On June 25, 2012, the Higher Learning Commission (“HLC”) informed Ashford that it must demonstrate, no later than December 1, 2012, that it has a “substantial presence” in the 19-state north central region of the United States. Then, on July 9, 2012, Bridgepoint filed a Form 8-K with the SEC advising that on July 5, 2012, Ashford had received an official notice denying its accreditation application by the Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities of the WASC. Subsequently on July 9, 2012, Bridgepoint issued a press release announcing that Ashford would appeal the decision and re-apply for WASC accreditation. On this news, shares of Bridgepoint common stock dropped nearly 34%, closing at $14.25 per share on July 9, 2012 from $21.50 the previous day, on volume of 1.2 million shares.The Complaint also alleges that these true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Company failed to implement plans, procedures and practices to sufficiently assist students in staying with the programs they enrolled in and complete the courses; (b) the Company failed to align resources with educational requirements such that students were not benefitting from the resources available and were therefore not progressing to an acceptable level; (c) Ashford failed to maintain a sufficient core of faculty and programs to develop faculty, leading to poor teaching and poor completion rates by students and also leading to a less rigorous curriculum causing even students who completed the programs to be ill-prepared in their respective disciplines; (d) Bridgepoint had inadequate review procedures such that shortfalls were not quickly identified and remedied; and (e) Ashford failed to maintain an empowered and independent governing board. In addition, the Complaint alleges that the individual defendants, certain officers and directors of the Company, engaged in sales of Bridgepoint Education stock during the Class Period for proceeds of more than $21 million.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 11, 2012. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member’s claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in state and federal courts throughout the United States. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.