regulation, supervision and inspection by the YÖK. In 2014, the Turkish parliament amended the higher education law to provide expanded authority to the YÖK with respect to Foundation Universities, including authorizing additional remedies for violations of the higher education law and of regulations adopted by the YÖK. On November 19, 2015, the YÖK promulgated the Ordinance the principal effects of which relate to the supervision and inspection of Foundation Universities by the YÖK. Under the Ordinance, the YÖK has expanded authority to inspect accounts, transactions, activities and assets of Foundation Universities, as well as their academic units, programs, projects and subjects. The Ordinance establishes a progressive series of five remedies that the YÖK can take in the event it finds a violation of the Ordinance, ranging from (1) a warning and request for correction to (2) the suspension of the Foundation University's ability to establish new academic units or programs to (3) limiting the number of students the Foundation University can admit, including ceasing new admissions, to (4) provisional suspension of the Foundation University's license to (5) cancellation of the Foundation University's license. Since the promulgation of the Ordinance, the YÖK has cancelled the licenses of 15 Foundation Universities.

96


Table of Contents

        The Ordinance specifies that Foundation Universities cannot be established by foundations in order to gain profit for themselves, and prohibits specified types of fund transfers from Foundation Universities to their sponsoring foundation, with certain exceptions for payments made under contractual arrangements for various goods and services that are provided at or below current market rates. Istanbul Bilgi University has entered into contractual arrangements with a subsidiary of Laureate that is a member of the board of trustees of the Bilgi Foundation, and has affiliates that are also members of that board, to provide Istanbul Bilgi University with management, operational and student services and certain intellectual property at fair market rates. The YÖK conducts annual audits of the operations of Istanbul Bilgi University and currently is in the process of completing its most recent audit. If the YÖK were to determine that any of these contracts or the payments made by Istanbul Bilgi University to this Laureate subsidiary, or any other activities of Istanbul Bilgi University, including the donation of 40.0 million Turkish Liras made by the university to a charitable foundation that was subsequently reimbursed to the university by certain Laureate-owned entities, violate the Ordinance or other applicable law, the YÖK could take actions against Istanbul Bilgi University up to and including cancellation of its license. See "—We are conducting an internal investigation of one of our network institutions for violations of the Company's policies, and possible violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the "FCPA") and other applicable laws. A violation of these laws and regulations could subject us to penalties, harm our reputation and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations." Further, if the YÖK were to determine that any administrators of Istanbul Bilgi University have directly taken any actions or supported any activities that are intended to harm the integrity of the state, the license of the university could be cancelled. In July 2016, a coup attempt increased political instability in Turkey, and the uncertainties arising from the failed coup in Turkey could lead to changes in laws affecting Istanbul Bilgi University or result in modifications to the current interpretations and enforcement of the Ordinance or other laws and regulations by the YÖK. Any such actions by the YÖK, including actions in relation to the conduct of the annual audit, could have a material adverse impact on Istanbul Bilgi University's future growth or its ability to remain in operation, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        For a full description of the laws and regulations affecting our U.S. Institutions, and the impact of those laws and regulations on the operations of our U.S. Institutions, including the ability of our U.S. Institutions to continue to access U.S. federal student aid funding sources, see "—Risks Relating to Our Highly Regulated Industry in the United States" and "Item 1—Business—Industry Regulation—U.S. Regulation." Our institutions located outside the United States also participate in various student financial aid programs offered by the countries in which they operate.

Political and regulatory developments in Chile may materially adversely affect our operations.

        As a consequence of student protests and political disturbances, during 2011 and 2012, the former Chilean government announced several proposed reforms to the higher education system. The reforms, if they had been adopted, could have included changing the current accreditation system to make it more demanding, revising the student financing system to provide a single financing system for students in all higher education institutions (replacing the CAE Program), establishing a system of information transparency for higher education, creating an agency to promote accountability by higher education institutions, changing certain corporate governance rules for universities (such as the need for a minimum number of independent directors), and establishing procedures for the approval of, or otherwise limiting, transactions between higher education institutions and related parties. Other legislative reforms were promoted by members of the Chilean Congress but were not supported by the previous Chilean government, including proposals to restrict related party transactions between higher education institutions and entities that control them. In November and December 2013, Chile held national elections. The presidential election was won by former president Michelle Bachelet, who assumed office on March 11, 2014, and a political coalition led by Ms. Bachelet won the elections for

97


Table of Contents

both houses of the Chilean Congress, in each case for four years beginning on March 11, 2014. Although the election platform of the new government mentioned that stronger regulation of higher education was required, it did not contain specific commitments with respect to the abovementioned reforms, other than the creation of a special agency to oversee higher education institutions' compliance with law and regulations. In the second quarter of 2014, the new government announced the withdrawal of all of the prior administration's higher education proposals and its intent to submit new bills to the Chilean Congress.

        In April 2016, the Chilean Congress made reforms to specific career disciplines, including pedagogy. Law 20,903 created the teaching professional development system (Sistema de Desarrollo Profesional Docente), which aims to improve the quality of training for those who choose to study pedagogy by setting new program admission requirements and mandatory institutional accreditation standards for pedagogy career programs. As these changes have only taken effect in 2017, their impact cannot yet be determined; however, the Chilean universities in the Laureate International Universities network are preparing to adjust to the new regime and will be monitoring the effects on their pedagogy programs.

        On July 4, 2016, the Chilean President submitted to the Chilean Congress the Higher Education Bill that, if approved, would change the entire regulatory landscape of higher education in Chile, as it would amend and/or replace most of the currently applicable legislation, including repealing the current laws governing universities, professional institutes and technical training centers. Among other things, the Higher Education Bill would create the Undersecretary of Higher Education, which would propose policies on higher education to the Ministry of Education, including policies on access, inclusion, retention and graduation of higher education students. The Undersecretary of Higher Education would also develop policies relating to the promotion development, support and continuous improvement of the quality of higher education institutions and their relationship with the needs of the country. The Undersecretary of Higher Education would also manage the new Common Access System for Higher Education Institutions, which would establish the process and mechanisms for the application, admission and selection of undergraduate students, and which would be mandatory at all higher education institutions that receive public funding through the Ministry of Education.

        The Higher Education Bill also includes new regulations applicable to not-for-profit educational institutions that would: (i) provide that their controllers and members can only be individuals, other not-for-profits or state-owned entities; (ii) create the obligation to use their resources and reinvest their surplus or profits in the pursuit of their objectives and in enhancing the quality of the education they provide; (iii) create the obligation to have a board of directors, which cannot delegate its functions, and whose members cannot be removed unless approved by the majority of the board and for serious reasons; and (iv) prohibit related party transactions with their founders, controllers, members of the board, rector and their relatives or related entities, unless the counterparty to the transaction is another not-for-profit entity, and establish regulations for other related party transactions which include the need for them to be under market conditions and approved by the board. For more information about possible changes in government regulation of higher education in Chile as a result of the Higher Education Bill, see "Item 1—Business—Industry Regulation—Chilean Regulation—Recent Developments." See also, "—Student protests may disrupt our ability to hold classes as well as our ability to attract and retain students, which could materially adversely affect our operations."

        We are currently evaluating the effect the proposed Higher Education Bill would have on the Chilean institutions in the Laureate International Universities network if it is adopted in the form introduced in the Chilean Congress. We cannot predict whether or not the proposed Higher Education Bill will be adopted in this form, or if any higher education legislation will be adopted that would affect the institutions in the Laureate International Universities network. However, if any such legislation is adopted, it could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

98


Table of Contents

        While we believe that all of our institutions in Chile are operating in full compliance with Chilean law, we cannot predict the extent or outcome of any educational reforms that may be implemented in Chile. Depending upon how these reforms are defined and implemented, there could be a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Any disruption to our operations in Chile would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Similar reforms in other countries in which we operate could also have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Regulatory changes in Chile may reduce access to student financing for some of our students in Chile, which could reduce enrollments at our Chilean institutions.

        On November 27, 2015, the Chilean Congress passed the 2016 Budget Law. By means of the 2016 Budget Law, the administration sought to implement a policy to grant free access to higher education to students from the first five income deciles who attend certain universities or technical vocational ("tech/voc") institutions. For university students, the 2016 Budget Law would have required them to be enrolled in universities that either are members of the CRUCh or are private universities that are not members of the CRUCh that, on September 30, 2015, met the following requirements: (a) being accredited for four years or more; (b) not being related to for-profit legal entities; and (c) having a representative of the students or non-academic personnel as a member of their governing body. For tech/voc students, the Budget Law would have required them to be enrolled in institutions organized as not-for-profit legal entities that were accredited for four or more years.

        On December 21, 2015, the CT declared portions of the 2016 Budget Law dealing with higher education institutions to be unconstitutional, in particular those portions that would require students to attend institutions with specific characteristics in order to obtain free tuition as, under the Chilean Constitution, that would constitute arbitrary discrimination affecting students who are in the same economic condition.

        Before the CT published the text of its decision, the administration submitted to the Chilean Congress the Short Law. The Short Law was approved by Congress two days after its submission, on December 23, 2015, and published on December 26, 2015. The Short Law is effective only during 2016 and was not subject to a constitutional challenge.

        Under the Short Law, for university students to be eligible for free tuition, they had to come from the first five income deciles and enroll either in a State-owned university or in a private university that on December 27, 2015 was accredited for at least four years and controlled by individuals or not-for-profit legal entities. The Short Law excluded tech/voc students from eligibility for free tuition in 2016. However, the Short Law provided that free tuition for tech/voc students would be implemented within three years provided that they attend tech/voc institutions that were accredited for at least four years and were organized as not-for-profit legal entities. The Short Law provided that tech/voc institutions that were organized as for-profit entities should, not later than December 27, 2015, state their intention to reorganize as not-for-profit entities in order to be eligible to participate in certain student financing programs.

        For the period between the effective date of the Short Law and such time as students at tech/voc institutions became eligible to participate in the free tuition program, the Short Law modified the allocations of the NMS. The Short Law divided this scholarship program into three parts: (i) NMS I, which grants students who meet certain personal conditions scholarships of up to CLP 600,000 per year; (ii) NMS II, which grants students scholarships of up to CLP 850,000 per year, provided the students come from the first five income deciles and the tech/voc institution in which they are enrolled is organized as a not-for-profit legal entity or, if the tech/voc institution is not so organized, the institution has stated in writing its intention to become a not-for-profit entity and to be accredited; and (iii) NMS III, which grants students scholarships of up to CLP 900,000 per year, provided that such

99


Table of Contents

students and the institution in which they enroll meet the requirements for NMS II and the tech/voc institution was, on December 31, 2015, accredited for four years or more.

        The Chilean universities and tech/voc institutions in the Laureate International Universities network did not meet each of these tests, so students at these institutions were not eligible for free tuition or NMS II or NMS III scholarships under the Short Law.

        On November 11, 2016, the Chilean Congress passed the 2017 Budget Law. The 2017 Budget Law included changes to the policies for granting free access to higher education and scholarships to students from the first five and seven income deciles who attend certain universities or tech/voc institutions.

        For university students, the 2017 Budget Law provides for free access to higher education with the same requirements as were in the 2016 Budget Law but adds the requirement that eligible universities have a minimum of 80% of their newly enrolled students with an average result from the national university admissions examination, high school grades and high school rankings above a specified level, and have a transparent admission system that must have been published on the institution's website by December 1, 2016. For tech/voc institutions, the 2017 Budget Law provides for eligibility for free access for students if they are enrolled in institutions (i) organized as not-for-profit legal entities or as for-profit legal entities that have filed for transformation to not-for-profit legal entities under the "Transformation Law" passed by the Chilean Congress on November 16, 2016, before December 15, 2016, (ii) accredited for four years or more as of December 23, 2016, (iii) having as controllers not-for-profit legal entities or natural persons, (iv) having stated their intention to participate in the free access system before December 15, 2016, and (v) having a transparent admission system that must have been published on the institution's website by December 1, 2016.

        The 2017 Budget Law also modified the allocations of the BS Program. The BS Program supports access to higher education for university students coming from one of the first seven income deciles and covers the full amount of tuition up to an amount authorized by the government. Historically, the BS Program solely benefited students of CRUCh universities. The 2017 Budget Law terminated the differentiation between CRUCh and non-CRUCh universities for eligibility for the BS Program. Thus, for 2017, 3,500 BS Program scholarships will be granted to students at non-CRUCh universities and 3,500 additional BS Program scholarships will be granted to students at non-CRUCh universities in 2018. By 2019, the government promises to have an equal BS Program scholarship policy for all universities, whether CRUCh or non-CRUCh. Students may apply for a BS Program scholarship if their university is accredited for at least four years and if 80% of the university's newly enrolled students have an average result from the national university admissions examination, high school grades and high school rankings above a specified level.

        Under the 2017 Budget Law, the NMS II and NMS III are available to all students enrolled in a tech/voc institution, whether for-profit or not-for-profit: (i) NMS II in an amount of CLP 860,000 per year, or up to the effective government-approved tuition fee if it is less than that amount, for students who come from the first five income deciles with an average high school grade of 5.0 and the tech/voc institution in which they are enrolled being accredited for at least three years; and (ii) NMS III, in an amount up to CLP 900,000 per year, or up to the effective government-approved tuition fee if it is less than that amount, provided that such students and the institution in which they enroll meet the requirements for NMS II and the tech/voc institution was, on December 31, 2016, accredited for four years or more. The NMS III scholarship will last until the tax benefit established in the Transformation Law for tech/voc institutions ends.

        Finally, under the 2017 Budget Law, the Comptroller General will be in charge of overseeing the use of the public resources in higher education.

100


Table of Contents

        We cannot predict the effect that the student financing reforms may have on our operations in Chile. Any material limitations on the access of our students in Chile to government-sponsored financing may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Similar limitations on government-sponsored student financing in other countries in which we operate could also have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to investigations by Chilean regulators, which could individually or in the aggregate, materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        In December 2014, the Chilean Congress approved the Provisional Administrator Law. If the Ministry of Education were to determine that one of the universities in Chile that is part of the Laureate International Universities network had violated its bylaws, it could appoint a provisional administrator for that university causing us to lose our rights to control that institution, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

        In June 2012, an investigative committee of the Chilean Chamber of Deputies issued a preliminary report on the Chilean higher education system alleging that certain universities, including the three universities that Laureate controls in Chile, have not complied with the requirements of Chilean law that universities be not-for-profit. Among the irregularities cited in the report are high salaries to board members or top executives, outsourcing of services to related parties, and that universities are being bought and sold by foreign and economic groups. The investigative committee referred its report to the Ministry of Education and to the Public Prosecutor of Chile to determine whether there has been any violation of the law. The Public Prosecutor has appointed a regional prosecutor to investigate whether any criminal charges should be brought for alleged violations of the laws on higher education. On July 19, 2012, the Chilean Chamber of Deputies rejected the report of the investigative committee. In December 2012, in light of the criminal prosecution of the former president of the National Accreditation Commission for alleged bribery, the Chilean Chamber of Deputies mandated its Education Commission to be an investigative committee regarding the functioning of the National Accreditation Commission, especially with respect to compliance with the National Accreditation Commission's duty to oversee higher education entities. The Education Commission delivered a report, which was approved by the Chamber of Deputies on October 1, 2013, containing several recommendations to improve regulation of the higher education accreditation system. Additionally, the Chilean Chamber of Deputies approved the creation of a special investigative committee to resume the investigation of higher education performed by the investigative committee that issued the June 2012 report that was previously rejected by the Chamber of Deputies. On January 15, 2014, that investigative committee approved a new report recommending, among other things, improvements to the Chilean higher education system regulations, amendments to the higher education financing system, particularly the CAE Program, imposition of criminal penalties for violation of the requirement that universities be not-for-profit, and support of legislation that would prohibit related party transactions, prohibit the transfer of control of universities, and require universities to have independent board members. The report was approved by the full Chamber of Deputies on April 1, 2014. If the Chilean Congress were to approve legislation implementing the recommendations in this report, it could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

        On February 18, 2014, the Ministry of Education disclosed that on November 15, 2013 and February 11, 2014, it had initiated internal investigations into UDLA Chile and UNAB, respectively. The investigations were initiated upon referrals from the National Education Council and the National Accreditation Commission, which had conveyed to the Ministry of Education their concerns regarding certain agreements entered into by UDLA Chile and UNAB with their controlling entities, including concerns about the amount and real use made by the universities of the services provided under those agreements. The investigations are an initial step by the Ministry of Education to determine whether the Ministry should begin formal sanction proceedings against the universities. The Ministry of

101


Table of Contents

Education also disclosed that it had delivered relevant documentation on the matter to the Public Prosecutor. In January 2016, the Ministry of Education announced that it had closed the investigation into UNAB.

        In May 2014, SII, the Chilean tax authority, instituted an audit of Universidad Viña del Mar, UNAB and UDLA Chile questioning whether they had regularly paid their taxes as non-profit entities for the period from 2011 to 2014, specifically in relation to their financial dealings with Laureate for-profit entities. Any non-compliance with the non-profit laws would subject them to the payment of additional taxes and penalties. As of August 2015, SII had notified all three institutions that its audit detected "no differences" in the taxes paid and the taxes owed, and provided a written closure letter to each of the institutions. In December 2016, SII notified separately UDLA Chile and UNAB that as part of the general audit program called "Auditoria Integral a Universidades," it was requesting supporting documentation from them for the tax periods between November 2013 and October 2016. On March 21, 2017, SII sent a similar notification to UVM Chile regarding the tax periods from May 2014 to October 2016. Each institution will submit responsive documents that support taxes paid related to its revenues and expenses, including to the extent such revenues and expenses involve financial dealings with Laureate for-profit entities.

        In June 2016, the Ministry of Education notified UNAB that it was opening an investigation into possible violations of the not-for-profit nature of UNAB. In September 2016, the Ministry of Education notified UVM Chile that it was opening a similar investigation of UVM Chile. Each of the institutions continues to be responsive to the Ministry of Education's requests as part of these investigations. Each investigation will be conducted by an investigator appointed by the Ministry of Education under the Provisional Administrator Law, and both UNAB and UVM Chile have been advised that the investigation will last at least six months. Under the Provisional Administrator Law, at the end of the investigation the Ministry of Education can either close the investigation or issue a report imposing one of the following measures: (i) ordering a recovery plan for the investigated institution, should the Ministry verify severe breaches of the institution's financial, administrative, labor or academic commitments; (ii) with the prior consent of the National Education Council, naming a provisional administrator for the institution if the Ministry determines that (a) there are serious risks to the administrative or financial viability of the institution that may affect the continuity of its educational programs, (b) there are serious and recurring breaches of the academic commitments of the institution to its students due to a lack of educational or teaching resources available to grant professional or technical degrees, (c) it is impossible for the institution to maintain its academic functions due to sanctions, injunctions or foreclosures affecting the institution, its campuses or its assets, (d) the institution is declared bankrupt or (e) a recovery plan pursuant to (i) above has not been presented, has been rejected or has been breached by the institution; or (iii) initiating a process to revoke the institution's license, in which case it would name a closing administrator.

        While we believe that all of our institutions in Chile are operating in full compliance with Chilean law, we cannot predict whether the Ministry of Education or the Public Prosecutor will take any action in response to the reports of the Chamber of Deputies investigative committees, or what outcome may result from any investigations undertaken by the Ministry of Education, the Public Prosecutor or the SII in response to the referrals from the National Education Council and National Accreditation Commission, or by the Ministry of Education as a result of its investigation under the Provisional Administrator Law. Depending upon the outcome of any investigation by the Chilean authorities, there could be a material adverse effect on our business. Any disruption to our operations in Chile would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

102


Table of Contents

Our right to receive economic benefits from certain of the institutions that are organized as not-for-profit or non-stock entities, and that we account for as variable interest entities, may be limited.

        We have obtained board and operating control and controlling financial interests in entities outside the United States that are educational institutions similar to U.S. not-for-profit, non-stock universities. Under applicable law, these institutions do not have recognized "owners" or shareholders, and generally cannot declare dividends or distribute their net assets to us. For accounting purposes, we have determined that these institutions are Variable Interest Entities ("VIEs") under GAAP and that we are the primary beneficiary of these VIEs. Maintenance of our interest in the VIE institutions, and our ability to receive economic benefits from these entities, is based on a combination of (1) service agreements that other Laureate entities have with the VIE institutions, allowing the institutions to access the benefits of the Laureate International Universities network and allowing us to recognize economies of scale throughout the network, (2) our ability to provide these entities with opportunities to invest for market returns in education-related real estate entities globally and (3) our ability to transfer our rights to govern the VIE institutions, or the entities that possess those rights, to other parties, which would yield a return if and when these rights are transferred. In limited circumstances, we may have rights to the residual assets in liquidation. Under the mutually agreed service agreements, we are paid at market rates for providing services to institutions such as access to content, support with curriculum design, professional development, student exchange, access to dual degree programs, affiliation and access to the Laureate International Universities network, and management, legal, tax, finance, accounting, treasury, use of real estate and other services. While we believe these arrangements conform to applicable law, the VIE institutions are subject to regulation by various agencies based on the requirements of local jurisdictions. These agencies, as well as local legislative bodies, review and update laws and regulations as they deem necessary or appropriate. We cannot predict the form of any laws that may be enacted, or regulations that ultimately may be adopted in the future, or what effects they might have on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. If local laws or regulations were to change, the VIE institutions were found to be in violation of existing local laws or regulations, or regulators were to question the financial sustainability of the VIE institutions and/or whether the contractual arrangements were at fair value, local government agencies could, among other actions:

        If we are unable to receive economic benefits from these institutions, it would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, if we are unable or limited in our ability to receive economic benefits from these institutions, we may be unable to consolidate the VIE institutions into our consolidated financial statements or we may be limited in our ability to recognize all of the institutions' earnings in our consolidated statements of operations.

Our ability to control our institutions may be materially adversely affected by changes in laws affecting higher education in certain countries in which we operate.

        Our institutions are governed by the higher education laws of the various countries in which we operate, which may be amended or interpreted in ways that affect our ability to maintain control over

103


Table of Contents

the institutions through our ability to appoint the members of the institutions' governing bodies. If we are unable to maintain our rights of control of appointments to those governing bodies, our ability to realize economic benefits from these institutions may be severely limited, including not being able to transfer control of the institutions in a way that would yield us a return on our investment or not being able to implement or maintain service agreements with those institutions.

        It is possible that the governance and control structures that we implement at a specific institution to comply with local laws and regulations would not allow us to meet the standards for consolidation of that institution's financial statements into our own consolidated financial statements. If we determine that we do not control an institution or otherwise meet the standards for consolidation, deconsolidation of that institution would be required. In that event, or if our controlling financial interest in that institution is impaired, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        For example, in the second half of 2010, Ecuador adopted a new higher education law that, upon its implementation, required us to modify the governance structure of our institution in that country. While the constitutionality of certain provisions of the higher education law is currently being challenged in Ecuador's court system, the law has been implemented. In the fourth quarter of 2012, the Consejo de Educación Superior (the "CES"), the relevant regulatory body, commenced reviewing and issuing comments on bylaws submitted by other Ecuadorian higher education institutions, implementing and enforcing the co-governance provisions of the new law. In accordance with ASC 810-10-15-10, we believed that control no longer resided with Laureate given the governmentally imposed uncertainties. As a result, UDLA Ecuador was deconsolidated in the fourth quarter of 2012 and a loss of $43.7 million was recorded in loss from regulatory changes in the consolidated statement of operations. This loss represented our initial investment on the leveraged buyout date in the Ecuadorian institution of $17.9 million, as well as $25.8 million of accumulated earnings from the leveraged buyout date to the date of deconsolidation. The CES approved UDLA Ecuador's new bylaws complying with the 2010 law in September 2014 and we no longer control UDLA Ecuador, although we maintain contractual arrangements with the institution. See also "Item 1—Business—Industry Regulation—Chilean Regulation—Recent Developments."

Our business may be materially adversely affected by a general economic slowdown or recession.

        Many countries around the world have recently experienced reduced economic activity, increased unemployment, substantial uncertainty about their financial services markets and, in some cases, economic recession. These events may reduce the demand for our programs among students, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. These adverse economic developments also may result in a reduction in the number of jobs available to our graduates and lower salaries being offered in connection with available employment which, in turn, may result in declines in our placement and retention rates. For example, in the United States, our professional-oriented graduate programs, such as master's degrees in teaching, are directly affected by the employment and promotion prospects for persons with advanced degrees. Efforts by states in recent years to reduce education funding by laying off younger teachers and curtailing pay increases for remaining teachers may have a material adverse effect on our ability to attract and retain students in our graduate education programs. In addition, in 2015 we generated approximately 83% of our revenues outside the United States, including approximately 56% of our revenues from our LatAm segment. As a result, any general economic slowdown or recession that disproportionately impacts the countries in which our institutions operate could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

104


Table of Contents

The higher education market is very competitive, and we may not be able to compete effectively.

        Higher education markets around the world are highly fragmented and are very competitive and dynamic. Our institutions compete with traditional public and private colleges and universities and other proprietary institutions, including those that offer online professional-oriented programs. In each of the countries where we operate a private institution, our primary competitors are public and other private universities, some of which are larger, more widely known and have more established reputations than our institutions. Some of our competitors in both the public and private sectors may have greater financial and other resources than we have and have operated in their markets for many years. We also face potential competition from alternative education providers that prioritize open access education to students. A number of these providers have been formed recently to provide online curriculum from leading academics at little or no cost to the student. If this new modality is successful, it could disrupt the economics of the current education model (both for-profit and not-for-profit institutions). Other competitors may include large, well-capitalized companies that may pursue a strategy similar to ours of acquiring or establishing for-profit institutions. Public institutions receive substantial government subsidies, and public and private not-for-profit institutions have access to government and foundation grants, tax-deductible contributions and other financial resources generally not available to for-profit institutions. Accordingly, public and private not-for-profit institutions may have instructional and support resources superior to those in the for-profit sector, and public institutions can offer substantially lower tuition prices or other advantages that we cannot match.

        Any of these large, well-capitalized competitors may make it more difficult for us to acquire institutions as part of our growth strategy. They may also be able to charge lower tuitions or attract more students, which would adversely affect our growth and the profitability of our competing institutions. There is also an increased ability of traditional universities to offer online programs and we expect competition to increase as the online market matures. This may create greater pricing or operating pressure on us, which could have a material adverse effect on our institutions' enrollments, revenues and profit margins. We may not be able to compete successfully against current or future competitors and may face competitive pressures that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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 revenues 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 a professional association, whether the program from which the student graduated meets all governmental requirements and whether the institution is accredited. If one or more governmental 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, in 2013, 2015 and 2016, several groups of current and former students filed five separate lawsuits against St. Augustine relating to matters arising before we acquired that institution in November 2013. The allegations relate to a program that was launched in May 2011 and, at the time, offered a "Master of Orthopaedic Physician's Assistant Program" degree. The plaintiffs in these matters allege that the university misrepresented their ability to practice as licensed Physician Assistants with a heightened specialty in orthopaedics. One of the lawsuits was resolved in October 2015, another was resolved in March 2016, and another was resolved in June 2016 and all have

105


Table of Contents

been dismissed. See "Item 3—Legal Proceedings" for more information. See also "—Risks Relating to Our Highly Regulated Industry in the United States—The inability of our graduates to obtain licensure or other specialized outcomes in their chosen professional fields of study could reduce our enrollments and revenues, and potentially lead to litigation that could be costly to us."

Our business may be materially adversely affected if we are not able to maintain or improve the content of our existing academic programs or to develop new programs on a timely basis and in a cost-effective manner.

        We continually seek to maintain and improve the content of our existing academic programs and develop new programs in order to meet changing market needs. Revisions to our existing academic programs and the development of new programs may not be accepted by existing or prospective students or employers in all instances. If we cannot respond effectively to market changes, our business may be materially adversely affected. Even if we are able to develop acceptable new programs, we may not be able to introduce these new programs as quickly as students or employers require or as quickly as our competitors are able to introduce competing programs. Our efforts to introduce a new academic program may be conditioned or delayed by requirements to obtain foreign, federal, state and accrediting agency approvals. The development of new programs and courses, both conventional and online, is subject to requirements and limitations imposed by the governmental regulatory bodies of the various countries in which our institutions are located, including the DOE, state licensing agencies and the relevant accrediting bodies. The imposition of restrictions on the initiation of new educational programs by regulatory agencies may delay such expansion plans. If we do not respond adequately to changes in market requirements, our ability to attract and retain students could be impaired and our financial results could suffer.

        Establishing new academic programs or modifying existing academic programs also may require us to make investments in specialized personnel and capital expenditures, increase marketing efforts and reallocate resources away from other uses. We may have limited experience with the subject matter of new programs and may need to modify our systems and strategy. If we are unable to increase the number of students, offer new programs in a cost-effective manner or otherwise manage effectively the operations of newly established academic programs, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Failure to keep pace with changing market needs and technology could harm our ability to attract students.

        The success of our institutions depends to a significant extent on the willingness of prospective employers to hire our students upon graduation. Increasingly, employers demand that their employees possess appropriate technological skills and also appropriate "soft" skills, such as communication, critical thinking and teamwork skills. These skills can evolve rapidly in a changing economic and technological environment. Accordingly, it is important that our educational programs evolve in response to those economic and technological changes. The expansion of existing academic programs and the development of new programs may not be accepted by current or prospective students or by the employers of our graduates. Students and faculty increasingly rely on personal communication devices and expect that we will be able to adapt our information technology platforms and our educational delivery methods to support these devices and any new technologies that may develop. Even if our institutions are able to develop acceptable new programs and adapt to new technologies, our institutions may not be able to begin offering those new programs and technologies as quickly as required by prospective students and employers or as quickly as our competitors begin offering similar programs. 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 results of operations and cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

106


Table of Contents

If students who avail themselves of government-sponsored student financing programs in certain countries do not graduate and subsequently default on their loans, we may be responsible for repaying a significant portion of their loans.

        Our accredited Chilean institutions participate in a Chilean government-sponsored student financing program known as the CAE Program. The program was implemented by the Chilean government in 2006 to promote higher education in Chile for lower socio-economic level students with good academic standing. The CAE Program involves tuition financing and guarantees that are shared by our institutions and the government. As part of the program, our institutions provide guarantees resulting in contingent liabilities to third-party financing institutions, beginning at 90% of the tuition loans made directly to qualified students enrolled through the CAE Program and declining to 60%. The guarantees by our institutions are for the period in which the student is enrolled, and the guarantees are assumed entirely by the government upon the student's graduation. Additionally, when a student leaves one of our institutions and enrolls in another CAE-qualified institution, our institution will remain the guarantor of the tuition loans that have been granted to the student up to such date, and until the student's graduation from the new CAE-qualified institution. Assuming that all students at our institutions who are in the CAE Program, and all students who left our institutions and were part of the CAE Program, do not graduate, and that all of those students default on the full amount of the CAE-qualified loan balances, the maximum potential amount of payments our institutions could be required to make under the CAE Program was approximately $479 million at December 31, 2016. As of December 31, 2016, we had recorded $20.6 million as estimated guarantee liabilities for these obligations. If a significant portion of our students who participate in the CAE Program were to default, the financial condition and results of operations of each participating institution would be materially adversely affected.

        Similarly, students at substantially all of our Brazilian institutions are participating in a Brazilian government program known as FIES. FIES is a federal program established to provide financing to students enrolled in private institutions of higher education that meet certain academic standards and whose household incomes per capita relative to the cost of tuition are below a certain level. Under FIES, the government loans a portion of the tuition to eligible students, some of whom are required to name a guarantor to underwrite their loan. The government then pays the corresponding loan amount to the higher education institution in special bonds that the institution may use to pay its national social security tax and certain other federal taxes or, if the institution has a tax clearance certificate, that the institution can sell for cash in a public auction conducted by a government-sponsored bank. Under FIES, if a student defaults on his or her repayment of a FIES loan, and the guarantor does not fulfill its guarantee, the higher education institution is responsible for repaying up to 15% of the related delinquency (30% if an institution has one or more open tax disputes that are not being defended in compliance with the applicable security/bond requirements). However, since February 2014, all new students who participate in FIES must also enroll in the FGEDUC, which is a government-mandated, private guarantee fund that allows participating educational institutions to insure themselves for 90% (or 13.5% of 15%) of their losses related to student defaults under the FIES program. See "Item 1—Business—Our Operating Segments—LatAm—Government-Sponsored Financing Programs." If participation by our Brazilian students in FIES increases, and a significant portion of our participating students in the program were to default and their respective guarantors were to fail to fulfill the terms of their guarantee, or if the defaulting student was not required to provide a guarantor, our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. In addition, if any institution were involved in a tax dispute with the Brazilian government, and such institution were not defending the suit in compliance with the applicable security/bond requirements, the amount of the guarantee would increase to 30%, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

107


Table of Contents

Regulatory changes that affect the timing of government-sponsored student aid payments or receipt of government-sponsored financial aid could materially adversely affect our liquidity.

        New regulations may change the timing for the collection of government-sponsored student aid payments from our students. For example, in December 2014, regulators in Brazil announced several significant rule changes to FIES beginning in 2015; additional regulations were issued in December 2015. These changes raise the eligibility requirements, reduce the annual budget for the program and delay payments to the post-secondary institutions that would otherwise have been due in 2015 and 2016. Such a delay in tuition payments from government-sponsored programs may negatively affect our liquidity and we may require additional working capital or third-party funding to finance our operations. See "Item 7—Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Liquidity Sources—FIES Payment Plan," "Item 1—Business—Our Operating Segments—LatAm—Government—Sponsored Student Financing Programs" and "Item 1—Business—Industry Regulation—Brazil Regulation—Student Financing Program." See also "—Risks Relating to our Highly Regulated Industry in the United States—The DOE may change our U.S. Institutions' method of receiving Title IV program funds, which could materially affect our liquidity."

We may have exposure to greater-than-anticipated tax liabilities.

        As a multinational corporation, we are subject to income taxes as well as non-income based taxes in the United States and various foreign jurisdictions.

        Our future income taxes could be materially adversely affected by earnings being lower than anticipated in jurisdictions where we have lower statutory tax rates and higher than anticipated in jurisdictions where we have higher statutory tax rates. In addition, changes in the valuation of our deferred tax assets and liabilities, or changes in tax laws, regulations and accounting principles, could have a material adverse effect on our future income taxes. The determination of our worldwide provision for income taxes and other tax liabilities requires significant judgment, and there are many transactions and calculations where the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. We have not recorded any deferred tax liabilities for undistributed foreign earnings either because of legal restrictions on distributions or because our historical strategy was to reinvest these earnings outside the United States. As circumstances change and if some or all of these undistributed foreign earnings are remitted to the United States, we may be required to recognize deferred tax liabilities on those amounts.

        We earn a significant amount of our income from subsidiaries located in countries outside the United States, and any repatriation of funds currently held in foreign jurisdictions may result in higher effective tax rates for our company. In addition, there have been proposals to change U.S. tax laws that would significantly impact how U.S. multinational corporations are taxed on foreign earnings. Although we cannot predict whether or in what form this proposed legislation may pass, if enacted it could have a material adverse effect on our tax expense and cash flows.

        Additionally, in certain countries in which we operate, higher education institutions are either exempt from paying certain taxes, including income taxes, or pay taxes at significantly reduced rates. This includes certain of our higher education institutions that are organized as VIEs, similar to not-for-profit institutions in the United States. If we were to lose this favorable tax treatment, either because a VIE institution is converted into a for-profit shareholder-owned entity, or because of a change in local tax laws, our tax liabilities could increase materially.

        We are subject to regular review and audit by both domestic and foreign tax authorities. Any adverse outcome of such a review or audit could have a negative effect on our operating results and financial condition. We are also subject to non-income based taxes, such as payroll, sales, use, value-added, net worth, property and goods and services taxes, in both the United States and various foreign jurisdictions. We are under regular audit by tax authorities with respect to these non-income based

108


Table of Contents

taxes and may have exposure to additional non-income based tax liabilities. Our acquisition activities have increased the volume and complexity of laws and regulations that we are subject to and with which we must comply.

        During 2010, we were notified by the Spanish Taxing Authorities ("STA") (in this case, by the Regional Inspection Office of the Special Madrid Tax Unit) that an audit of some of our Spanish subsidiaries was being initiated for 2006 and 2007. On June 29, 2012, the STA issued a final assessment to Iniciativas Culturales de España, S.L. ("ICE"), our Spanish holding company, for approximately EUR 11.1 million ($11.5 million at December 31, 2016), including interest, for those two years based on its rejection of the tax deductibility of financial expenses related to certain intercompany acquisitions and the application of the Spanish ETVE regime. On July 25, 2012, we filed a claim with the Regional Economic-Administrative Court challenging this assessment and, in the same month, we issued a cash-collateralized letter of credit for the assessment amount, in order to suspend the payment of the tax due. Further, in July 2013, we were notified by the STA (in this case, by the Central Inspection Office for Large Taxpayers) that an audit of ICE was also being initiated for 2008 through 2010. On October 19, 2015, the STA issued a final assessment to ICE for approximately EUR 17.2 million ($17.9 million at December 31, 2016), including interest, for those three years. We have appealed this assessment and, in order to suspend the payment of the tax assessment until the court decision, we issued a cash-collateralized letter of credit for the assessment amount plus interest and surcharges. We believe the assessments in this case are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them. During the second quarter of 2016, we were notified by the STA that tax audits of the Spanish subsidiaries were also being initiated for 2011 and 2012; no assessments have yet been issued for these years. Also during the second quarter of 2016, the Regional Administrative Court issued a decision against the Company on its appeal. The Company has further appealed at the Highest Administrative Court level. The Company plans to continue the appeals process for the periods already audited and assessed.

        During the quarter ended June 30, 2015, we reassessed our position regarding the ICE tax audit matters as a result of recent adverse decisions from the Spanish Supreme Court and Spanish National Court on cases for taxpayers with similar facts, and determined that we could no longer support a more-likely-than-not position. As a result, during the second quarter of 2015, we recorded a provision totaling EUR 37.6 million ($42.1 million) for the period from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2016. We plan to continue the appeals process for the periods already audited and assessed.

        Although we believe our estimates are reasonable, the ultimate tax outcome may differ from the amounts recorded in our financial statements and may materially adversely affect our financial results in the period or periods for which such determination is made.

Market perceptions concerning the instability of the euro, the potential reintroduction of individual currencies within the Eurozone, or the potential dissolution of the euro entirely, could adversely affect our business and financial position.

        As a result of the credit crisis in Europe, in particular in Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, the European Commission created the European Financial Stability Facility (the "EFSF") and the European Financial Stability Mechanism (the "EFSM") to provide funding to Eurozone countries in financial difficulties that seek such support. Throughout 2011, the EFSF and EFSM undertook a series of interventions to provide direct financing or other credit support to European governments. In 2012, certain Eurozone states announced austerity programs and other cost-cutting initiatives, and the EFSF was permitted to further expand its powers to provide direct loans to certain Eurozone financial institutions. Despite these measures, there can be no assurance that the recent market disruptions in Europe related to sovereign debt, including the increased cost of funding for certain governments and financial institutions, will not continue, nor can there be any assurance that

109


Table of Contents

future assistance packages will be available or, even if provided, will be sufficient to stabilize the affected countries and markets in Europe or elsewhere.

        Uncertainty persists regarding the debt burden of certain Eurozone countries, including those in which we have higher education institutions, and the solvency of certain European financial institutions and their respective ability to meet future financial obligations. In 2015, Greece entered into extended negotiations with its international creditor institutions as to its request for additional assistance or relief in meeting its financial obligations. Uncertainty regarding this financial assistance and Greece's ability to meet its financial obligations led to the imposition of capital controls within Greece and the closing of the country's banks and stock exchanges for an extended period of time, all of which has caused a significant negative impact on the Greek economy. While we do not have any institutions in Greece, our institution in Cyprus (European University Cyprus) draws a significant proportion of its students from Greece, and may be adversely affected by the current and any future economic turmoil in Greece.

        In general, the protracted adverse market conditions in Europe have created doubts as to the overall stability of the euro and the suitability of the euro as a single currency given the diverse economic and political circumstances in individual member states. These and other concerns could lead to the reintroduction of individual currencies in one or more member states or, in more extreme circumstances, the possible dissolution of the euro entirely. Should the euro dissolve entirely, the legal and contractual consequences for holders of euro-denominated obligations would be determined by laws in effect at such time. These potential developments, or market perceptions concerning these and related issues, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our reported revenues and earnings may be negatively affected by the strengthening of the U.S. dollar and currency exchange rates.

        We report revenues, costs and earnings in U.S. dollars, while our institutions generally collect tuition in the local currency. Exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the local currency in the countries where we operate institutions are likely to fluctuate from period to period. In 2016, approximately 83% of our revenues originated outside the United States. We translate revenues and other results denominated in foreign currencies into U.S. dollars for our consolidated financial statements. This translation is based on average exchange rates during a reporting period. The U.S. dollar has been strengthening against many international currencies, including the Brazilian real, euro and Mexican peso. For example, the Brazilian dollar-to-real spot exchange rate increased from 1:2.3621 on December 31, 2013 to 1:2.6576 on December 31, 2014, 1:3.9180 on December 31, 2015 and 1:3.2695 on December 31, 2016. As the exchange rate of the U.S. dollar strengthens, our reported international revenues and earnings are reduced because foreign currencies translate into fewer U.S. dollars. For the year ended December 31, 2016, a hypothetical 10% adverse change in average annual foreign currency exchange rates, excluding the impacts of our derivatives, would have decreased our operating income and our Adjusted EBITDA by $26.2 million and $78.1 million, respectively. For more information, see "Item 7A—Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk—Foreign Currency Exchange Risk."

        To the extent that foreign revenues and expense transactions are not denominated in the local currency and/or to the extent foreign earnings are reinvested in a currency other than their functional currency, we are also subject to the risk of transaction losses. We occasionally enter into foreign exchange forward contracts or other hedging arrangements to reduce the earnings impact of non-functional currency denominated non-trade receivables and debt and to protect the U.S. dollar value of our assets and future cash flows with respect to exchange rate fluctuations. Given the volatility of exchange rates, there is no assurance that we will be able to effectively manage currency transaction and/or translation risks. Therefore, volatility in currency exchange rates may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

110


Table of Contents

        Currency exchange rates and our reported revenues and earnings may also be negatively affected by inflation or hyperinflation. If a country in which we operate is designated as a highly inflationary economy in the future under GAAP, the U.S. dollar would become the functional currency for our operations in that country. As a result, all gains and losses resulting from the remeasurement of the financial results of operations in such country and other transactional foreign exchange gains and losses would be reflected in our earnings, which could result in volatility within our earnings, rather than as a component of our comprehensive income within stockholders' equity. Hyperinflation in any of the countries in which we operate may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Goodwill and indefinite-lived intangibles make up a significant portion of our total assets, and if we determine that goodwill or indefinite-lived intangibles become impaired in the future, net income and operating income in such years may be materially and adversely affected.

        As of December 31, 2016, the net carrying value of our goodwill and other intangible assets totaled approximately $3,288.8 million. Goodwill represents the excess of cost over the fair market value of net assets acquired in business combinations. Due to the revaluation of our assets at the time of the LBO and acquisitions we have completed historically, goodwill makes up a significant portion of our total assets. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, we periodically review goodwill and indefinite-lived intangibles for impairment and any excess in carrying value over the estimated fair value is charged to the results of operations. Our review of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangibles at December 31, 2016 resulted in an aggregate reduction of $23.5 million in the value of such assets in our financial statements. Future reviews of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangibles could result in reductions. Any reduction in net income and operating income resulting from the write down or impairment of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangibles could adversely affect our financial results. If economic or industry conditions deteriorate or if market valuations decline, including with respect to our Class A common stock, we may be required to impair goodwill and indefinite-lived intangibles in future periods.

We experience seasonal fluctuations in our results of operations.

        Most of the institutions in our network have a summer break, during which classes are generally not in session and minimal revenues are recognized. In addition to the timing of summer breaks, holidays such as Easter also have an impact on our academic calendar. Operating expenses, however, do not fully correlate to the enrollment and revenue cycles, as the institutions continue to incur expenses during summer breaks. Given the geographic diversity of our institutions and differences in timing of summer breaks, our second and fourth quarters are stronger revenue quarters as the majority of our institutions are in session for most of these respective quarters. Our first and third fiscal quarters are weaker revenue quarters because the majority of our institutions have summer breaks for some portion of one of these two quarters. Because a significant portion of our expenses do not vary proportionately with the fluctuations in our revenues, our results in a particular fiscal quarter may not indicate accurately the results we will achieve in a subsequent quarter or for the full fiscal year.

Connectivity constraints or system disruptions to our computer networks could have a material adverse effect on our ability to attract and retain students.

        We run the online operations of our institutions on different platforms, which are in various stages of development. The performance and reliability of these online operations are critical to the reputation of our institutions and our ability to attract and retain students. Any computer system error or failure, or a sudden and significant increase in traffic on our institutions' computer networks may result in the unavailability of these computer networks. In addition, any significant failure of our computer networks could disrupt our on-campus operations. Individual, sustained or repeated

111


Table of Contents

occurrences could significantly damage the reputation of our institutions' operations and result in a loss of potential or existing students. Additionally, the computer systems and operations of our institutions are vulnerable to interruption or malfunction due to events beyond our control, including natural disasters and other catastrophic events and network and telecommunications failures. The disaster recovery plans and backup systems that we have in place may not be effective in addressing a natural disaster or catastrophic event that results in the destruction or disruption of any of our critical business or information technology and infrastructure systems. As a result of any of these events, we may not be able to conduct normal business operations and may be required to incur significant expenses in order to resume normal business operations. As a result, our revenues and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

We rely on computer systems for financial reporting and other operations and any disruptions in our systems would materially adversely affect us.

        We rely on computer systems to support our financial reporting capabilities, including our SSOs, and other operations. As with any computer systems, unforeseen issues may arise that could affect our ability to receive adequate, accurate and timely financial information, which in turn could inhibit effective and timely decisions. Furthermore, it is possible that our information systems could experience a complete or partial shutdown. If such a shutdown occurred, it could materially adversely affect our ability to report our financial results in a timely manner or to otherwise operate our business.

The personal information that we collect may be vulnerable to breach, theft or loss that could materially adversely affect our reputation and operations.

        Possession and use of personal information in our operations subjects us to risks and costs that could harm our business. Our institutions collect, use and retain large amounts of personal information regarding our students and their families, including social security numbers, tax return information, personal and family financial data and credit card numbers. We also collect and maintain personal information of our employees in the ordinary course of our business. In addition, we collect and maintain other types of information, such as leads, that may include personal information of our business contacts in the ordinary course of our business. Our computer networks and the networks of certain of our vendors that hold and manage confidential information on our behalf may be vulnerable to unauthorized access, computer hackers, computer viruses, cyber-attacks and other security threats. Confidential information also may become available to third parties inadvertently when we integrate or convert computer networks into our network following an acquisition of an institution or in connection with upgrades from time to time.

        Due to the sensitive nature of the information contained on our networks, such as students' grades, our networks may be targeted by hackers. A user who circumvents security measures could misappropriate proprietary information or cause interruptions or malfunctions in our operations. Although we use security and business controls to limit access and use of personal information, a third party may be able to circumvent those security and business controls, which could result in a breach of student or employee privacy. In addition, errors in the storage, use or transmission of personal information could result in a breach of student or employee privacy. Possession and use of personal information in our operations also subjects us to legislative and regulatory burdens that could require notification of data breaches and restrict our use of personal information. As a result, we may be required to expend significant resources to protect against the threat of these security breaches or to alleviate problems caused by these breaches. A major breach, theft or loss of personal information regarding our students and their families, our employees, or other persons that is held by us or our vendors could have a material adverse effect on our reputation and results of operations and could result in further regulation and oversight by governmental authorities and could violate the laws of one

112


Table of Contents

or more countries in which we operate, which could subject us to civil or criminal penalties and increased costs of compliance.

We may lose the right to license certain intellectual property which is integral to our online course offerings.

        With our mandate that all of our institutions offer a certain percentage of online course offerings, we rely heavily upon the licensing of third party materials, including e-textbooks, graphic, video and audio media, which are incorporated into our globally-offered course content. Our institutions contract with large vendors which offer volumes of such course content. We could lose the right to license some percentage or all of those third party materials for several reasons, including our licensors' infringement of third-party materials, going out of business and terminating our content licenses for one or more business reasons. We rely on the negotiation of extensive licensing rights to mitigate this eventuality and contract with known, reliable vendors. If we lose the right to a significant percentage of such content, our course offerings and programs could be negatively impacted because those materials must be removed from our course offerings, resulting in significant cost to us to revise those impacted courses and a poor educational experience for our students, which could negatively affect our reputation and our financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

We may infringe the intellectual property rights of one or more of our third-party licensors.

        All of our institutions offer a certain percentage of online course offerings. The educational content contained in such online course offerings is inherently more susceptible to infringement than campus-based learning materials because it is easier to make many digital copies of an online text, picture, video or audio file than it is to reproduce hard-copy materials. Also, intellectual property laws can vary from country-to-country, resulting in additional risk of infringement when licensing the same materials in multiple countries. Our institutions take reasonable precautions to ensure that all course content offerings used by them are properly licensed and distributed; however, there is no assurance that all of our course content offerings are properly licensed. Additionally, we create universally applicable course and program offerings which are licensed throughout our institutions, meaning that a single act of infringement could adversely affect multiple institutions around the world. Intellectual property infringement by us and our institutions can result in damaged vendor relationships, legal proceedings, loss of course content, and reputational loss, which could negatively affect our reputation and our financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

We may be unable to bring the Laureate brand into new markets due to preexisting trademark owners.

        We file for and seek trademark protection for at least one of the Laureate brands, including "Laureate," "Laureate Education, Inc.," "Laureate Online Education," "Laureate Online International," and "Laureate International Universities" in all jurisdictions in which it operates. Our business model includes expanding into new markets through the creation and/or acquisition of new institutions in new or existing countries. Preexisting trademark owners already have rights to some variant of the Laureate trademark in the education industry in these new countries and this would prevent Laureate from introducing its brand to emerging markets. This could prevent Laureate from achieving a comprehensively global educational brand.

Our trademarks are subject to infringement.

        As a global education services brand, we are subject to infringement by third parties attempting to trade on the Laureate brand's goodwill. We have spent considerable time and resources over the years in defending its trademark rights in the United States and abroad. It is difficult to assess the cost and likelihood of success in any legal proceeding related to trademark infringement, but we have implemented a policy of obtaining trademark rights for all of our brands in all countries in which we operate or plan to operate in the future. For example, in 2014, we filed a trademark infringement suit

113


Table of Contents

against an alleged infringer of the Laureate trademark located in Georgia. The alleged infringer has formed several companies which incorporate the name "Laureate" and which purport to operate in the field of educational services. While the litigation is ongoing, we expect to prevail, and, to date, the alleged infringer has not presented evidence to date that its use predates our use of the trademark "Laureate" in the field of educational service. An unfavorable result in a trademark infringement case such as this could lead to us being barred from using our trademark in certain jurisdictions around the world and negatively affect our reputation.

Student protests and strikes may disrupt our ability to hold classes as well as our ability to attract and retain students, which could materially adversely affect our operations.

        Political, social and economic developments in the countries in which we operate may cause protests and disturbances against conditions in those countries, including policies relating to the operation and funding of higher education institutions. These disturbances may involve protests on university campuses, including the occupation of university buildings and the disruption of classes. For example, during the second quarter of 2016, students in Chile engaged in a mobilization that included the occupation of buildings and disruption of classes on their respective campuses to protest, among other things, the failure of the Chilean government to enact proposed reforms of the higher education system that had been promised by President Bachelet in her 2013 presidential campaign, as well as to call attention to their belief that there should not be any role or involvement of for-profit companies in the operation of private universities in Chile, including the universities that are part of the Laureate International Universities network. During May and June 2016, approximately 30 universities as well as over 100 high schools had their buildings occupied or classes disrupted due to the student mobilizations. Students occupied buildings on five of UNAB's campuses and one campus at Universidad Viña del Mar and over 70% of students enrolled at those universities, representing approximately 22% of the total number of students enrolled in Laureate International Universities institutions in Chile, were not able to attend classes during that time as a result of such protests, although classes returned to normal in July 2016. We are unable to predict whether students at institutions in the Laureate International Universities network in Chile or other countries will engage in various forms of protest in the future. Should we sustain student strikes, protests or occupations in Chile or other countries in the future, it could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and on our overall financial condition. Further, we may need to make additional investments in security infrastructure and personnel on our campuses in order to prevent future student protests from disrupting the ability of our institutions to hold classes. If we are required to make substantial additional investments in security, or if we are unable to identify security enhancements that would prevent future disruptions of classes, that could cause an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, we may need to pay overtime compensation to certain of our faculty and staff, which may increase our overall costs.

We may be unable to operate one or more of our institutions or suffer liability or loss due to a natural or other disaster.

        Our institutions are vulnerable to natural or other disasters, including fires, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes and other events beyond our control. A number of our institutions are located in areas such as Mexico and Central America that are prone to hurricane damage, which may be substantial. A number of our institutions are also located in areas, such as Chile, Mexico, Peru and Turkey, that are prone to earthquake damage. For example, in 2010, a magnitude 8.8 earthquake struck Chile and a magnitude 7.2 earthquake struck Mexico. Many of our locations in Chile and several locations in Mexico sustained damage in these earthquakes. Also in 2010, we experienced a fire in a dormitory at one of our institutions in Switzerland. In 2017, Peru's normally arid regions experienced historic, torrential rainfall and subsequent flooding. At least one of our campuses located there suffered flood-related damage. There, as elsewhere in the country, flood-related damage caused a range of

114


Table of Contents

disruptions, including in our case a delay in the regularly scheduled start of classes for the semester, which may cause revenue anticipated to occur in the first quarter of 2017 not to be recognized until the second quarter. It is possible that one or more of our institutions would be unable to operate for an extended period of time in the event of a hurricane, earthquake or other disaster which does substantial damage to the area in which an institution is located. The failure of one or more of our institutions to operate for a substantial period of time could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. In the event of a major natural or other disaster, we could also experience loss of life of students, faculty members and administrative staff, or liability for damages or injuries.

If there is an outbreak of disease in one or more of our locations, our ability to recruit new students or hold classes may be interrupted.

        In recent years, there have been numerous outbreaks of infectious diseases, such as Zika, SARS and the H1N1 virus, that have spread quickly through populations in countries in which we operate, and have had serious impact on businesses that operate in those countries. Concentrated populations, such as students in upper secondary schools and universities, may be particularly susceptible to these diseases, requiring local governments to take various measures, including suspension of business and quarantines, to control their spread. If there is an outbreak of disease in a country in which we operate, our recruiters may be prevented from visiting local upper secondary schools during the student recruitment season, which could have a material adverse effect on our new student enrollments during the following academic term. In addition, an outbreak during the academic year could result in a shutdown of one or more campuses, or a quarantine that could prevent students and faculty from entering a campus or, in the case of a residential campus, a quarantine of students on campus without faculty access, resulting in a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

We intend to increase the number of international students at many of our institutions, which presents multiple risks.

        A significant portion of students at several of our institutions come from other countries. We intend to increase international student representation at our institutions, including increased dual degree programs between universities and increased study abroad programs. The ability of foreign students to register at our institutions is subject to various obstacles over which we have no control, including their ability to obtain student visas, the financial stability of the countries from which they come, their families' ability to afford our programs, and quarantines and other travel restrictions in the event of the outbreak of epidemics. For example, during the SARS epidemic in Asia in 2003, Switzerland effectively prevented students from Asia, who made up a large proportion of the students at the hospitality institutions that we then owned in Switzerland, from traveling to Switzerland. Any restrictions on the ability of international students to obtain visas to study at our institutions, or any restrictions on their ability to travel, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

We may be unable to recruit, train and retain qualified and experienced faculty and administrative staff at our institutions.

        Our success and ability to grow depend on the ability to hire and retain large numbers of talented people. The process of hiring employees with the combination of skills and attributes required to implement our business strategy can be difficult and time-consuming. Our faculty members in particular are key to the success of our institutions. Our rapid global expansion has presented challenges for recruiting talented people with the right experience and skills for our needs. We face competition in attracting and retaining faculty members who possess the necessary experience and accreditation to teach at our institutions. As we expand and add personnel, it may be difficult to maintain consistency in the quality of our faculty and administrative staff. If we are unable to, or are perceived to be unable to, attract and retain experienced and qualified faculty, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

115


Table of Contents

High crime levels in certain countries and regions in which we operate institutions may have an impact on our ability to attract and retain students and may increase our operating expenses.

        Many of our institutions are located in countries and regions that have high rates of violent crime, drug trafficking and vandalism. If we are unable to maintain adequate security levels on our campuses, and to work with local authorities to maintain adequate security in the areas adjacent to our campuses, we may not be able to continue to attract and retain students, or we may have to close a campus either temporarily or permanently. For example, in 2014 we closed a small campus of one of our universities in Mexico because of threats from a local drug cartel. In addition, high crime rates may require us to make additional investments in security infrastructure and personnel, which may cause us to increase our tuition rates in order to maintain operating margins. Certain security measures may materially adversely affect the campus experience by making access by students more cumbersome, which may be viewed negatively by some of our existing or prospective students. If we are not able to attract and retain students because of our inability to provide them with a safe environment, or if we are required to make substantial additional investments in security, that could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we are unable to upgrade our campuses, they may become less attractive to parents and students and we may fail to grow our business.

        All of our institutions require periodic upgrades to remain attractive to parents and students. Upgrading the facilities at our institutions could be difficult for a number of reasons, including the following:

        Our failure to upgrade the facilities of our institutions could lead to lower enrollment and could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our planned growth will require occupying increasing amounts of real estate that can be difficult to obtain and are subject to local regulation and control by landlords.

        In order to continue to expand, we must continue to buy or lease additional real estate and construct new campus buildings. Construction of new campus buildings requires us to obtain permits from local authorities and to manage complex construction projects, which may result in unanticipated delays or expenditures. In 2013, the opening of a new campus building at UNAB was delayed, resulting in the need to relocate students to temporary facilities while the building was completed. UNAB incurred expenses to rent temporary facilities and provided tuition discounts to those students affected by the delay. The real estate that institutions in the Laureate International Universities network occupy is subject to local regulations, some of which may affect their ability to expand their operations. For example, in some locations, institutions are required by local regulations to provide a specific number of parking spaces per student enrolled or per area constructed. Even if there were adequate space in the academic facilities to expand the number of programs offered or students enrolled, we may not be

116


Table of Contents

able to expand if we are not able to provide adequate parking at a reasonable cost. The majority of the real estate that institutions in the Laureate International Universities network occupy is leased and may be subject to lease provisions that give the landlord the ability to affect the operation of the academic programs. For example, in certain jurisdictions, the landlord may be responsible for obtaining and maintaining occupancy permits or licenses, without which we cannot operate. If the landlord does not maintain the required permits or licenses, the institution may be required to suspend operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. In Brazil, real estate laws provide that rent terms under certain types of leases are subject to periodic adjustments to reflect local economic conditions. These rent increases can be substantial, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. We currently have leases with various expiration dates, some of which have renewal options. Our ability to renegotiate favorable terms on an expiring lease or to negotiate favorable terms for a suitable alternate location, and our ability to negotiate favorable lease terms for additional locations, will depend on conditions in the real estate market, competition for desirable properties and our relationships with current and prospective landlords or may depend on other factors that are not within our control. Any or all of these factors and conditions could negatively affect our growth.

Our success depends on the skills of our executive officers, particularly our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. If we lose key personnel or are unable to hire additional qualified personnel, our business may be harmed.

        Our future success depends to a significant degree on the skills, experience and efforts of Douglas L. Becker, our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and founder, who has always played and continues to play an integral role in developing and executing our growth strategy. We cannot assure you that we will have an internal candidate to take on the role of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer should Mr. Becker become unable or unwilling to serve. We also have other very experienced and valuable executives in senior management roles who would be extremely difficult to replace, the loss of whose services could affect the growth or results of our company. As our competitors expand their operations, they may have the resources to hire away members of our management team. There is no assurance that we will be able to retain our existing key personnel, particularly in light of increased competition in the higher education industry, or that we will be able to attract, assimilate or retain the additional personnel needed to support our business. If we cannot, we may not be able to grow our business as planned, and we may not be able to operate our existing business effectively. In addition, we may not have identified clear successors to our management team and other key employees, which could result in lost opportunities and disruptions to our operations in the event of an unexpected departure. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our status as a Certified B Corporation may not result in the benefits that we anticipate.

        While not required by Delaware law or the terms of our certificate of incorporation, we have elected to have our social and environmental performance, accountability and transparency assessed against the proprietary criteria established by an independent non-profit organization. As a result of this assessment, we have been designated as a "Certified B CorporationTM," which refers to companies that are certified as meeting certain levels of social and environmental performance, accountability and transparency. The standards for Certified B Corporation certification are set by an independent organization and may change over time. See "Item 1—Business—Certified B Corporation." Our reputation could be harmed if we lose our status as a Certified B Corporation, whether by our choice or by our failure to continue to meet the certification requirements, if that failure or change were to create a perception that we are more focused on financial performance and are no longer as committed to the values shared by Certified B Corporations. Likewise, our reputation could be harmed if our publicly reported Certified B Corporation score declines.

117


Table of Contents

The minority owners of our institutions may disagree with the way we operate the institutions or plan to expand the institutions, which could materially adversely affect our business and results of operations.

        Although we control all of our institutions, we share ownership or control of several of our institutions with minority stockholders. We currently do not have the right to buy out all of these minority interests. The minority owners could assert that our business decisions at the institution adversely affected the value of their investment. In certain of our institutions, minority owners continue to occupy key management positions and may have the ability to enter into agreements with third parties or take other actions that are inconsistent with our corporate policies, which could create legal burdens and additional expense for us. In addition, disagreements with the minority owners may distract management and may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Litigation may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        Our business is subject to the risk of litigation by employees, students, suppliers, competitors, minority partners, stockholders, government agencies or others through private actions, class actions, administrative proceedings, regulatory actions or other litigation. The outcome of litigation, particularly class action lawsuits, regulatory actions and intellectual property claims, is difficult to assess or quantify. Plaintiffs in these types of lawsuits may seek recovery of very large or indeterminate amounts, and the magnitude of the potential loss relating to these lawsuits may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. In addition, certain of these lawsuits, if decided adversely to us or settled by us, may result in liability material to our financial statements as a whole or may negatively affect our operating results if changes to our business operation are required. The cost to defend future litigation may be significant. There also may be adverse publicity associated with litigation that could negatively affect customer perception of our business, regardless of whether the allegations are valid or whether we are ultimately found liable. As a result, litigation may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to anti-corruption laws in the jurisdictions in which we operate, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the "FCPA"), as well as trade compliance and economic sanctions laws and regulations. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations could subject us to civil and criminal penalties, harm our reputation and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        Doing business on a worldwide basis requires us to comply with the laws and regulations of numerous jurisdictions. These laws and regulations place restrictions on our operations and business practices. In particular, we are subject to the FCPA, which generally prohibits companies and their intermediaries from providing anything of value to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or securing any improper business advantage, along with various other anti-corruption laws. As a result of doing business in foreign countries and with foreign partners, we are exposed to a heightened risk of violating anti-corruption laws. Although we have implemented policies and procedures designed to ensure that we, our employees and other intermediaries comply with the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws to which we are subject, there is no assurance that such policies or procedures will work effectively all of the time or protect us against liability under the FCPA or other laws for actions taken by our employees and other intermediaries with respect to our business or any businesses that we may acquire. We cannot assure you that all of our local partners will comply with these laws, in which case we could be held liable for actions taken inside or outside of the United States, even though our partners may not be subject to these laws. Our continued international expansion, and any development of new partnerships and joint venture relationships worldwide, increase the risk of FCPA violations in the future.

        Violations of anti-corruption laws, export control laws and regulations, and economic sanctions laws and regulations are punishable by civil penalties, including fines, as well as criminal fines and imprisonment. If we fail to comply with the FCPA or other laws governing the conduct of international

118


Table of Contents

operations, we may be subject to criminal and civil penalties and other remedial measures, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. Any investigation of any potential violations of the FCPA or other anti-corruption laws, export control laws and regulations, and economic sanctions laws and regulations by the United States or foreign authorities could also materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity, regardless of the outcome of the investigation.

We may not generate anticipated savings from our EiP program or our SSOs.

        We anticipate making an investment of approximately $180 million in our EiP program from 2015 to 2017 to optimize and standardize our processes with a goal of enabling sustained growth and margin expansion, and we have developed and begun to deploy SSOs around the world with the goal of processing most back-office and non-student facing transactions for the institutions in the Laureate International Universities network, such as accounting, finance and procurement. While we expect these programs to generate approximately $100 million in annual cost savings when fully realized in 2019, there can be no assurance that we will achieve these savings goals or that we will not have to make additional investments in these programs to do so. In addition, our ability to implement these programs successfully and timely could be adversely affected by many factors including, among others, lack of acceptance by local regulators and institutions, inability to identify and hire qualified personnel to staff SSOs and unanticipated technical difficulties. If we are not able to implement the EiP program and the SSOs successfully and timely, at the costs that we currently anticipate, these initiatives may not generate their intended operating efficiencies which could hamper our ability to grow in a scalable manner, and this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are conducting an internal investigation of one of our network institutions for violations of the Company's policies, and possible violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the "FCPA") and other applicable laws. A violation of these laws and regulations could subject us to penalties, harm our reputation and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        As previously disclosed, during the fourth quarter of 2014, we recorded an operating expense of $18.0 million (the value of 40.0 million Turkish Liras at the date of donation) for a donation by our network institution in Turkey to a charitable foundation. We believed the donation was encouraged by the Turkish government to further a public project supported by the government and expected that it would enhance the position and ongoing operations of our institution in Turkey. The Company has learned that the charitable foundation which received the donation disbursed the funds at the direction of a former senior executive at our network institution in Turkey and other external individuals to a third party without our knowledge or approval.

        In June 2016, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors initiated an internal investigation into this matter with the assistance of external counsel. The investigation concerns the facts surrounding the donation, violations of the Company's policies, and possible violations of the FCPA and other applicable laws in what appears to be a fraud perpetrated by the former senior executive at our network institution in Turkey and other external individuals. This includes an investigation to determine if the diversion was part of a scheme to misappropriate the funds and whether any portion of the funds was paid to government officials. As of the date of this Form 10-K, we have not identified that any other officers or employees outside of Turkey were involved in the diversion of the intended donation. Although we are pursuing efforts to recover the diverted funds, including through legal proceedings, there is no assurance that we will be successful.

        We have been advised by Turkish counsel that, under Turkish law, a Foundation University may not make payments that cause a decrease in the university's wealth or do not otherwise benefit the university. Given the uncertainty of recovery of the diverted donation and to mitigate any potential

119


Table of Contents

regulatory issues in Turkey relating to the donation, certain Laureate-owned entities that are members of the foundation that controls our network institution in Turkey have contributed an amount of approximately $13.0 million (the value of 40.0 million Turkish Liras on November 4, 2016, the date of contribution) to our network institution in Turkey to reimburse it for the donation.

        As a result of the investigation, which is ongoing, we took steps to remove the former senior executive at our network institution in Turkey. Because of the complex organizational structure in Turkey, this took approximately one month and during that period our access to certain aspects of the business including the financial and other records of the university was interrupted. The former senior executive is now no longer affiliated with our network institution and we again have access to the financial and other records of the university.

        In September 2016, we voluntarily disclosed the investigation to the DOJ and the SEC. The Company is fully cooperating with these agencies in their investigations and inquiries relating to this matter. The Company has internal controls and compliance policies and procedures that are designed to prevent misconduct of this nature and support compliance with laws and best practices throughout its global operations. The Company is taking steps to enhance these internal controls and compliance policies and procedures. The investigations relating to the donation are ongoing, and we cannot predict the outcome at this time, or the impact, if any, to the Company's consolidated financial statements or predict how the resulting consequences, if any, may impact our internal controls and compliance policies and procedures, business, ability or right to operate in Turkey, results of operations or financial position. If we are found to have violated the FCPA or other laws applicable to us, we may be subject to criminal and civil penalties and other remedial measures, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

        See "—We currently have four material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting that, if not corrected, could result in material misstatements of our financial statements" and "—Our institutions are subject to uncertain and varying laws and regulations, and any changes to these laws or regulations or their application to us may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and result of operations."

We currently have four material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting that, if not corrected, could result in material misstatements of our financial statements.

        In the course of preparing our consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013, we identified certain material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim consolidated financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. The material weaknesses related to (1) an inadequate contract management process, (2) inadequate accounting for tax matters, (3) inadequate knowledge of GAAP in the non-U.S. finance organization, (4) inadequate journal entry review processes and (5) inadequate controls over key reports and spreadsheets. We have remediated four of the five material weaknesses; however, the material weakness related to inadequate controls over key reports and spreadsheets remained at December 31, 2015 and 2016.

        As of December 31, 2015, we identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting related to inadequate controls over key reports and spreadsheets, as discussed above. Specifically, we did not design adequate controls to address the completeness and accuracy of key reports and key spreadsheets. This material weakness, in combination with other prior material weaknesses, contributed to a revision to our audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2013. This material weakness could result in additional misstatements to the accounts

120


Table of Contents

and disclosures that would result in a material misstatement of our consolidated financial statements that would not be prevented or detected.

        As of December 31, 2016, we identified three additional material weaknesses, as follows:

        These IT deficiencies did not result in a material misstatement to the financial statements, however, the deficiencies, when aggregated, could impact the effectiveness of IT-dependent controls (such as automated controls that address the risk of material misstatement to one or more assertions, along with the IT controls and underlying data that support the effectiveness of system-generated data and reports) that could result in misstatements potentially affecting all financial statement accounts and disclosures that would not be prevented or detected in a timely manner.

        We have commenced the remediation of these material weaknesses. Our efforts to remediate these material weaknesses may not be effective. If our efforts to remediate these material weaknesses are not successful, the remediated material weaknesses may reoccur, the current material weaknesses may not be remediated in a timely manner, or other material weaknesses could occur in the future.

        As a result of these material weaknesses, we may be unable to report our financial results accurately on a timely basis, which could cause our reported financial results to be materially misstated and result in the loss of investor confidence or delisting of our Class A common stock and could cause the market price of our Class A common stock to decline. As a result of such failures, we could also

121


Table of Contents

become subject to investigations by the stock exchange on which our Class A common stock is listed, the SEC or other regulatory authorities, and become subject to litigation from investors, which could harm our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations, and divert financial and management resources from our core business.

        Further, if as a result of these material weaknesses we are unable to provide the DOE with required financial statements by specified deadlines, the DOE could take action to materially limit or terminate our U.S. Institutions' participation in the Title IV federal student aid programs, which could result in a material or adverse decline in revenues, financial condition or results of operations. Furthermore, the U.S. Institutions would then be unable to continue their business as currently conducted, which could be expected to have a material adverse effect on our U.S. Institutions' ability to continue as going concerns.

        See "—We are conducting an internal investigation of one of our network institutions for violations of the Company's policies, and possible violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other applicable laws. A violation of these laws and regulations could subject us to penalties, harm our reputation and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations."

If we fail to maintain proper and effective internal controls, our ability to produce accurate financial statements on a timely basis could be materially adversely affected.

        Commencing with our fiscal year ending December 31, 2017, we must perform system and process evaluation and testing of our internal controls over financial reporting to allow management to report on the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting in our Form 10-K filing for that year, as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the "Sarbanes-Oxley Act"). This will require that we incur substantial additional professional fees and internal costs to expand our accounting and finance functions and that we expend significant management efforts and we may need to make further investments in order to become compliant. Prior to our initial public offering, we have not been required to test our internal controls within a specified period and, as a result, we may experience difficulty in meeting these reporting requirements in a timely manner.

        We may in the future discover areas of our internal financial and accounting controls and procedures that need improvement. Our internal control over financial reporting will not prevent or detect all errors and all fraud. A control system, regardless of how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the control system's objectives will be met. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that misstatements due to error or fraud will not occur or that all control issues and instances of fraud will be detected.

        If we are not able to comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner, or if we are unable to maintain proper and effective internal controls, we may not be able to produce timely and accurate financial statements, and we or our independent registered public accounting firm may conclude that our internal controls over financial reporting are not effective or our independent registered public accounting firm may not be able to provide us with an unqualified opinion as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. If that were to happen, investors could lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could lead to a decline in the market price of our Class A common stock and we could be subject to sanctions or investigations by the stock exchange on which our Class A common stock is listed, the SEC or other regulatory authorities.

        Additionally, the existence of any material weakness could require management to devote significant time and incur significant expense to remediate any such material weakness and management may not be able to remediate any such material weakness in a timely manner. The existence of any material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting could also result in

122


Table of Contents

errors in our financial statements that could require us to restate our financial statements, cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations and cause the holders of our Class A common stock to lose confidence in our reported financial information, all of which could materially adversely affect our business and share price.

        See "—We are conducting an internal investigation of one of our network institutions for violations of the Company's policies, and possible violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other applicable laws. A violation of these laws and regulations could subject us to penalties, harm our reputation and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations."

Risks Relating to Our Highly Regulated Industry in the United States

Failure of any of our U.S. Institutions to comply with extensive regulatory requirements could result in significant monetary liabilities, fines and penalties, restrictions on our operations, limitations on our growth, or loss of access to federal student loans and grants for our students, on which we are substantially dependent.

        Our U.S. Institutions are subject to extensive regulatory requirements, including at the federal, state, and accrediting agency levels. Many students at our U.S. Institutions rely on the availability of federal student financial aid programs, known as Title IV programs, which are administered by the DOE, to finance their cost of attending our institutions. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, Kendall College, NewSchool of Architecture and Design, St. Augustine and Walden University derived approximately 34%, 37%, 57% and 73%, respectively, of their revenues (calculated on a cash basis) from Title IV program funds. In the aggregate, our U.S. Institutions derived approximately $484 million of revenues (calculated on a cash basis) from Title IV programs during the year ended December 31, 2016.

        To participate in Title IV programs, our U.S. Institutions must be authorized by the appropriate state education agency or agencies, be accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the DOE, and be certified as an eligible institution by the DOE. As a result, our U.S. Institutions are subject to extensive regulation and review by these agencies and commissions which cover the vast majority of our U.S. operations, including our educational programs, instructional and administrative staff, administrative procedures, marketing, student recruiting and admissions, and financial operations. These regulations also affect our ability to acquire or open additional institutions, add new educational programs, substantially change existing programs or change our corporate or ownership structure. The agencies and commissions that regulate our operations periodically revise their requirements and modify their interpretations of existing requirements. Regulatory requirements are not always precise and clear, and regulatory agencies may sometimes disagree with the way we interpret or apply these requirements. If we misinterpret or are found to have not complied with any of these regulatory requirements, our U.S. Institutions could suffer financial penalties, limitations on their operations, loss of accreditation, termination of or limitations on their ability to grant degrees and certificates, or limitations on or termination of their eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, each of which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, if we are charged with regulatory violations, our reputation could be damaged, which could have a negative impact on our enrollments and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. We cannot predict with certainty how all of these regulatory requirements will be applied, or whether we will be able to comply with all of the applicable requirements in the future.

        If any of our U.S. Institutions were to lose its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, we would experience a material and adverse decline in revenues, financial condition, results of operations, and future growth prospects. Furthermore, the affected U.S. Institution would be unable to continue its business as it is currently conducted, which could have a material adverse effect on the institution's ability to continue as a going concern.

123


Table of Contents

If any of the U.S. education regulatory agencies or commissions that regulate us do not approve or delay any required approvals of transactions involving a change of control, including our recent conversion to a Delaware public benefit corporation and our initial public offering, our ability to operate or participate in Title IV programs may be impaired.

        If we or one of our U.S. Institutions experiences a change of ownership or control under the standards of the DOE, any applicable accrediting agency, any applicable state educational licensing agency, or any specialized accrediting agency, we must notify or seek approval of each such agency or commission. These agencies do not have uniform criteria for what constitutes a change of ownership or control. Transactions or events that typically constitute a change of ownership or control include significant acquisitions or dispositions of shares of the voting stock of an institution or its parent company, and significant changes in the composition of the board of directors of an institution or its parent company. The occurrence of some of these transactions or events may be beyond our control. Our failure to obtain, or a delay in receiving, approval of any change of control from the DOE or any applicable accrediting agency or state educational licensing agency, could impair our U.S. Institutions' 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. Failure to obtain, or a delay in receiving, approval of any change of control from any state in which our U.S. Institutions are currently licensed or authorized, or from any applicable accrediting agency, could require us to suspend our activities in that state or suspend offering applicable programs until we receive the required approval, or could otherwise impair our operations.

        The DOE previously notified us that it considers our recent initial public offering and our recent conversion to a Delaware public benefit corporation to be changes of ownership resulting in changes in control under the DOE's regulations. Also, the DOE will only formally review and approve change of ownerships resulting in changes in control after such changes have occurred. Accordingly, we applied to the DOE on behalf of Kendall College, NewSchool of Architecture and Design, St. Augustine and Walden University for approval of these institutions' continued participation in Title IV programs in connection with the recent conversion to a Delaware public benefit corporation. The DOE completed its review of the conversion and issued provisional program participation agreements to the institutions with respect to the conversion. We have similarly applied to the DOE on behalf of Kendall College, NewSchool of Architecture and Design, St. Augustine and Walden University for approval of these institutions' continued participation in Title IV programs in connection with our recent initial public offering. The DOE's review of our initial public offering remains pending. The DOE has issued temporary program participation agreements to the institutions, which will expire on March 31, 2017. If certain documents are submitted to DOE before the expiration of the temporary program participation agreements, the eligibility of the institutions to participate in the Title IV programs will be continued on a month-to-month basis while the DOE completes its review of our initial public offering. There can be no assurance that the DOE will formally approve our initial public offering and recertify our U.S. Institutions for continued Title IV program eligibility. If the DOE fails to recertify the institutions and to issue provisional program participation agreements to the institutions with respect to the initial public offering, students at the affected institutions would no longer be able to receive Title IV program funds. The DOE could also recertify our U.S. Institutions with respect to the initial public offering, but restrict or delay students' receipt of Title IV program funds, limit the number of students to whom an institution could disburse such funds, or impose other restrictions that could materially adversely affect our U.S. business.

        We sought confirmation from the accrediting agencies for Kendall College, NewSchool of Architecture and Design, St. Augustine and Walden University, as well as from the U.S. institutional accrediting agency for Universidad Andrés Bello, whether our initial public offering constitutes a change of control under their respective standards. We also sought guidance from applicable state educational agencies as to whether the recent initial public offering constitutes a change of control

124


Table of Contents

requiring approval under their respective regulations. Many states and accreditors have informed us that our initial public offering did not constitute a change of control, but some agencies have determined that the offering will need to be reviewed under their respective change of ownership standards. We have notified each agency regarding the offering and some have requested additional information in connection with the offering. For instance, the Florida Commission for Independent Education has determined that the initial public offering requires its review and approval with respect to St. Augustine, and we have filed the required applications for such approval.

        Our failure to obtain any required approval of our initial public offering from the DOE, the institutional accrediting agencies, or the pertinent state educational agencies could result in one or more of our U.S. Institutions losing continued eligibility to participate in the Title IV programs, accreditation or state licensure, which could have a material adverse effect on our U.S. business, financial condition and results of operations.

        In addition, we increased our ownership of St. Augustine from 80% to 100% on June 7, 2016. The 20% noncontrolling interest was previously held by Patris of St. Augustine, Inc. and subject to a put right, which Patris of St. Augustine, Inc. elected to exercise. We have notified St. Augustine's applicable regulators regarding the increase in the percentage of our ownership in St. Augustine.

Congress may revise the laws governing Title IV programs or reduce funding for those and other student financial assistance programs, and the DOE may revise its regulations administering Title IV programs, any of which could reduce our enrollment and revenues and increase costs of operations.

        The HEA is a federal law that governs Title IV programs. The U.S. Congress must authorize and appropriate funding for Title IV programs under the HEA and can change the laws governing Title IV programs at any time. The HEA was most recently reauthorized in August 2008 through federal fiscal year 2014, although the U.S. Congress has taken actions required to extend Title IV programs while an HEA reauthorization remains pending and the Title IV programs remain authorized and functioning. Congress continues to engage in HEA reauthorization hearings, with such hearings examining various subjects to be potentially addressed through reauthorization, including, but not limited to, college affordability, the role of consumer information in college choices by students and families, whether Title IV programs should include institutional risk-sharing, and the role of accrediting agencies in ensuring institutional quality, among other items. We cannot predict the timing and terms of any eventual HEA reauthorization, including any potential changes to institutional participation or student eligibility requirements or funding levels for particular Title IV programs, which terms may materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        Apart from Title IV programs, eligible veterans and military personnel may receive educational benefits for the pursuit of higher education. A reduction in federal funding levels for Title IV programs, or for programs providing educational benefits to veterans and military personnel, could reduce the ability of some students to finance their education. We cannot predict with certainty the future funding levels for Title IV programs, or for programs providing educational benefits to veterans and military personnel, or the nature of any future revisions to the law or regulations related to these programs. Because a significant percentage of the revenues of our U.S. Institutions is and is expected to be derived from Title IV programs, any action by the U.S. Congress that significantly reduces Title IV program funding or the ability of our U.S. students to participate in Title IV programs could have a material adverse effect on our U.S. Institutions' enrollments, business, financial condition and results of operations. Congressional action also may require our U.S. Institutions to modify their practices in ways that could increase administrative costs and reduce profit margins, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        In recent years, the DOE has promulgated a substantial number of new regulations that impact our U.S. Institutions, including, but not limited to, state authorization, standards regarding the payment

125


Table of Contents

of incentive compensation, the definition of a credit hour for the purpose of determining program eligibility for Title IV student financial aid, and the scope of the prohibition and potential sanctions for substantial misrepresentations. On October 30, 2014, the DOE published final regulations to define "gainful employment" for the purposes of the Title IV program requirement that educational programs offered by proprietary institutions prepare students for gainful employment in recognized occupations, which became effective on July 1, 2015.

        On October 30, 2015, the DOE published final regulations regarding cash management and debit card practices, retaking coursework and clock-to-credit hour conversion. A majority of the provisions of the regulations took effect on July 1, 2016, and others took effect on later dates in 2016. The final regulations concerning cash management require, among other things, that institutions subject to heightened cash monitoring procedures for disbursements of Title IV funds must, effective July 1, 2016, pay to students any applicable Title IV credit balances before requesting such funds from the DOE. St. Augustine, Walden University, NewSchool of Architecture and Design and Kendall College are currently subject to heightened cash monitoring procedures. We have reviewed the regulations and made appropriate adjustments in our business operations to meet those requirements effective July 1, 2016.

        On October 31, 2016, the DOE published final regulations teacher preparation program accountability systems under the HEA, and additionally proposed amendments on teacher preparation program eligibility for TEACH Grant participation. On March 8, 2017, the U.S. Congress enacted a joint resolution disapproving these October 31, 2016 final regulations on teacher preparation pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. On March 27, 2017, the President signed the joint resolution nullifying these final regulations on teacher preparation and prohibiting the DOE from reissuing regulations in substantially the same form, or from issuing new regulations that are substantially the same, unless such reissued or new regulations are specifically authorized by the U.S. Congress subsequent to its joint resolution disapproving the October 31, 2016 final regulations.

        On December 19, 2016, the DOE published final regulations regarding state authorization for programs offered through distance education and state authorization for foreign locations of institutions. Among other provisions, these final regulations require that an institution participating in the Title IV federal student aid programs and offering post-secondary education through distance education be authorized by each state in which the institution enrolls students, if such authorization is required by the state. The DOE would recognize authorization through participation in a state authorization reciprocity agreement, if the agreement does not prevent a state from enforcing its own laws. The final regulations also require that foreign additional locations and branch campuses be authorized by the appropriate foreign government agency and, if at least 50% of a program can be completed at the location/branch, be approved by the institution's accrediting agency and be reported to the state where the main campus is located. The final regulations would also require institutions to: document the state process for resolving complaints from students enrolled in programs offered through distance education or correspondence courses; and make certain public and individualized disclosures to enrolled and prospective students about their distance education programs. These final regulations are effective July 1, 2018.

        Also, on November 1, 2016, the DOE published a final rule to clarify how Direct Loan Program borrowers who believe they were defrauded by their institutions can seek relief, to strengthen provisions to hold institutions accountable for their wrongdoing that results in loan discharges and to expand circumstances under which the DOE may request letters of credit. For additional information regarding this final rule, see "—The DOE may adopt regulations governing federal student loan debt forgiveness that could result in liability for amounts based on borrower defenses or affect the DOE's assessment of our institutional capability." We cannot predict the outcome or related impact of any of these items. As described in more detail under "Item 1—Business—Industry Regulation—U.S. Regulation," our U.S. Institutions or certain of their educational programs may lose eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if they or certain of their educational programs cannot maintain compliance with applicable regulations of the DOE.

126


Table of Contents

The DOE may adopt regulations governing federal student loan debt forgiveness that could result in liability for amounts based on borrower defenses or affect the DOE's assessment of our institutional capability.

        On November 1, 2016, the DOE published a final rule that, among other provisions, establishes new standards and processes for determining whether a Direct Loan Program borrower has a DTR on a loan due to acts or omissions by the institution at which the loan was used by the borrower for educational expenses. The final regulations will take effect on July 1, 2017. Among other topics, this final rule establishes permissible borrower defense claims for discharge, procedural rules under which claims will be adjudicated, time limits for borrowers' claims, and guidelines for recoupment by the DOE of discharged loan amounts from institutions of higher education. It also prohibits schools from using any pre-dispute arbitration agreements, prohibits schools from prohibiting relief in the form of class actions by student borrowers, and invalidates clauses imposing requirements that students pursue an internal dispute resolution process before contacting authorities regarding concerns about an institution. For proprietary institutions, the final rule describes the threshold for loan repayment rates that will require specific disclosures to current and prospective students and the applicable loan repayment rate methodology. The final rule also establishes important new financial responsibility and administrative capacity requirements for both not-for-profit and for-profit institutions participating in the Title IV programs. For example, certain events would automatically trigger the need for a school to obtain a letter of credit including, for publicly traded institutions, if the SEC warns the school that it may suspend trading on the school's stock, the school failed to timely file a required annual or quarterly report with the SEC, or the exchange on which the stock is traded notifies the school that it is not in compliance with exchange requirements or the stock is delisted. Other events would require a recalculation of a school's composite score of financial responsibility, including, for a proprietary institution whose score is less than 1.5, any withdrawal of an owner's equity by any means, including by declaring a dividend, unless the equity is transferred within the affiliated entity group on whose basis the composite score was calculated. The final rule also sets forth events that are discretionary triggers for letters of credit, meaning that if any of them occur, the DOE may choose to require a letter of credit, increase an existing letter of credit requirement or demand some other form of surety from the institution. The final rule provides that if an institution fails to meet the composite score requirement for longer than three years under provisional certification, the DOE may mandate additional financial protection from the institution or any party with "substantial control" over the institution. Such parties with "substantial control" must agree to jointly and severally guarantee the Title IV liabilities of the institution at the end of the three-year provisional certification period. Under current regulations, a party may be deemed to have "substantial control" over an institution if, among other factors, the party directly or indirectly holds an ownership interest of 25% or more of an institution, or is a member of the board of directors, a general partner, the chief executive officer or other executive officer of the institution. If we are required to repay the DOE for any successful DTR claims by students who attended our U.S. Institutions, or we are required to obtain additional letters of credit or increase our current letter of credit, it could materially affect our business, financial conditions and results of operations. We are currently assessing the impact of these final regulations on our U.S. Institutions.

Hearings and examinations of the for-profit educational industry could result in negative publicity, additional legislation, rulemaking by the DOE and other federal regulatory agencies, and other restrictions on our business.

        In recent years, the House Education and Workforce Committee and the Senate HELP Committee in the U.S. Congress have increased the focus on the role of the for-profit post-secondary education industry. In the past, these and other congressional committees have held hearings focused on, among other things, the standards and procedures of accrediting agencies, student recruiting and admissions and outcomes of students, credit hours and program length, the portion of federal student financial aid going to proprietary institutions, and the receipt of veterans and military education benefits by students enrolled at proprietary institutions. This activity may result in legislation, further rulemaking affecting

127


Table of Contents

participation in Title IV programs, and other governmental actions. In addition, concerns generated by congressional activity may adversely affect enrollment in and revenues of for-profit educational institutions.

        Additionally, the U.S. Congress and DoD have increased their focus in recent years on DoD tuition assistance that is used for distance education and programs at proprietary institutions. On multiple occasions since an April 2012 Executive Order, the DoD has revised its standard MOU to include additional provisions applicable to all higher educational institutions providing educational programs through the DoD tuition assistance program. Among other things, the MOU requests that participating institutions provide meaningful information to students about the financial cost and attendance at an institution so military students can make informed decisions on where to attend school, will not use unfair, deceptive, and abusive recruiting practices and will provide academic and student support services to service members and their families. The revised MOU also implements rules to strengthen existing procedures for access to DoD installations by educational institutions, a DoD Postsecondary Education Complaint System for service members, spouses, and adult family members to register student complaints and established authorization for the military departments to establish service-specific tuition assistance eligibility criteria and management controls. Our U.S. Institutions utilizing tuition assistance have signed DoD's standard MOU. The DoD has begun to increase its enforcement activity in connection with the 2012 Executive Order.

        In September 2015, the DOE announced its launch of a revised "College Scorecard" website that provides access to national data on college costs, graduation rates, debt and post-college earnings, including data regarding our U.S. Institutions. This data was updated in September 2016. In addition, in November 2015, the DOE issued comparative data regarding DOE-recognized accreditation agencies and the institutions they accredit, which include median debt, repayment rates, completion rates and median earnings. To the extent such data gives rise to negative perceptions of our U.S. Institutions or of proprietary educational institutions generally, our reputation and business could be materially adversely affected.

        We cannot predict whether, or the extent to which, this scrutiny will result in legislation or further rulemaking affecting our participation in Title IV programs, or in programs providing educational benefits to veterans and military personnel. To the extent that any laws or regulations are adopted that limit our participation in Title IV programs, programs providing educational benefits to veterans and military personnel, or the amount of student financial aid for which the students at our U.S. Institutions are eligible, those institutions' enrollments, revenues and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Our U.S. Institutions must periodically seek recertification to participate in Title IV programs and, if the DOE does not recertify the institutions to continue participating in Title IV programs, our students would lose their access to Title IV program funds, or the institutions could be recertified but required to accept significant limitations as a condition of continued participation in Title IV programs.

        DOE certification to participate in Title IV programs lasts a maximum of six years, and institutions are required to seek recertification from the DOE on a regular basis to continue their participation in Title IV programs. An institution must also apply for recertification by the DOE if it undergoes a change in control, as defined by DOE regulations, and may be subject to similar review if it expands its operations or educational programs in certain ways. Generally, the recertification process includes a review by the DOE of the institution's educational programs and locations, administrative capability, financial responsibility and other oversight categories. The DOE could limit, suspend or terminate an institution's participation in Title IV programs for violations of the HEA or Title IV regulations. As discussed in more detail under "Item 1—Business—Industry Regulation—U.S. Regulation," each of our U.S. Institutions currently participates in the Title IV programs pursuant to the DOE's provisional form of certification.

128


Table of Contents

        There can be no assurance that the DOE will recertify our U.S. Institutions after its review of the U.S. Institutions' applications for continued certification, which were filed in connection with our initial public offering. If the DOE does not renew or withdraws any of our U.S. Institutions' certifications to participate in Title IV programs at any time, students in the affected institution(s) would no longer be able to receive Title IV program funds. Similarly, the DOE could renew our U.S. Institutions' certifications, but restrict or delay Title IV funding, limit the number of students to whom it could disburse such funds or impose other restrictions. In addition, the DOE may take emergency action to suspend any of our U.S. Institutions' certifications without advance notice if it receives reliable information that an institution is violating Title IV requirements and it determines that immediate action is necessary to prevent misuse of Title IV funds. Any of these outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our U.S. Institutions' enrollments and our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our U.S. Institutions would lose their ability to participate in Title IV programs if they fail to maintain their institutional accreditation, and our student enrollments could decline if we fail to maintain any of our accreditations or approvals.

        An institution must be accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the DOE to participate in Title IV programs. Each of our U.S. Institutions is so accredited, and such accreditation is subject to renewal or review periodically or when necessary. If any of our U.S. Institutions fails to satisfy any of its respective accrediting commissions' standards, that institution could lose its accreditation by its respective accrediting commission, which would cause the institution to lose eligibility to participate in Title IV programs and experience a significant decline in total student enrollments. In addition, many of our U.S. Institutions' individual educational programs are accredited by specialized accrediting commissions or approved by specialized state agencies. If any of our U.S. Institutions fails to satisfy the standards of any of those specialized accrediting commissions or state agencies, that institution could lose the specialized accreditation or approval for the affected programs, which could result in materially reduced student enrollments in those programs and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, if an accrediting body of one of our U.S. Institutions loses recognition by the DOE, that institution could lose its ability to participate in Title IV programs.

If any of our U.S. Institutions fail to obtain or maintain any of its state authorizations in states where such authorization is required, that institution may not be able to operate or enroll students in that state, and may not be able to award Title IV program funds to students.

        The DOE requires that an educational institution be authorized in each state where it physically operates in order to participate in Title IV programs. The level of regulatory oversight varies substantially from state to state. Our campus-based U.S. Institutions are authorized by applicable state educational licensing agencies to operate and to grant degrees or diplomas, which authorizations are required for students at these institutions to be eligible to receive funding under Title IV programs. If any of our U.S. Institutions fail to continuously satisfy applicable standards for maintaining its state authorization in a state in which that institution is physically located, that institution could lose its authorization from the applicable state educational agency to offer educational programs and could be forced to cease operations in that state. Such a loss of authorization would also cause that institution's location in the state to lose eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        Many states also have sought to assert jurisdiction, whether through adoption of new laws and regulations or new interpretations of existing laws and regulations, over out-of-state educational institutions offering online degree programs that have no physical location or other presence in the state but that have some activity in the state, such as enrolling or offering educational services to

129


Table of Contents

students who reside in the state, employing faculty who reside in the state or advertising to or recruiting prospective students in the state. State regulatory requirements for online education are inconsistent between states and not well developed in many jurisdictions. As such, these requirements change frequently and, in some instances, are not clear or are left to the discretion of state employees or agents. State regulatory agencies may sometimes disagree with the way we have interpreted or applied these requirements. Any misinterpretation by us of these regulatory requirements or adverse changes in regulations or interpretations of these regulations by state licensing agencies could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        Our online educational programs offered by our U.S. Institutions and the constantly changing regulatory environment require us to continually evaluate our state regulatory compliance activities. We review the licensure requirements of other states when appropriate to determine whether our activities in those states constitute a presence or otherwise require licensure or authorization by the respective state education agencies. Therefore, in addition to the states where we maintain physical facilities, we have obtained, or are in the process of obtaining, approvals or exemptions that we believe are necessary in connection with our activities that may constitute a presence in such other states requiring licensure or authorization by the state educational agency based on the laws, rules or regulations of that state. Some of our approvals are pending or are in the renewal process. St. Augustine does not have current approvals or exemptions from the state educational agencies of 12 states in which St. Augustine does not maintain physical locations but has enrolled a small number of students. For each such state, St. Augustine is either in the process of applying for such approval/exemption or has plans to submit such applications in 2017. In recent years, several states have voluntarily entered into SARA that establish standards for interstate offering of post-secondary distance education courses and programs. If an institution's home state participates in SARA and authorizes the institution to provide distance education in accordance with SARA standards, then the institution need not obtain additional authorizations for distance education from any other SARA member state. None of our U.S. Institutions are approved to participate in SARA. If any of our U.S. Institutions fail to comply with state licensure or authorization requirements, we could be subject to various sanctions, including restrictions on recruiting students, providing educational programs and other activities in that state, and fines and penalties. Additionally, new laws, regulations or interpretations related to providing online educational programs and services could increase our cost of doing business and affect our ability to recruit students in particular states, which could, in turn, negatively affect enrollments and revenues and otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        The failure to maintain any required state licensure or authorization for our distance education programs in the United States could prohibit us from recruiting prospective students or offering educational services to current students in one or more states, which could significantly reduce enrollments and revenues and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations in the United States. Additionally, on December 19, 2016, the DOE published final regulations regarding state authorization for programs offered through distance education and state authorization for foreign locations of institutions. For additional information regarding these final regulations, see "—Congress may revise the laws governing Title IV programs or reduce funding for those and other student financial assistance programs, and the DOE may revise its regulations administering Title IV programs, any of which could reduce our enrollment and revenues and increase costs of operations." Any failure to comply with state requirements, or any new or modified regulations at the federal or state level, could result in our inability to enroll students or receive Title IV funds for students in those states and could result in restrictions on our growth and enrollments.

130


Table of Contents

Increased regulatory and enforcement effort aimed at proprietary education institutions could be a catalyst for legislative or regulatory restrictions, investigations, enforcement actions and claims that could, individually or in the aggregate, materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

        In recent years, the proprietary education industry has experienced broad-based, intensifying scrutiny in the form of increased investigations and enforcement actions. In October 2014, the DOE announced an interagency task force composed of the DOE, the FTC, the U.S. Departments of Justice, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, the CFPB, the SEC, and numerous state attorneys general. The FTC has also recently issued civil investigative demands to several other U.S. proprietary educational institutions, which require the institutions to provide documents and information related to the advertising, marketing, or sale of secondary or postsecondary educational products or services, or educational accreditation products or services. The CFPB has also initiated a series of investigations against other U.S. proprietary educational institutions alleging that certain institutions' lending practices violate various consumer finance laws. In addition, attorneys general in several states have become more active in enforcing consumer protection laws, especially related to recruiting practices and the financing of education at proprietary educational institutions. In addition, several state attorneys general have recently partnered with the CFPB to review industry practices.

        In the event that any of our past or current business practices are found to violate applicable consumer protection laws, or if we are found to have made misrepresentations to our current or prospective students about our educational programs, we could be subject to monetary fines or penalties and possible limitations on the manner in which we conduct our business, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. To the extent that more states or government agencies commence investigations, act in concert, or direct their focus on our U.S. Institutions, the cost of responding to these inquiries and investigations could increase significantly, and the potential impact on our business would be substantially greater.

Our failure to comply with the laws and regulations of various states could result in actions that would have a material adverse effect on our enrollments, revenues and results of operations.

        We are subject to extensive laws and regulations by the states in which we are authorized or licensed to operate. State laws typically establish standards for instruction, qualifications of faculty, administrative procedures, marketing, recruiting, financial operations and other operational matters. State laws and regulations may limit our ability to offer educational programs and to award degrees and may limit the ability of our students to sit for certification exams in their chosen fields of study. In addition, as mentioned above, attorneys general in several states have become more active in enforcing consumer protection laws, and in some instances have partnered with the CFPB. In addition, we may be subject to litigation by private parties alleging that we violated state laws regarding the educational programs provided by our U.S. Institutions and their operations. For more information on these lawsuits, see "Item 3—Legal Proceedings."

        On September 8, 2016, as part of a program review that MOHE is conducting of Walden University's doctoral programs, MOHE sent to Walden University an information request regarding its doctoral programs and complaints filed by doctoral students. We have been informed by MOHE that in an effort to better understand the context, background and issues related to doctoral student complaints in Minnesota, MOHE is initiating a full review of doctoral programs for institutions registered in Minnesota. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter. However, if MOHE makes an adverse determination, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

131


Table of Contents

The inability of our graduates to obtain licensure or other specialized outcomes in their chosen professional fields of study could reduce our enrollments and revenues, and potentially lead to litigation that could be costly to us.

        Certain of our graduates seek professional licensure or other specialized outcomes in their chosen fields following graduation. Their success in obtaining these outcomes depends on several factors, including the individual merits of the learner, but also may depend on whether the institution and the program were approved by the state or by a professional association, whether the program from which the learner graduated meets all state requirements and whether the institution is accredited. In addition, professional associations may refuse to certify specialized outcomes for our learners for similar reasons. The state requirements for licensure are subject to change, as are the professional certification standards, and we may not immediately become aware of changes that may impact our learners in certain instances. Also, as described below, the final gainful employment regulations require an institution to certify to the DOE that its educational programs subject to the gainful employment requirements, which include all programs offered by our U.S. Institutions, meet the applicable requirements for graduates to be professionally or occupationally certified in the state in which the institution is located. In the event that one or more states refuses to recognize our learners for professional licensure, and/or professional associations refuse to certify specialized outcomes for our learners, based on factors relating to our institution or programs, the potential growth of our programs would be negatively affected, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. 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, results of operations and cash flows.

If any of our U.S. Institutions do not comply with the DOE's "administrative capability" standards, we could suffer financial penalties, be required to accept other limitations to continue participating in Title IV programs or lose our eligibility to participate in Title IV programs.

        DOE 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 require, among other things, that we comply with all applicable Title IV program regulations; have capable and sufficient personnel to administer the federal student financial aid programs; not have student loan cohort default rates in excess of specified levels; have acceptable methods of defining and measuring the satisfactory academic progress of our students; have various procedures in place for safeguarding federal funds; not be, and not have any principal or affiliate who is, debarred or suspended from federal contracting or engaging in activity that is cause for debarment or suspension; provide financial aid counseling to our students; refer to the DOE's Office of Inspector General any credible information indicating that any applicant, student, employee or agent of the institution has been engaged in any fraud or other illegal conduct involving Title IV programs; submit in a timely manner all reports and financial statements required by Title IV regulations; and not otherwise appear to lack administrative capability. If an institution fails to satisfy any of these criteria or comply with any other DOE regulations, the DOE may change the institution's method of receiving Title IV program funds, which in some cases may result in a significant delay in the institution's receipt of those funds; place the institution on provisional certification status; or commence a proceeding to impose a fine or to limit, suspend or terminate the participation of the institution in Title IV programs. Thus, if any of our U.S. Institutions were found not to have satisfied the DOE's "administrative capability" requirements, we could be limited in our access to, or lose, Title IV program funding, which could significantly reduce our enrollments and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

132


Table of Contents

If any of our U.S. Institutions do not meet specific financial responsibility standards established by the DOE, that institution may be required to post a letter of credit or accept other limitations to continue participating in Title IV programs, or that institution could lose its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs.

        To participate in Title IV programs, our U.S. Institutions must satisfy specific measures of financial responsibility prescribed by the DOE, or post a letter of credit in favor of the DOE and possibly accept other conditions on its participation in Title IV programs. These financial responsibility tests are applied on an annual basis based on an institution's audited financial statements, and may be applied at other times, such as if an institution undergoes a change in control. The DOE may also apply such measures of financial responsibility to an eligible institution's operating company and ownership entities and, if such measures are not satisfied by the operating company or ownership entities, require the institution to post a letter of credit in favor of the DOE and possibly accept other conditions on its participation in Title IV programs. The operating restrictions that may be placed on an institution that does not meet the quantitative standards of financial responsibility include changes to the method of receiving Title IV program funds, which in some cases may result in a significant delay in the institution's receipt of those funds. Limitations on, or termination of, our participation in Title IV programs as a result of our failure to demonstrate financial responsibility would limit our students' access to Title IV program funds, which could significantly reduce enrollments and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        As described in more detail under "Item 1—Business—Industry Regulation—U.S. Regulation," the DOE annually assesses our U.S. Institutions' financial responsibility through a composite score determination based on the Laureate consolidated audited financial statements and not at the individual institutional level. Based on Laureate's composite score for its fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, the DOE determined that it and, consequently, Walden University, NewSchool of Architecture and Design, Kendall College and St. Augustine fail to meet the standards of financial responsibility. As a result, the DOE required us to either: 1) provide a letter of credit in an amount equal to 50% of the Title IV program funds received by Laureate in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (calculated by the DOE to be $351,995,250) and have our U.S. Institutions qualify as financially responsible; or 2) provide a letter of credit in an amount equal to 15% of the Title IV program funds received by Laureate in the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 (calculated by the DOE to be $105,598,575) and for our U.S. Institutions to remain provisionally certified for a period of up to three complete Title IV program award years. The DOE also required us to comply with additional notification and reporting requirements. We have provided the DOE with a letter of credit in the amount of $105,598,575, and we are complying with the additional notification and reporting requirements

        In December 2015, the DOE sent us a letter requiring us to post a letter of credit in the amount of $14,967 for St. Augustine (25% of the total Title IV program refunds the institution made or should have made during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014). This requirement was due to the fact that St. Augustine was found to have untimely processed refunds of Title IV program funds for withdrawn students for more than 5% of the students in its auditor's sample for the 2014 fiscal year. We have obtained this letter of credit. Any obligation to post, maintain or increase a letter of credit could materially adversely affect our liquidity or increase our costs of regulatory compliance. The DOE has the discretion to increase our letter of credit requirements at any time. If we are unable to secure any required letter of credit, our U.S. Institutions would lose their eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        On November 1, 2016, the DOE issued a final rule to revise its general standards of financial responsibility to include various actions and events that would require institutions to provide the DOE with irrevocable letters of credit. For additional information regarding this final rule, see "—The DOE may adopt regulations governing federal student loan debt forgiveness that could result in liability for

133


Table of Contents

amounts based on borrower defenses or affect the DOE's assessment of our institutional capability." If we are required to repay the DOE for any successful DTR claims by students who attended our U.S. Institutions, or we are required to obtain additional letters of credit or increase our current letter of credit, it could materially affect our business, financial conditions and results of operations. We are currently assessing the impact of these final regulations on our U.S. Institutions.

The DOE may change our U.S. Institutions' method of receiving Title IV program funds, which could materially adversely affect our liquidity.

        The DOE can impose sanctions for violating the statutory and regulatory requirements of Title IV programs, including transferring one or more of our U.S. Institutions from the advance method or the heightened cash monitoring level one method of Title IV payment, each of which permits an institution to receive Title IV funds before or concurrently with disbursing them to students, to the heightened cash monitoring level two method of payment or to the reimbursement method of payment, each of which may significantly delay an institution's receipt of Title IV funds until student eligibility has been verified by the DOE. Any such delay in our U.S. Institutions' receipt of Title IV program funds may materially adversely affect our cash flows and we may require additional working capital or third-party funding to finance our operations.

Our U.S. Institutions may lose eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if the percentage of our U.S. Institutions revenues derived from Title IV programs is too high.

        A provision of the HEA commonly referred to as the "90/10 Rule" provides that a for-profit educational institution loses its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if, under a complex regulatory formula that requires cash basis accounting and other adjustments to the calculation of revenues, the institution derives more than 90% of its revenues from Title IV program funds for any two consecutive fiscal years. If any of our U.S. Institutions were to violate the 90/10 Rule, that institution would become ineligible to participate in Title IV programs as of the first day of the fiscal year following the second consecutive fiscal year in which the institution exceeded the 90% threshold and would be unable to regain eligibility for two fiscal years thereafter. In addition, an institution that derives more than 90% of its revenue (on a cash basis) from Title IV programs for any single fiscal year will be placed on provisional certification for at least two fiscal years and may be subject to additional conditions or sanctions imposed by the DOE. Using the DOE's formula under the "90/10 Rule," Kendall College, NewSchool of Architecture and Design, St. Augustine and Walden University derived approximately 34%, 37%, 57% and 73% of their revenues (calculated on a cash basis), respectively, from Title IV program funds for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

        Our U.S. Institutions' ratios could increase in the future. Congressional increases in students' Title IV grant and loan limits may result in an increase in the revenues we receive from Title IV programs. In recent years, legislation has been introduced in Congress that would revise the 90/10 Rule to consider educational benefits for veterans and military personnel from the Department of Veteran Affairs and Department of Defense, respectively, in the same manner as Title IV funds for purposes of the rule, to prohibit institutions from participating in Title IV programs for one year if they derive more than 90% of their total revenues (calculated on a cash basis) from the Title IV programs and these other federal programs in a single fiscal year rather than the current rule of two consecutive fiscal years, and to revise the 90/10 Rule to an 85/15 rule. We cannot predict whether, or the extent to which, any of these proposed revisions could be enacted into law or result in further rulemaking. In addition, reductions in state appropriations in a number of areas, including with respect to the amount of financial assistance provided to post-secondary students, could further increase our U.S. Institutions' percentages of revenues derived from Title IV program funds. The employment circumstances of our students or their parents could also increase reliance on Title IV program funds. If any of our U.S. Institutions become ineligible to participate in Title IV programs as a result of noncompliance with the

134


Table of Contents

90/10 Rule, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Any of our U.S. Institutions may lose eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if their respective student loan default rates are too high.

        An educational institution may lose eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if, for three consecutive years, 30% or more of its students who were required to begin repayment on their federal student loans in the relevant fiscal year default on their payment by the end of the next federal fiscal year. In addition, an institution may lose its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if the default rate as determined by the DOE of its students exceeds 40% for any single year. The Department of Education generally publishes official cohort default rates annually in September for the repayment period that ended the prior September 30.

        Kendall College's official cohort default rates for the 2013, 2012 and 2011 federal fiscal years were 10.0%, 7.9% and 11.3%, respectively. NewSchool of Architecture and Design's official cohort default rates for the 2013, 2012 and 2011 federal fiscal years were 5.1%, 10.2% and 11.2%, respectively. St. Augustine's official cohort default rates for the 2013, 2012 and 2011 federal fiscal years were 0.2%, 0.5%, and 0.0%, respectively. Walden University's official cohort default rates for the 2013, 2012 and 2011 federal fiscal years were 6.7%, 6.8% and 7.8%, respectively. The average national student loan default rates published by the DOE for all institutions that participated in the federal student aid programs for 2013, 2012 and 2011 were 11.3%, 11.8% and 13.7%, respectively, and for all proprietary institutions that participated in the federal student aid programs for 2013, 2012 and 2011 were 15.0%, 15.8% and 19.1%, respectively.

        While we believe our U.S. Institutions are not in danger of exceeding the regulatory default rate thresholds for other Title IV programs, we cannot provide any assurance that this will continue to be the case. Any increase in interest rates or reliance on "self-pay" students, as well as declines in income or job losses for our students, could contribute to higher default rates on student loans. Exceeding the student loan default rate thresholds and losing eligibility to participate in Title IV programs would have a material adverse effect on our business, 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 place our U.S. Institutions in danger of losing their eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We could be subject to sanctions or other adverse legal actions if any of our U.S. Institutions were to pay impermissible commissions, bonuses or other incentive payments to individuals involved in or with responsibility for certain recruiting, admission or financial aid activities.

        Under the HEA, an educational institution that participates in Title IV programs may not make any commission, bonus or other incentive payments to any persons or entities involved in recruitment or admissions activities or in the awarding of financial aid. The requirement only pertains to the recruitment of students who are U.S. citizens, permanent residents and others temporarily residing in the United States with the intention of becoming a citizen or permanent resident. Under regulations that took effect on July 1, 2011, the DOE effectively has taken the position that any commission, bonus or other incentive compensation payment based in any part, directly or indirectly, or securing enrollment or awarding financial aid is inconsistent with the statutory prohibition against incentive compensation. The DOE has maintained that institutions may make merit-based adjustments to employee compensation, provided that those adjustments are not based, in any part, directly or indirectly, upon securing enrollments or awarding financial aid. In sub-regulatory correspondence to institutions, the DOE provided additional guidance regarding the scope of the prohibition on incentive compensation and to what employees and types of activities the prohibition applies. Based on these

135


Table of Contents

regulatory changes, we modified some of our compensation practices, which could make it more difficult to attract and retain key employees and executives, and affect our ability to grow and maintain our business and enrollments.

        In addition, in recent years, several for-profit education companies have been faced with whistleblower lawsuits under the Federal False Claims Act, known as "qui tam" cases, by current or former employees alleging violations of the prohibition against incentive compensation. In such cases, the whistleblower's claims are reviewed under seal by the Department of Justice for potential intervention. If the Department of Justice elects to intervene, it assumes primary control over the litigation. If the DOE were to determine that we or any of our U.S. Institutions violated this requirement of Title IV programs, or if we were to be found liable in a False Claims action alleging a violation of this law, or if any third parties we have engaged were to violate this law, we could be fined or sanctioned by the DOE, or subjected to other monetary liability or penalties that could be substantial, including the possibility of treble damages under a False Claims action, any of which could harm our reputation, impose significant costs and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We could be subject to sanctions if any of our U.S. Institutions fails to correctly calculate and timely return Title IV program funds for students who withdraw before completing their educational program.

        An institution participating in Title IV programs must calculate the amount of unearned Title IV program funds that it has disbursed to students who withdraw from their educational programs before completing such programs and must return those unearned funds to the appropriate lender or the DOE in a timely manner, generally within 45 days of the date the institution determines that the student has withdrawn. If any of our U.S. Institutions does not properly calculate and timely return the unearned funds for a sufficient percentage of students, that institution may have to post a letter of credit in favor of the DOE equal to 25% of Title IV program funds that should have been returned for such students in the prior fiscal year. Additionally, if any of our U.S. Institutions does not correctly calculate and timely return unearned Title IV program funds, that institution may be liable for repayment of Title IV funds and related interest and may be fined, sanctioned, or otherwise subject to adverse actions by the DOE, including termination of that institution's participation in Title IV programs. Any of these adverse actions could increase our cost of regulatory compliance and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        On March 3, 2015, the DOE issued a final program review determination letter to Walden University for a September 2012 review of the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 Title IV award years. The letter required Walden University to return $34,281 in Title IV funds, and also found that Walden University failed to timely return Title IV program funds for more than 5% of the withdrawn students during its fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. The DOE noted that such a finding would usually require Walden to post a letter of credit to the DOE equal to 25% of the Title IV funds that the institution should have returned for withdrawn students in its most recently completed fiscal year; however, such an additional letter of credit was not required in this instance because of the letter of credit that was previously posted to the DOE based on our consolidated audited financial statements failing to meet the DOE's standards of financial responsibility.

        We could also be subject to fines or penalties related to findings cited in our regulatory compliance reviews. For more information, see "—Government, regulatory agencies, accrediting bodies and third parties may conduct compliance reviews, bring claims or initiate litigation against us."

136


Table of Contents

We or certain of our educational programs at our U.S. Institutions may lose eligibility to participate in Title IV programs if any of our U.S. Institutions or certain of their educational programs cannot satisfy the DOE's "gainful employment" requirements.

        Under the HEA, proprietary schools generally are eligible to participate in Title IV programs in respect of educational programs that lead to "gainful employment in a recognized occupation." Historically, the concept of "gainful employment" has not been defined in detail. On October 30, 2014, the DOE published final regulations to define "gainful employment," which became effective on July 1, 2015. The final regulations define this concept using two ratios, one based on annual DTE and another based on DTI ratio. Under the final regulations, an educational program with a DTE ratio at or below 8% or a DTI ratio at or below 20% is considered "passing." An educational program with a DTE ratio greater than 8% but less than or equal to 12% or a DTI ratio greater than 20% but less than or equal to 30% is considered to be "in the zone." An educational program with a DTE ratio greater than 12% and a DTI ratio greater than 30% is considered "failing." An educational program will cease to be eligible for students to receive Title IV program funds if its DTE and DTI ratios are failing in two out of any three consecutive award years or if both of those rates are failing or in the zone for four consecutive award years. In January 2017, the DOE issued to institutions final DTE rates. Among the Classification of Instructional Programs reported within NewSchool of Architecture and Design, Kendall College and Walden University, the DOE has indicated that we had one that failed and five in the zone. This represents a total of one educational program that failed and ten in the zone. St. Augustine had no programs that failed or were in the zone. The percentage of students enrolled in the educational program that failed represents approximately 1% of the students currently enrolled in our U.S. Institutions. The percentage of students enrolled in the educational programs that were in the zone represents approximately 5.3%. We are currently examining and implementing options for each of these programs and their students. Additionally, the final regulations require an institution to certify to the DOE that its educational programs subject to the gainful employment requirements, which include all programs offered by our U.S. Institutions, meet the applicable requirements for graduates to be professionally or occupationally licensed or certified in the state in which the institution is located. If we are unable to certify that our programs meet the applicable state requirements for graduates to be professionally or occupationally certified in that state, then we may need to cease offering certain programs in certain states or to students who are residents in certain states. The final regulations further include requirements for the reporting of student and program data by institutions to the DOE and expand the disclosure requirements that have been in effect since July 1, 2011.

        The failure of any program or programs offered by any of our U.S. Institutions to satisfy any gainful employment regulations could render that program or programs ineligible for Title IV program funds. Additionally, any gainful employment data released by the DOE about our U.S. Institutions or warnings provided under the final regulations could influence current students not to continue their studies, discourage prospective students from enrolling in our programs or negatively impact our reputation. If a particular educational program ceased to become eligible for Title IV program funds, either because it fails to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation or due to other factors, we may choose to cease offering the program. It is possible that several programs offered by our schools may be adversely affected by the regulations due to lack of specialized program accreditation or certification or in the states in which such institutions are based. We also could be required to make changes to certain programs in the future in order to comply with the rule or to avoid the uncertainty associated with such compliance. Any of these factors could reduce enrollments, impact tuition prices, and have a material adverse effect on our U.S. Institutions' business, financial condition and results of operations.

137


Table of Contents

If we fail to maintain adequate systems and processes to detect and prevent fraudulent activity in student enrollment and financial aid, our business could be materially adversely affected

        Higher educational institutions are susceptible to an increased risk of fraudulent activity by outside parties with respect to student enrollment and student financial aid programs. The DOE's regulations require institutions that participate in Title IV programs to refer to the Office of Inspector General credible information indicating that any applicant, employee, third-party servicer or agent of the institution that acts in a capacity that involves administration of the Title IV programs has been engaged in any fraud or other illegal conduct involving Title IV programs. We cannot be certain that our systems and processes will always be adequate in the face of increasingly sophisticated and ever-changing fraud schemes. The potential for outside parties to perpetrate fraud in connection with the award and disbursement of Title IV program funds, including as a result of identity theft, may be heightened due to our U.S. Institutions offering various educational programs via distance education. Any significant failure by one or more of our U.S. Institutions to adequately detect fraudulent activity related to student enrollment and financial aid could result in loss of accreditation at the discretion of the institutions' accrediting agency, which would result in the institution losing eligibility for Title IV programs, or in direct action by the DOE to limit or terminate the institution's Title IV program participation. Any of these outcomes could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Any substantial misrepresentation regarding our U.S. Institutions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

        The DOE's regulation regarding substantial misrepresentations includes statements about the nature of its educational programs, its financial charges or the employability of its graduates. Under the regulation as promulgated by the DOE, any false, erroneous, or misleading statement, or statement that has the likelihood or tendency to deceive, that an institution, one of its representatives, or person or entity with whom the institution has an agreement to provide educational programs, marketing, advertising, recruiting or admissions services, makes directly or indirectly to a student, prospective student, any member of the public, an accrediting agency, a state licensing agency or the DOE could be deemed a misrepresentation by the institution. In the event that the DOE determines that an institution engaged in a substantial misrepresentation, it can revoke the institution's program participation agreement, impose limitations on the institution's participation in Title IV programs, deny participation applications on behalf of the institution, or seek to fine, suspend or terminate the institution's participation in Title IV programs. These regulations create broad grounds for the DOE to monitor and enforce violations of the regulations on substantial misrepresentation, and the DOE has recently taken actions to terminate the Title IV Program participation of, and impose significant financial penalties on other institutions based on its determination of such violations. These regulations also provide grounds for private litigants to seek to enforce the expanded regulations through False Claims Act litigation, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The requirement to notify the DOE in advance of introducing new programs, and to obtain approvals for new programs, could delay the introduction of such programs and negatively impact growth.

        All of our U.S. Institutions are currently provisionally certified by the DOE and remain subject to certain program approval requirements otherwise applicable to provisionally certified institutions. Any delay in obtaining a required DOE approval could delay the introduction of the program, which could negatively impact our enrollment growth.

138


Table of Contents

A bankruptcy filing by us, or by any of our subsidiaries that operate our U.S. Institutions or a closure of one of our U.S. Institutions or their affiliates, would lead to an immediate loss of the institution's eligibility to participate in Title IV programs.

        In the event of a bankruptcy filing by us, or by any of our subsidiaries that operate our U.S. Institutions, the U.S. Institutions owned by us or the bankrupt subsidiary would lose its eligibility to participate in Title IV programs, pursuant to statutory provisions of the HEA and notwithstanding the automatic stay provisions of federal bankruptcy law, which would make any reorganization difficult to implement. Additionally, in the event of any bankruptcy affecting one or more of our U.S. Institutions, the DOE could hold our other U.S. Institutions jointly liable for any Title IV program liabilities, whether asserted or unasserted at the time of such bankruptcy, of our U.S. Institutions whose Title IV program eligibility was terminated.

        Further, in the event that an institution closes and fails to pay liabilities or other amounts owed to the DOE, the DOE can attribute the liabilities of that institution to other institutions under common ownership. If any one of our U.S. Institutions or affiliates were to close or have unpaid DOE liabilities, the DOE could seek to have those liabilities repaid by one of our other U.S. Institutions. In addition, the ultimate controlling owner of SFUAD is Wengen, which is also the ultimate controlling owner of Laureate. As a result, it is possible that the DOE could attempt to attribute any unpaid Title IV related liabilities of SFUAD to our other U.S. Institutions, or determine that our U.S. Institutions do not meet the DOE financial responsibility regulations, due to their common ownership.

Government, regulatory agencies, accrediting bodies and third parties may conduct compliance reviews, bring claims or initiate litigation against us.

        Because we operate in a highly regulated industry, we may be subject to compliance reviews and claims of noncompliance and lawsuits by government agencies, regulatory agencies and third parties, including claims brought by third parties on behalf of the federal government. On February 3, 2015, the DOE issued a final program review determination letter to National Hispanic University regarding a December 2013 review covering the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 Title IV award years. The letter determined that National Hispanic University has taken corrective actions necessary to resolve all findings noted in the preliminary report, except for certain findings related to drug and alcohol abuse prevention program requirements. With respect to those findings, the DOE did not require any further action due to the fact that the National Hispanic University closed on August 23, 2015. On September 11, 2015, the DOE issued an expedited final program review determination letter to Kendall College regarding a March-April 2015 program review. The letter determined that Kendall College has taken corrective actions necessary to resolve all findings noted in the preliminary report. In addition, on September 21, 2015, the Higher Learning Commission notified Kendall College that the Higher Learning Commission placed the school on ongoing financial monitoring over the next 24 months. Such action was primarily due to concerns over the school's continued reliance upon Laureate to provide financial support to sustain its operations. See also "—We could be subject to sanctions if any of our U.S. Institutions fails to correctly calculate and timely return Title IV program funds for students who withdraw before completing their educational program."

        On September 8, 2016, as part of a program review that MOHE is conducting of Walden University's doctoral programs, MOHE sent to Walden University an information request regarding its doctoral programs and complaints filed by doctoral students. We have been informed by MOHE that in an effort to better understand the context, background and issues related to doctoral student complaints in Minnesota, MOHE is initiating a full review of doctoral programs for institutions registered in Minnesota.

139


Table of Contents

        In May 2017, Kendall College and Walden University are scheduled to host interim site visits from their institutional accreditor, Higher Learning Commission, as a condition of their ongoing accreditation.

        If the results of these or other reviews or proceedings are unfavorable to us, or if we are unable to defend successfully against lawsuits or claims, we may be required to pay money damages or be subject to fines, limitations, loss of eligibility for Title IV program funding at our U.S. Institutions, injunctions or other penalties. We may also lose or have limitations imposed on our accreditations, licensing or Title IV program participation, be required to pay monetary damages or be limited in our ability to open new institutions or add new program offerings. Even if we adequately address issues raised by an agency review or successfully defend a lawsuit or claim, we may have to divert significant financial and management resources from our ongoing business operations to address issues raised by those reviews or to defend against those lawsuits or claims. Additionally, we may experience adverse collateral consequences, including declines in the number of students enrolling at our institutions and the willingness of third parties to deal with us or our institutions, as a result of any negative publicity associated with such reviews, claims or litigation. Claims and lawsuits brought against us may damage our reputation or cause us to incur expenses, even if such claims and lawsuits are without merit, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Risks Relating to Our Indebtedness

The fact that we have substantial debt could materially adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital to fund our operations and limit our ability to pursue our growth strategy or to react to changes in the economy or our industry.

        We have substantial debt. As of December 31, 2016 we had (a) a $1.50 billion senior secured credit facility (the "Senior Secured Credit Facilities") of which (1) $325.0 million is a multi-currency revolving credit facility scheduled to mature in June 2019, of which $0 million was outstanding at December 31, 2016, (2) $281.8 million is a senior secured term loan facility scheduled to mature in June 2018 and (3) $1.22 billion is a senior secured term loan facility scheduled to mature in March 2021 (the "2021 Extended Term Loan"), (b) $1.39 billion aggregate principal amount of senior notes and (c) $1.18 billion of other long-term indebtedness, consisting of capital lease obligations, notes payable, seller notes and borrowings against certain lines of credit. During 2016, our total cash interest payments on our debt were approximately 67% of our net cash provided by operating activities of continuing operations (excluding such cash interest expense). Our debt could have important negative consequences to our business, including:

140


Table of Contents

        We and our subsidiaries may be able to incur substantial additional indebtedness in the future, subject to the restrictions contained in the senior secured credit agreement governing our Senior Secured Credit Facilities and the indenture governing our outstanding notes. If new indebtedness is added to our current debt levels, the related risks that we now face could intensify.

We may not be able to generate sufficient cash to service all of our indebtedness and may be forced to take other actions to satisfy our obligations under our indebtedness, which may not be successful.

        Our ability to make scheduled payments on or to refinance our debt obligations depends on our financial condition and operating performance, which is subject to prevailing economic and competitive conditions and to certain financial, business and other factors beyond our control. We may be unable to maintain a level of cash flows from operating activities sufficient to permit us to pay the principal, premium, if any, and interest on our indebtedness.

        If our cash flows and capital resources are insufficient to fund our debt service obligations, we may be forced to reduce or delay investments and capital expenditures, or to sell assets, seek additional capital or restructure or refinance our indebtedness. These alternative measures may not be successful and may not permit us to meet our scheduled debt service obligations. In the absence of such operating results and resources, we could face substantial liquidity problems and might be required to dispose of material assets or operations to meet our debt service and other obligations. Our senior secured credit agreement governing our Senior Secured Credit Facilities and the indenture governing our outstanding Senior Notes restrict our ability to dispose of assets and use the proceeds from the disposition. We may not be able to consummate those dispositions or to obtain the proceeds that we could realize from them and these proceeds may not be adequate to meet any debt service obligations then due.

Repayment of our debt is dependent on cash flow generated by our subsidiaries and their ability to make distributions to us or return cash via other repatriation strategies.

        Our subsidiaries own a significant portion of our assets and conduct a significant portion of our operations. Accordingly, repayment of our indebtedness is dependent, to a significant extent, on the generation of cash flow by our subsidiaries and their ability to make such cash available to us, by dividend, debt repayment or otherwise. Because the majority of our indebtedness is denominated in U.S. dollars, the strengthening of the U.S. dollar against the local currencies in countries where we have significant operations has an adverse impact on our cash flows when translated into U.S. dollars and, accordingly, could have a material adverse impact on our ability to repay the obligations under our outstanding indebtedness. Unless they are guarantors of our Senior Secured Credit Facilities or our outstanding notes, our subsidiaries do not have any obligation to pay amounts due on our indebtedness or to make funds available for that purpose. Our subsidiaries may not be able to, or may not be permitted to, make distributions to enable us to make payments in respect of our indebtedness. Each subsidiary is a distinct legal entity and, under certain circumstances, legal and contractual restrictions may limit our ability to obtain cash from our subsidiaries. Our non-guarantor subsidiaries include foreign subsidiaries and they may be prohibited by law or other regulations from distributing funds to us and/or we may be subject to payment of repatriation taxes and withholdings. Our non-guarantor subsidiaries account for substantially all of our total revenue, our total Adjusted EBITDA, and our total assets and our total liabilities (other than our Senior Secured Credit Facilities and our outstanding notes). While the senior secured credit agreement governing our Senior Secured Credit Facilities and the indenture governing our outstanding Senior Notes limit the ability of our subsidiaries to incur consensual restrictions on their ability to pay dividends or make other intercompany payments to us, these limitations are subject to certain qualifications and exceptions. In the event that we do not receive distributions from our subsidiaries or receive cash via other cash repatriation strategies for

141


Table of Contents

services rendered and intellectual property, or if the strengthening of the U.S. dollar against local currencies significantly reduces the amount of such distributions when translated into U.S. dollars, we may be unable to make required principal and interest payments on our indebtedness.

Our debt agreements contain, and future debt agreements may contain, restrictions that may limit our flexibility in operating our business.

        The senior secured credit agreement governing our Senior Secured Credit Facilities and the indenture governing our outstanding Senior Notes contain various covenants that may limit our ability to engage in specified types of transactions. These covenants limit our and our restricted subsidiaries' ability to, among other things:

        In addition, the senior secured credit agreement governing our Senior Secured Credit Facilities provides for compliance with the Consolidated Senior Secured Debt to Consolidated EBITDA Ratio, as defined in the senior secured credit agreement, solely with respect to the revolving line of credit facility, which is tested quarterly. The maximum ratio, as defined, is 5.3x, 4.5x and 3.5x at December 31, 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively. The ratio as of December 31, 2016 was 2.79x.

        The senior secured credit agreement governing our Senior Secured Credit Facilities and the indenture governing our outstanding Senior Notes also include cross-default provisions applicable to other agreements. A breach of any of these covenants could result in a default under the agreement governing such indebtedness, including as a result of cross-default provisions. In addition, failure to make payments or observe certain covenants on the indebtedness of our subsidiaries may cause a cross default on our Senior Secured Credit Facilities and our outstanding Senior Notes. Upon our failure to maintain compliance with these covenants, the lenders could elect to declare all amounts outstanding to be immediately due and payable and terminate all commitments to extend further credit. If the lenders under such indebtedness accelerate the repayment of borrowings, we cannot assure you that we will have sufficient assets to repay those borrowings, as well as our other indebtedness. We have pledged a significant portion of our assets as collateral under our Senior Secured Credit Facilities. If we were unable to repay those amounts, the lenders under our Senior Secured Credit Facilities could proceed against the collateral granted to them to secure that indebtedness.

We rely on contractual arrangements and other payments, advances and transfers of funds from our operating subsidiaries to meet our debt service and other obligations.

        We conduct all of our operations through certain of our subsidiaries, and we have no significant assets other than cash of $36.5 million as of December 31, 2016 held domestically at corporate entities and the capital stock or other control rights of our subsidiaries. As a result, we rely on payments from contractual arrangements, such as intellectual property royalty, network fee and management services agreements. In addition, we also rely upon intercompany loan repayments and other payments from our operating subsidiaries to meet any existing or future debt service and other obligations, a

142


Table of Contents

substantial portion of which are denominated in U.S. dollars. The ability of our operating subsidiaries to pay dividends or to make distributions or other payments to their parent companies or directly to us will depend on their respective operating results and may be restricted by, among other things, the laws of their respective jurisdictions of organization, regulatory requirements, agreements entered into by those operating subsidiaries and the covenants of any existing or future outstanding indebtedness that we or our subsidiaries may incur. For example, our VIE institutions generally are not permitted to pay dividends. Further, because most of our income is generated by our operating subsidiaries in non-U.S. dollar denominated currencies, our ability to service our U.S. dollar denominated debt obligations may be affected by any strengthening of the U.S. dollar compared to the functional currencies of our operating subsidiaries.

Disruptions of the credit and equity markets worldwide may impede or prevent our access to the capital markets for additional funding to expand our business and may affect the availability or cost of borrowing under our existing senior secured credit facilities.

        The credit and equity markets of both mature and developing economies have historically experienced extraordinary volatility, asset erosion and uncertainty, leading to governmental intervention in the banking sector in the United States and abroad. If these market disruptions occur in the future, we may not be able to access the capital markets to obtain funding needed to refinance our existing indebtedness or expand our business. In addition, changes in the capital or other legal requirements applicable to commercial lenders may affect the availability or increase the cost of borrowing under our Senior Secured Credit Facilities. If we are unable to obtain needed capital on terms acceptable to us, we may need to limit our growth initiatives or take other actions that materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Failure to obtain additional capital in the future could materially adversely affect our ability to grow.

        We believe that our cash flows from operations, cash, investments and borrowings under our multi-currency revolving credit facility will be adequate to fund our current operating plans for the foreseeable future. However, we may need additional debt or equity financing in order to finance our continued growth and to fund the put/call arrangements with certain minority stockholders. In addition, we may be required to buy additional interests in certain higher education institutions and redeem the shares of our Series A Preferred Stock at specified times in the future. The amount and timing of such additional financing will vary principally depending on the timing and size of acquisitions and new institution openings, the willingness of sellers to provide financing for future acquisitions and the cash flows from our operations. Given current global macro conditions, companies with emerging market exposure have been more affected by recent market volatility, and during the past year this has been reflected in the trading level of our Senior Notes, which have at various times traded at a significant discount to par. During the second quarter of 2015, one of the leading U.S. credit rating agencies downgraded our credit rating one notch and during the second quarter of 2016, another of the leading U.S. credit rating agencies downgraded our credit rating one notch. A significantly discounted trading price for our notes, as well as the reduced credit rating, could materially and adversely affect our ability to obtain additional debt financing in the future. To the extent that we require additional financing in the future and are unable to obtain such additional financing, we may not be able to fully implement our growth strategy.

Our variable rate debt exposes us to interest rate risk which could materially adversely affect our cash flow.

        Borrowings under our Senior Secured Credit Facilities and certain local credit facilities bear interest at variable rates and other debt we incur also could be variable-rate debt. If market interest rates increase, variable-rate debt will create higher debt service requirements, which could materially adversely affect our cash flow. If these rates were to increase significantly, the risks related to our

143


Table of Contents

substantial debt would intensify. While we have and may in the future enter into agreements limiting our exposure to higher interest rates, any such agreements may not offer complete protection from this risk. Based on our outstanding variable-rate debt as of December 31, 2016, after factoring in the interest rate floor in our Senior Secured Credit Facilities, an increase of 1% in interest rates would result in an increase in interest expense of approximately $15.7 million on an annual basis.

Risks Relating to Investing in Our Class A Common Stock

Our status as a public benefit corporation may not result in the benefits that we anticipate.

        We are a public benefit corporation under Delaware law. As a public benefit corporation we are required to balance the financial interests of our stockholders with the best interests of those stakeholders materially affected by our conduct, including particularly those affected by the specific benefit purpose relating to education set forth in our certificate of incorporation. In addition, there is no assurance that the expected positive impact from being a public benefit corporation will be realized. Accordingly, being a public benefit corporation and complying with our related obligations could negatively impact our ability to provide the highest possible return to our stockholders.

        As a public benefit corporation, we are required to publicly disclose a report at least biennially on our overall public benefit performance and on our assessment of our success in achieving our specific public benefit purpose. If we are not timely or are unable to provide this report, or if the report is not viewed favorably by parties doing business with us or regulators or others reviewing our credentials, our reputation and status as a public benefit corporation may be harmed.

As a public benefit corporation, our focus on a specific public benefit purpose and producing a positive effect for society may negatively influence our financial performance.

        As a public benefit corporation, since we do not have a fiduciary duty solely to our stockholders, we may take actions that we believe will benefit our students and the surrounding communities, even if those actions do not maximize our short- or medium-term financial results. While we believe that this designation and obligation will benefit the Company given the importance to our long-term success of our commitment to education, it could cause our board of directors to make decisions and take actions not in keeping with the short-term or more narrow interests of our stockholders. Any longer-term benefits may not materialize within the timeframe we expect or at all and may have an immediate negative effect. For example:

        We may be unable or slow to realize the long-term benefits we expect from actions taken to benefit our students and communities in which we operate, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, which in turn could cause our stock price to decline.

144


Table of Contents

An active, liquid trading market for our Class A common stock may not develop or be sustained.

        Prior to our initial public offering, which was completed on February 6, 2017, there was not a public market for our Class A common stock. We cannot predict the extent to which investor interest in our company will lead to the development of a trading market on Nasdaq or elsewhere, or how active and liquid that market may become. If an active and liquid trading market does not develop or is not maintained, you may have difficulty selling any of our Class A common stock that you purchase. The initial public offering price for the shares was determined by negotiations between us and the underwriters and may not be indicative of prices that will prevail in the open market following our initial public offering. The market price of our Class A common stock may decline below the initial offering price, and you may be unable to sell your shares of our Class A common stock at or above the price you paid, or at all.

Purchasers of our Class A Common Stock will suffer immediate and substantial dilution in the net tangible book value of the shares of Class A common stock they purchase.

        The purchasers of our Class A common stock in our initial public offering suffered immediate dilution of approximately $(27.24) per share in net tangible book value after giving effect to the sale of 35,000,000 shares of our Class A common stock at the initial public offering price, after deducting estimated underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by us. We also have a large number of outstanding options to purchase Class B common stock with exercise prices that are below the initial public offering price of our Class A common stock. In addition, shares of our Series A Preferred Stock are convertible, in certain circumstances, into shares of our Class A common stock. To the extent that these options are exercised or the shares of Series A Preferred Stock are converted, holders of our Class A common stock will experience further dilution.

The price of our Class A common stock may be volatile, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

        The trading price of our Class A common stock may fluctuate substantially and may be higher or lower than the initial public offering price. The trading price of our Class A common stock will depend on a number of factors, including those described in this "Item 1A—Risk Factors" section, many of which are beyond our control and may not be related to our operating performance. These fluctuations could cause you to lose all or part of your investment in our Class A common stock as you may be unable to sell your shares at or above the price you paid, or at all. Factors that could cause fluctuations in the trading price of our Class A common stock include the following:

145


Table of Contents

        In the past, following periods of market volatility, stockholders have instituted securities class action litigation. We may be the target of this type of litigation in the future. If we were to become involved in securities litigation, it could have a substantial cost and divert resources and the attention of our management team from our business regardless of the outcome of such litigation.

        In addition, price volatility may be greater if the public float and trading volume of our Class A common stock is low. As a result, you may suffer a loss on your investment.

If we or our existing investors sell additional shares of our Class A common stock or shares of our Series A Preferred Stock are converted into shares of our Class A common stock, the market price of our Class A common stock could decline.

        The market price of our Class A common stock could decline as a result of sales of a large number of shares of Class A common stock in the market, or the perception that such sales could occur. These sales, or the possibility that these sales may occur, also might make it more difficult for us to raise capital through future sales of equity securities at a time and at a price that we deem appropriate, or at all.

        We, our directors and executive officers and holders of substantially all of our outstanding common stock (including Wengen and the IFC Investors (other than the Korean Investment Corporation, which holds 1,390,902 shares of our common stock)) have agreed not to (i) offer, pledge, sell, contract to sell, sell any option or contract to purchase, purchase any option or contract to sell, grant any option, right or warrant to purchase, lend or otherwise transfer or dispose of, directly or indirectly, any shares of Class A common stock or any securities convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for shares of Class A common stock; (ii) file any registration statement with the SEC relating to the offering of any shares of Class A common stock or any securities convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for Class A common stock or (iii) enter into any swap or other arrangement that transfers to another, in whole or in part, any of the economic consequences of ownership of Class A common stock, without the consent of the representatives of the underwriters for a period of 180 days from the date of the consummation of our initial public offering, subject to certain exceptions. On an as converted basis, these shares represent approximately 81.1% of our outstanding Class A common stock. Our Class A common stock that is issued upon conversion of our Class B common stock also may be sold pursuant to Rule 144 under the Securities Act, depending on their holding period and subject to restrictions in the case of shares held by persons deemed to be our affiliates. As restrictions on resale end or if these stockholders exercise their registration rights, the market price of our stock could decline if the holders of restricted shares sell them or are perceived by the market as intending to sell them. See

146


Table of Contents

"Item 13—Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence—Registration Rights Agreement."

        In addition, pursuant to the Note Exchange Agreements, we will exchange $250.0 million in aggregate principal amount of Senior Notes for shares of our Class A common stock. We expect the exchange to be completed within one year and one day after the consummation of our initial public offering, subject to certain exceptions that could result in the exchange being completed prior to that time. The number of shares of Class A common stock issuable will equal 104.625% of the aggregate principal amount of Senior Notes to be exchanged, or $261.6 million, divided by $14.00, the initial public offering price per share of Class A common stock. Assuming the completion of the exchange transaction on the one-year anniversary of our initial public offering, we expect to issue an aggregate of 18,683,036 shares of Class A common stock. The shares of Class A common stock issued upon completion of the exchange will not be subject to any lock up agreements and may be sold pursuant to Rule 144 under the Securities Act, depending on their holding period and subject to restrictions in the case of shares held by persons deemed to be our affiliates. As restrictions on resale end, the market price of our Class A common stock could decline if the holders of restricted shares sell them or are perceived by the market as intending to sell them.

        In addition, the holders of the shares of Series A Preferred Stock may convert their shares of Series A Preferred Stock into shares of our Class A common stock within one year and one day after the consummation of our initial public offering, subject to certain exceptions that could result in the holders being able to convert their shares of Series A Preferred Stock prior to that time. The number of shares of Class A common stock issuable upon conversion will depend upon, among other things, the number of shares of Class A common stock sold and the initial public offering price per share of Class A common stock. At the initial public offering price of $14.00 per share, and assuming all interest is paid in cash through the conversion date and the completion of the exchange transaction on the one-year anniversary of our initial public offering, we expect to issue an aggregate of 33,613,446 shares of Class A common stock. Depending on when and in what manner the shares of Series A Preferred Stock are converted, the shares of Class A common stock issued upon conversion may or may not be subject to any lock up agreements and may be sold pursuant to Rule 144 under the Securities Act, depending on their holding period and subject to restrictions in the case of shares held by persons deemed to be our affiliates. As restrictions on resale end, the market price of our Class A common stock could decline if the holders of restricted shares sell them or are perceived by the market as intending to sell them.

        As of December 31, 2016, after giving effect to the recapitalization of our existing common stock into an equivalent number of shares of our Class B common stock and the authorization of our Class A common stock in connection with the consummation of our initial public offering, 133,376,074 shares of our Class B common stock were outstanding, in addition to 28,406 shares of Class B common stock that are subject to forfeiture and substantial restrictions on transfer (the "restricted shares"). Such amount excludes 5,413,654 shares of Class B common stock issuable upon the exercise of outstanding vested stock options under the 2007 Stock Incentive Plan (the "2007 Plan"), 91,000 shares of Class B common stock subject to outstanding unvested stock options under the 2007 Plan, 3,289,961 shares of Class B common stock issuable upon the exercise of outstanding vested stock options under the 2013 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the "2013 Plan"), 2,133,528 shares of Class B common stock subject to outstanding unvested stock options under the 2013 Plan, 4,888,529 shares of Class A common stock and/or Class B common stock reserved for future issuance under the 2013 Plan, 7,432 shares of Class B common stock reserved for future issuance under the Post-2004 DCP, 2,773,098 shares of Class B common stock issuable upon exercise of options granted to Mr. Becker in exchange for the liquidation of certain of his Executive Profits Interests, and all shares of Class A common stock issuable upon conversion of the Series A Preferred Stock. See "Item 11—Executive Compensation" for information relating to the terms of the restricted shares, the Post-2004 DCP, Mr. Becker's Executive

147


Table of Contents

DCP and Mr. Becker's Executive Profits Interests. All of our outstanding shares of Class B common stock (other than the restricted shares) will first become eligible for resale 180 days after the date of the consummation of our initial public offering. Sales of a substantial number of shares of our Class B common stock, which will automatically convert into Class A common stock upon sale, could cause the market price of our Class A common stock to decline.

Because we have no current plans to pay cash dividends on our common stock for the foreseeable future, and our debt arrangements and the Series A Preferred Stock place certain restrictions on our ability to do so, you may not receive any return on investment unless you sell your Class A common stock for a price greater than that which you paid for it.

        We may retain future earnings, if any, for future operation, expansion, debt repayment and the possible mandatory redemption of the shares of Series A Preferred Stock pursuant to the terms of the certificate of designations governing our Series A Preferred Stock (the "Certificate of Designations") and have no current plans to pay any cash dividends for the foreseeable future. Any decision to declare and pay dividends in the future will be made at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on, among other things, our results of operations, financial condition, cash requirements, contractual restrictions, restrictions on dividends imposed by the Certificate of Designations and other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant. In addition, our ability to pay dividends may be limited by covenants of any existing and future outstanding indebtedness we or our subsidiaries incur, including our Senior Secured Credit Facilities and the indenture governing our outstanding notes, and the terms of our Series A Preferred Stock. In addition, we are permitted under the terms of our debt instruments to incur additional indebtedness, which may restrict or prevent us from paying dividends on our common stock. Furthermore, our ability to declare and pay dividends may be limited by instruments governing future outstanding indebtedness we may incur. As a result, you may not receive any return on an investment in our Class A common stock unless you sell your Class A common stock for a price greater than that which you paid for it.

The dual class structure of our common stock as contained in our certificate of incorporation has the effect of concentrating voting control with those stockholders who held our stock prior to our initial public offering, including Wengen and our executive officers, employees and directors and their affiliates, and limiting your ability to influence corporate matters.

        Each share of our Class B common stock has ten votes per share, and each share of our Class A common stock has one vote per share. Stockholders who hold shares of Class B common stock, including Wengen, and our executive officers, employees and directors and their affiliates, together hold approximately 97.4% of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock, and therefore have significant influence over the management and affairs of the Company and control over all matters requiring stockholder approval, including election of directors and significant corporate transactions, such as a merger or other sale of our company or its assets, for the foreseeable future. Because of the 10-to-1 voting ratio between our Class B and Class A common stock, the holders of our Class B common stock collectively will continue to control a majority of the combined voting power of our common stock even when the shares of Class B common stock represent less than a majority of the outstanding shares of our Class A and Class B common stock.

        The Wengen Investors have control over our decisions to enter into any corporate transaction and the ability to prevent any transaction that requires stockholder approval regardless of whether others believe that the transaction is in our best interests. So long as the Wengen Investors continue to have an indirect interest in a majority of our outstanding Class B common stock, they have the ability to control the vote in any election of directors. This concentrated control limits your ability to influence corporate matters for the foreseeable future and, as a result, the market price of our Class A common stock could be materially adversely affected. In addition, in connection with the completion of our

148


Table of Contents

initial public offering, we entered into an amendment and restatement of the Wengen Securityholders' Agreement dated as of July 11, 2007, by and among Wengen and the other parties thereto (as amended and restated from time to time, the "Wengen Securityholders' Agreement"), pursuant to which certain of the Wengen Investors have certain rights to appoint directors to our board of directors and its committees. See "Item 13—Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence—Agreements with Wengen."

        In addition, the Wengen Investors are in the business of making or advising on investments in companies and may hold, and may from time to time in the future acquire, interests in or provide advice to businesses that directly or indirectly compete with certain portions of our business or are suppliers or customers of ours.

The Certificate of Designations governing the terms of our Series A Preferred Stock contains rights and privileges that may adversely affect the holders of our Class A common stock, and, if we are unable to redeem the shares of Series A Preferred Stock when required, the holders of the shares of Series A Preferred Stock could take control of our board of directors and force a sale of the Company.

        So long as there are shares of Series A Preferred Stock outstanding, the holders of such security are entitled to annual dividends and have seniority upon any distribution of the Company's cash and other assets. The holders of Series A Preferred Stock also have veto power over certain corporate matters, such as (i) amending or repealing any provision of our certificate of incorporation or bylaws that would adversely affect the rights, preferences, privileges or voting powers of the Series A Preferred Stock, including any amendment that would increase or decrease the authorized number of shares of Series A Preferred Stock, and (ii) if it is not a follow-on public offering after our initial public offering in which the holders of the Series A Preferred Stock receive net proceeds not less than the Priority Amount, the first public offering of our common stock following a QPO (as defined below) or an initial public offering that is not a QPO. The holders of shares of the Series A Preferred Stock may have interests adverse to holders of our Class A common stock and the exercise of such rights may have a negative impact on the value of Class A common stock or the amount of cash or other assets the holders of our common stock may receive in connection with a distribution or merger, consolidation or share exchange.

        In addition, if we fail to redeem the shares of Series A Preferred Stock when required after the fifth anniversary of the issue date, the holders of the Series A Preferred Stock are entitled to appoint two members to our board of directors and the dividend rate increases to 18.0% per annum. For a period of 120 days following the appointment of such directors, we must work in good faith with the holders of the Series A Preferred Stock to structure a mutually agreeable capital fundraising transaction to redeem the then outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock. If, after such 120 day period, any shares of Series A Preferred Stock remain outstanding, the holders of the Series A Preferred Stock may nominate a number of individuals to our board of directors such that after such nomination the holders of the Series A Preferred Stock control a majority of our board of directors and, after which, the holders of Series A Preferred Stock may cause a sale of the Company and/or cause the Company to raise debt or equity capital in an amount sufficient to redeem the remaining outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock.

We will incur increased costs as a result of being a public company, and the requirements of being a public company may divert management's attention from our business and materially adversely affect our financial results.

        As a public company, we are subject to a number of requirements, including the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and the Nasdaq listing standards. These requirements will cause us to incur increased costs and might place a strain on

149


Table of Contents

our systems and resources. The Exchange Act requires, among other things, that we file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. In order to maintain and improve the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, significant resources and management oversight will be required. As a result, our management's attention might be diverted from other business concerns, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We may not be successful in implementing these requirements and implementing them could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. Furthermore, we might not be able to retain our independent directors or attract new independent directors for our committees.

        In addition, the need to establish the corporate infrastructure demanded of a public company may direct management's attention, from implementing our business strategy, which could prevent us from improving our business, financial condition and results of operations. We have made, and will continue to make, changes to our internal controls, including information technology controls, and procedures for financial reporting and accounting systems to meet our reporting obligations as a public company. However, the measures we take may not be sufficient to satisfy our obligations as a public company. If we do not continue to develop and implement the right processes and tools to manage our changing enterprise and maintain our culture, our ability to compete successfully and achieve our business objectives could be impaired, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, we cannot predict or estimate the amount of additional costs we may incur to comply with these requirements. We anticipate that these costs will materially increase our general and administrative expenses.

We are a "controlled company" within the meaning of the Nasdaq rules and, as a result, qualify for, and rely on, exemptions from certain corporate governance requirements. Our stockholders do not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to such requirements.

        Wengen controls a majority of the voting power of our outstanding common stock. As a result, we are a "controlled company" within the meaning of the Nasdaq corporate governance standards. Under these rules, a company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by an individual, group or another company is a "controlled company" and may elect not to comply with certain corporate governance requirements, including:

        We utilize these exemptions and intend to continue to do so. As a result, we do not have a majority of independent directors, our nominating and corporate governance committee and our compensation committee do not consist entirely of independent directors and such committees are not be subject to annual performance evaluations. Accordingly, for so long as we are a "controlled company," you will not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of Nasdaq.

150


Table of Contents

Provisions in our certificate of incorporation, Certificate of Designations and bylaws and the Delaware General Corporation Law could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us and could discourage a takeover and adversely affect the holders of our Class A common stock.

        Provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, as well as provisions of Delaware law could discourage, delay or prevent a merger, acquisition or other change in control of the Company, even if such change in control would be beneficial to the holders of our Class A common stock. These provisions include:

        These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for you and other stockholders to elect directors of your choosing and cause us to take other corporate actions you desire. In addition, because our board of directors is responsible for appointing the members of our management team, these provisions could in turn affect any attempt by our stockholders to replace current members of our management team.

We may issue additional shares of preferred stock in the future, which could make it difficult for another company to acquire us or could otherwise adversely affect holders of our Class A common stock, which could depress the price of our Class A common stock.

        Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation authorizes us to issue one or more additional series of preferred stock. Our board of directors has the authority to determine the preferences, limitations and relative rights of any additional shares of preferred stock and to fix the number of shares constituting any series and the designation of such series, without any further vote or action by our stockholders. Additional series of preferred stock could be issued with voting, liquidation, dividend and other rights superior to the rights of our Class A common stock. The potential issuance of an additional series of preferred stock may delay or prevent a change in control of us, discourage bids for our Class A common stock at a premium to the market price, and materially adversely affect the market price and the voting and other rights of the holders of our Class A common stock.

151


Table of Contents

The provision of our certificate of incorporation requiring exclusive venue in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware for certain types of lawsuits may have the effect of discouraging lawsuits against our directors and officers.

        Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation requires, to the fullest extent permitted by law, that (a) any derivative action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (b) any action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers or other employees to us or our stockholders, (c) any action asserting a claim against us arising pursuant to any provision of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the "DGCL") or our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or the bylaws or (d) any action asserting a claim against us governed by the internal affairs doctrine will have to be brought only in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our capital stock is deemed to have notice of and to have consented to the provisions of our amended and restated certificate of incorporation described above. This choice of forum provision many limit a stockholder's ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or any of our directors, officers, other employees or stockholders, which may discourage lawsuits with respect to such claims. Alternatively, if a court were to find the choice of forum provision contained in our certificate of incorporation to be inapplicable or unenforceable in an action, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such action in other jurisdictions, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

If securities analysts do not publish research or reports about our business or if they publish unfavorable commentary about us or our industry or downgrade our Class A common stock, the trading price of our Class A common stock could decline.

        We expect that the trading price for our Class A common stock will be affected by any research or reports that securities analysts publish about us or our business. If one or more of the analysts who may elect to cover us or our business downgrade their evaluations of our Class A common stock, the price of our Class A common stock would likely decline. We may be unable or slow to attract research coverage and if one or more analysts cease coverage of our company, we could lose visibility in the market for our Class A common stock, which in turn could cause our stock price to decline.

ITEM 1B.    UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

        None.

ITEM 2.    PROPERTIES

        Laureate is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland. As of December 31, 2016, there were more than 200 Laureate locations around the world. These locations include buildings and land comprising a total of approximately 124.4 million square feet, of which, approximately 62.4 million square feet were under lease and approximately 62.0 million square feet were owned. The following table summarizes the properties leased and owned by segment prior to the segment change, as the effects were not significant:

Segment
  Square feet
leased space
  Square feet
owned space
  Total
square feet
 

LatAm

    52,990,277     25,888,759     78,879,036  

Europe

    3,055,751     5,994,282     9,050,033  

AMEA

    3,024,277     30,053,487     33,077,764  

GPS

    3,129,925     109,104     3,239,029  

Corporate (including headquarters)

    202,947         202,947  

Total

    62,403,177     62,045,632     124,448,809  

152


Table of Contents

        Our LatAm, Europe and AMEA segments lease and own various sites that may include a local headquarters and all or some of the facilities of a campus or location. In many countries, our facilities are subject to mortgages.

        Our GPS segment has offices at our headquarters location in Baltimore and leases eight additional facilities in Columbia, Maryland; Los Angeles, California; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Tempe, Arizona; San Antonio, Texas; Gdansk, Poland; Liverpool, England and Amsterdam, Netherlands. Our headquarters consists of two leased facilities in Baltimore, Maryland, which are used primarily for office space.

        We monitor the capacity of our higher education institutions on a regular basis and make decisions to expand capacity based on expected enrollment and other factors. Our leased facilities are occupied under leases whose remaining terms range from one month to 24 years. A majority of these leases contain provisions giving us the right to renew the lease for additional periods at various rental rates, although generally at rates higher than we are currently paying.

ITEM 3.    LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

        We are party to various claims and legal proceedings from time to time. Except as described below, we are not aware of any legal proceedings that we believe could have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition.

        On October 5, 2016, a student filed suit against us and Walden University in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in the matter of Latonya Thornhill v. Walden University, et. al., claiming that her progress in her program was delayed by Walden University and seeking class action status to represent a nationwide class of purportedly similarly situated doctoral students. The claims include fraud in the inducement, breach of contract, consumer fraud under the laws of Maryland and Ohio, and unjust enrichment. We and Walden University were served on October 17, 2016. On December 16, 2016, we and Walden University filed a motion to dismiss the claims and a motion to strike the class action certification request. On January 12, 2017, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, making modifications to supplement some of the factual allegations and seeking to change the governing law of the case to the law of Minnesota. A substantive response to the amended complaint was filed on February 9, 2017. The Thornhill court has temporarily stayed this case in its entirety until May 1, 2017, pending the outcome of the Multi-District Litigation proceeding discussed below. Walden University and we intend to defend against this case vigorously, including the request to certify a nationwide class.

        On October 18, 2016, a former student filed suit against us and Walden University pro se in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in the matter of Eric D. Streeter v. Walden University, et. al. (Case No. 1CCB6-CV-3460), claiming that his progress in his program was delayed by Walden University and Laureate. The claims include unjust enrichment, breach of contract, violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, violation of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, libel, and violation of the False Claims Act. While we and Walden University have not yet been served in this matter, Walden University and we intend to defend against this case vigorously. After plaintiff filed a certificate of service claiming to have served us and Walden, on February 9, 2017 we filed a motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. That motion is currently pending.

        On December 1, 2016, five students filed suit against us and Walden University in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in the matter of Jennifer Wright, et al v. Walden University,  et. al., claiming that their progress in their programs was delayed by Walden University and seeking class action status to represent a nationwide class of purportedly similarly situated doctoral students. The claims include fraud in the inducement, breach of contract, consumer fraud, and breach of implied covenant of fair dealing under the laws of Minnesota, California, Georgia, Washington and Michigan, and unjust enrichment. Walden University and we were served in this matter on December 8,

153


Table of Contents

2016, Walden University and we intend to defend against this case vigorously, including the request to certify a nationwide class. On January 13, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay proceedings, pursuant to the first-filed rule, based upon the fact that the Thornhill case was filed first in Ohio. The Wright court has stayed the proceedings pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss, for which a hearing is scheduled on March 22, 2017.

        On December 20, 2016, a former student filed suit against Walden University, in the Bexar County District Court in Texas in the matter of Dianna Medellin v. Walden University, LLC (Cause No. 2016C121637), claiming that Walden University intentionally deceived her by praising her and allowing her to successfully complete her coursework in her doctoral program, only to then prolong the dissertation writing process as much as possible. The case alleges causes of action for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud and includes certain factual allegations that are identical to the other purported class action lawsuits. Laureate has not been sued in this matter and Walden University was served on January 26, 2017. Walden removed the case to US federal district court in Texas on February 21, 2017. This matter has been resolved and the case was dismissed on March 15, 2017.

        On December 29, 2016, a former student filed suit against us and Walden University in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in the matter of Aaron Bleess, et al v. Walden University, et. al (Case No. 16-CV-4402), claiming that his progress in his program was delayed by Walden University and seeking class action status to represent a nationwide class of purportedly similarly situated doctoral students. The claims include, under the laws of Minnesota, breach of contract, consumer fraud, breach of implied covenant of fair dealing, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Consumer Protection Fraud Act. Laureate and Walden University were served on January 5 and January 6, 2017, respectively. On January 17, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay proceedings, pursuant to the first-filed rule, based upon the fact that the Thornhill case was filed first in Ohio. The Bleess court has stayed the proceedings pending a ruling on this motion to dismiss. Walden University and we intend to defend against this case vigorously, including the request to certify a nationwide class. This case appears to be nearly identical in allegations, including the same alleged class, as Thornhill and Wright.

        On December 23, 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs in Thornhill and Wright filed a motion to consolidate pretrial proceedings in these matters, as well as the Streeter and Medellin matters, to the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL). Bleess' counsel has filed a notice of intent to participate as an interested party of the consolation motion. Laureate and Walden University filed a motion in opposition to transfer to MDL on January 17, 2017, which was opposed on January 24, 2017. A hearing is scheduled for March 30, 2017.

        In addition, several groups of current and former students filed five separate law suits in the Seventh Judicial Circuit in and for St. Johns County, Florida against St. Augustine relating to matters arising before we acquired that institution in November 2013. The suits are Hemingway et al. v. University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences, Inc. filed on August 12, 2013; Jennings v. University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences, LLC et al. filed on March 26, 2015, which was resolved in March 2016 and dismissed; Albritton et al. v. University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences, LLC filed on April 9, 2015, which was resolved in October 2015 and dismissed; Stephens v. University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences, LLC filed on November 11, 2015 which was resolved in June 2016 and dismissed; and Johnson v. University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences, LLC filed on June 16, 2016. The allegations in the remaining cases relate to a program that was launched in May 2011 and, at the time, offered a "Master of Orthopaedic Physician's Assistant Program" degree. The plaintiffs in these matters allege that the university misrepresented their ability to practice as licensed Physician Assistants with a heightened specialty in orthopaedics. The plaintiffs in the remaining cases are seeking relief including refund of tuition paid to St. Augustine, as well as loan debt incurred by the plaintiffs while attending St. Augustine, loss of future earnings and litigation costs. The Hemingway matter is awaiting a trial

154


Table of Contents

date. The Johnson matter is at a preliminary stage of discovery. We believe the claims in these cases are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against the allegations. With respect to the two pending St. Augustine cases, under the terms of the acquisition agreement for St. Augustine, we expect to be indemnified by the seller for substantially all of the liability with respect to any claims in these cases. We also have a right of set-off against the seller for such amounts.

        On November 16, 2016, Michael S. Ryan, the former chief accounting officer of the Company, filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor alleging retaliatory employment practices in violation of the whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Michael S. Ryan vs. Laureate Education, Inc., Case No. 3-0050-17-011). The complaint also alleges a lack of compliance with U.S. GAAP and violations of certain SEC rules and regulations. The complaint does not seek any specified amount of damages. The Company has investigated the allegations made in the complaint with the assistance of outside legal and accounting advisers and believes that its consolidated financial statements are in compliance with U.S. GAAP and SEC rules and regulations in all material respects and that the allegations are baseless and without merit. The Company intends to assert all appropriate defenses to these allegations and filed a statement of position with the U.S. Department of Labor on December 13, 2016. On March 13, 2017 Mr. Ryan submitted a reply to the Company's statement of position. The Company intends to continue to defend itself vigorously.

        During 2010, we were notified by the STA (in this case, by the Regional Inspection Office of the Special Madrid Tax Unit) that an audit of some of our Spanish subsidiaries was being initiated for 2006 and 2007. On June 29, 2012, the STA issued a final assessment to ICE, our Spanish holding company, for approximately EUR 11.1 million ($11.5 million at December 31, 2016), including interest, for those two years based on its rejection of the tax deductibility of financial expenses related to certain intercompany acquisitions and the application of the Spanish ETVE regime. On July 25, 2012 we filed a claim with the Regional Economic-Administrative Court challenging this assessment and, in the same month, we issued a cash-collateralized letter of credit for the assessment amount, in order to suspend the payment of the tax due. Further, in July 2013, we were notified by the STA (in this case, by the Central Inspection Office for Large Taxpayers) that an audit of ICE was also being initiated for 2008 through 2010. On October 19, 2015, the STA issued a final assessment to ICE for approximately EUR 17.2 million ($17.9 million at December 31, 2016), including interest, for those three years. We have appealed this assessment and, in order to suspend the payment of the tax assessment until the court decision, we issued a cash-collateralized letter of credit for the assessment amount plus interest and surcharges. We believe the assessments in this case are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against them. During the second quarter of 2016, we were notified by the STA that tax audits of the Spanish subsidiaries were also being initiated for 2011 and 2012; no assessments have yet been issued for these years. Also during the second quarter of 2016, the Regional Administrative Court issued a decision against the Company on its appeal. The Company has further appealed at the Highest Administrative Court level. The Company plans to continue the appeals process for the periods already audited and assessed.

ITEM 4.    MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

        Not applicable.

155


Table of Contents


PART II

ITEM 5.    MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Market Information

        Our Class A common stock has traded on the Nasdaq under the symbol "LAUR" since February 1, 2017. Prior to that date, there was no public trading market for our Class A common stock. As a result, we have not set forth quarterly information with respect to the high and low prices for our Class A common stock or provided a performance graph. On March 28, 2017, the last reported sale price of our common stock was $13.90. There is currently no established public trading market for our Class B common stock.

Holders of Record

        There were 1 holder of record of our Class A common stock and 324 holders of record of our Class B common stock as of March 15, 2017. The number of beneficial owners of our Class A common stock is substantially greater than the number of record holders, because substantially all of our Class A common stock is held in "street name" by banks and brokers.

Dividend Policy

        We currently do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our Class A common stock or Class B common stock in the foreseeable future. We expect to retain our future earnings, if any, for use in the operation and expansion of our business. The terms of our senior secured credit agreement governing our Senior Secured Credit Facilities, the indenture governing our outstanding Senior Notes and the Certificate of Designations governing our Series A Preferred Stock limit our ability to pay cash dividends in certain circumstances. Furthermore, if we are in default under the senior secured credit agreement governing our Senior Secured Credit Facilities or the indenture governing our outstanding Senior Notes, our ability to pay cash dividends will be limited in the absence of a waiver of that default or an amendment to such agreement or such indenture. In addition, our ability to pay cash dividends on shares of our Class A common stock may be limited by restrictions on our ability to obtain sufficient funds through dividends from our subsidiaries. For more information on our senior secured credit agreement governing our Senior Secured Credit Facilities and the indenture governing our outstanding Senior Notes, see "Item 7—Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and Note 9, Debt. Subject to the foregoing, the 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, capital requirements, our overall financial condition and any other factors deemed relevant by our board of directors.

        We made cash distributions on our common stock in an aggregate amount of $0 and $19.0 million, in 2016 and 2015, respectively, prior to the reclassification of our common stock in connection with our initial public offering.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

        See "Item 12—Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters—Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans."

Use of Proceeds

        On February 6, 2017, we completed our initial public offering pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-207243) (the "IPO Registration Statement"), which the SEC declared effective on January 31, 2017, and a registration statement on Form S-1MEF (File No. 333-215845),

156


Table of Contents

which became effective on January 31, 2017. We registered a total of 40,250,000 shares of our Class A common stock. In our initial public offering, we issued and sold 35,000,000 shares of our Class A common stock to the public at a price of $14.00 per share, for aggregate gross offering proceeds of $490.0 million. The managing underwriters for our initial public offering were Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and Barclays Capital Inc.

        The aggregate proceeds received by us from our initial public offering were $456.5 million, net of $33.5 million in underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses payable by us. No offering expenses were paid directly or indirectly to any of our directors or officers (or their associates) or persons owning 10% or more of any class of our equity securities or to any other affiliates.

        On March 1, 2017, in accordance with the Note Exchange Agreements, we redeemed Senior Notes with an aggregate principal amount of $22,556,000 at a repurchase price of 104.625% of the aggregate principal amount for a total payment of $23,599,215, which is consistent with the use of proceeds from our initial public offering as described in our final prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4) on February 2, 2017 (the "Final Prospectus"). The remainder of the funds have been invested in cash and cash equivalents. No payments were paid in such redemption directly or indirectly to any of our directors or officers (or their associates) or persons owning 10% or more of any class of our equity securities or to any other affiliates. We intend to use the remaining proceeds from our initial public offering as described in the Final Prospectus.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

        During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, we sold the following securities which were not registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended:

        On December 30, 2016, we issued $10.453 million aggregate principal amount of our Senior Notes to the participants in stock-based deferred compensation arrangements in final settlement of the deferred compensation obligations. The Senior Notes were issued pursuant to Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act as transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering.

        On December 20, 2016, we sold 343,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock, consisting of 23,000 shares of Convertible Redeemable Preferred Stock Series A-1 sold to one purchaser and 320,000 shares of Convertible Redeemable Preferred Stock Series A-2 sold to 22 purchasers. See "Item 1—Business—Recent Developments—Series A Preferred Stock Offering." The securities were offered and sold in a private placement offering in reliance upon exemptions from registration pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act and Rule 506 of Regulation D promulgated under the Securities Act.

        On February 10, 2016, we granted to two of our officers, employees or other service providers options to purchase an aggregate of 5,322 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $22.40 per share. The options were issued pursuant to Rule 701 promulgated under Section 3(b) of the Securities Act as transactions by an issuer not involving any public offering or pursuant to benefit plans and contracts relating to compensation as provided under Rule 701.

        On May 2, 2016, we granted to 114 of our officers, employees or other service providers options to purchase an aggregate of 131,945 shares of common stock at an exercise price of $23.24 per share. The options were issued pursuant to Rule 701 promulgated under Section 3(b) of the Securities Act as transactions by an issuer not involving any pu