SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Lundin Law PC Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit against K12, Inc. and Reminds Investors with Losses to Contact the Firm

August 29, 2016

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / August 29, 2016 / Lundin Law PC (the “Firm”) announces a class action lawsuit has been filed against K12, Inc. (“K12” or the “Company”) (LRN) concerning possible violations of federal securities laws between November 7, 2013 and October 27, 2015 (the “Class Period”). Investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period, should contact the Firm in advance of the September 19, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, click here. You can also call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

According to the complaint, K12 issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: that the Company published misleading advertisements about students’ academic progress, parent satisfaction, graduates’ eligibility for admission into the University of California and California State University, class sizes, the individualized and flexible nature of K12’s instruction, hidden costs, and the quality of the materials provided to students; that the Company submitted inflated student attendance numbers to the California Department of Education in order to receive additional funding; that K12 was open to potential civil and criminal liability due to these practices; that K12 would likely be forced to end these practices, which would have a negative impact on its operations and prospects; and as a result of the above, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When this information was released to the public, shares of K12 dropped in value, causing investors harm.

Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders’ rights.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in certain jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contact:

Lundin Law PC Brian Lundin, Esq. Telephone: 888-713-1033 Facsimile: 888-713-1125 brian@lundinlawpc.com http://lundinlawpc.com/

SOURCE: Lundin Law PC

View photos

Odd commentary considering the writer is working for the company who screws up kids. 

An election year when school choice is ignored

By Nate Davis, contributor    

Getty Images

It’s bad enough that during two straight weeks of Republican and Democratic conventions, we never really grasped a true sense of what newly nominated presidential contenders would do to improve the uncertain state of K-12 education in America.

Worse — especially since then — is that we have yet to see a solid reform-driven or innovation-focused commitment from candidates as the solution to our education crisis. A sorely needed exchange on parental choice and access to creative online learning platforms is, perhaps, the most significant missing policy deep-dive since the presidential cycle began in earnest over a year ago. For the most part, presidential candidates have steered clear of any focus on choice in K-12 as a main prescription to constant problems plaguing our school systems and challenging our kids.

That’s unfortunate, since parents are voters, too.

It is rather mysterious considering the sheer size, cost and long-term destructive impact of the K-12 crisis. Yet, as candidates on the campaign trail bludgeoned each other over everything from salacious tweets, badly placed emails and hand sizes, little is said on how policymakers could intervene to save the nation’s struggling elementary, middle and high-school students. The intervention is clearly found in school districts embracing new, progressive education models that meet the needs of future societies and workforces — models such as blended experiential and online learning in and, yes, outside the conventional classroom. Models, such as charter schools, that offer parents the options they need to ensure their child’s success in an increasingly competitive global environment.

That battle is no more urgent for any group than it is for our nation’s most underserved and historically distressed: from black and Latino youth to low-income and struggling working-class communities already battered by the effects (and after-effects) of recession. The last thing already economically challenged black or brown students and their parents should worry about is the quality of their education.

Likewise, those high-achieving students, rural students, bullied students and others are desperate for choices that allow them to excel in their education. For example: I met a student from West Virginia last week who enrolled in online courses that she could not take in her local, excellent but small neighborhood school. She and her parents were told by the guidance counselor that the courses she wanted were unavailable. The eventual valedictorian for her class, she took additional courses from a for-profit online provider that allowed her to achieve higher SAT scores and take courses otherwise unavailable to her. There were even language courses available that she would otherwise only take in college. Without choice, this high-achieving student — like hundreds of thousands of others — would not continue to excel and would be limited in what local schools could offer.

Clearly, you can’t have a conversation about improving the quality of life for underserved, diverse populations or high-achieving students unless you pose workable ideas on education. You can’t pose workable ideas on education or expect the condition of underserved youth to improve if you refuse to put school choice and access to new modes of learning in the mix.

Major openings for the presidential candidates to discuss choice and online education as a primary learning tool are either conveniently dismissed, lost in political posturing or altogether forgotten. We clearly can’t rely on the articulation of a policy vision from the Republican nominee (for obvious reasons). But when we look to Democratic nominee Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonEx-GM CEO: I’ve always voted Republican until now Election reveals Paul Ryan to be worst speaker in U.S. history Dem Senate candidate knocks Rubio for Trump support MORE for a thoughtful approach on issues such as parental choice, we find her either taking the side of unionized teachers (even if it contradicts earlier, steadfast support for charter schools) or completely missing those grand opportunities to present it as a viable long-term beacon of educational hope.

Nowhere was that unfortunate oversight on vivid display than at her recent appearance before a joint meeting of the National Association of Black Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. When offered a few moments to lay out her policy vision for black and brown progress in America, Clinton left out school choice and relegated digital learning to merely PCs in the classroom.

Nor did the assemblage of esteemed African-American and Latino reporters, talk-show hosts, editors and producers ask her about it.

Unfortunately, online, radio and cable outlets are so focused on the latest campaign gaffe or doubled down faux pas that the plight of school children gets left behind in the political dust-up.

Still, campaigns refuse any raised or sustained debate on choice as a tangible way to address our ongoing K-12 crisis with any tangible solutions. Few want to take a firm position supporting parental preference in education, despite the vast number of voting parents who want (and need) it. Most seem oblivious to the need for expanded and innovative options for K-12 students, despite an abundance of evidence suggesting online learning, blended classrooms and access to multifaceted educational environments are exactly what’s essential for an increasingly diverse American landscape.

Yet, when examining many of the larger national polls, parents — especially black and Latino parents — are demanding more choice and creative, digital learning in and outside the classroom. In a National Alliance for Public Charter Schools poll released this year, 80 percent of parents supported some form of educational choice, including 63 percent of black parents and 55 percent of Hispanic parents. A Pathways/YouGov survey on school preferences found that black and Hispanic parents were "more likely" to consider "integrated use of technology" when education options were available.

For these population groups, education is perceived as the most effective pathway to upward socioeconomic mobility. The Pew Research Center shows that 66 percent of Americans identify education as a top 10 issue motivating choices this election cycle. In the most recent weekly YouGov/Economist survey, education still ranks among the top-five issues (out of 15), with more African-Americans and Latinos placing it as a "most important issue" than whites. For voters under 30, education is the top concern (partly out of struggles over student debt, and partly out of recent experiences with troubled school systems). That aligns with a recent GenForward joint poll where education was a top-three concern for voters ages 18 to 30, especially voters of color.

This is not much of a surprise. Education is a greater priority to individuals who find themselves historically disadvantaged or farther down the income ladder. To those faced with fewer resources and access to wealth, education is increasingly respected as the ultimate driver of future success — and choice is a chief path to that goal. Yet, presidential nominees and their parties have failed to promote a vision of what will make K-12 education better, even as the shifting demographic environment continues to demand such.

That school choice is not a headlining issue of our time rests not on the shoulders of voters. Elected officials, policymakers, pundits and those who constitute the rest of our active political and media class must aggressively tackle that discussion. We need a debate and movement where educational options are plentiful and innovation in (and outside) the classroom is the norm rather than the exception.

Davis is executive chairman of K12 Inc., a technology-based education company and leading provider of online learning programs to schools across the U.S.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

K12 (LRN) Regains Footing After Massive Sell-off

Stephen L Kanaval

Follow
|
Wednesday, 10 August 2016 15:26 (EST)

K12 (LRN)), a technology-based education provider,is now involved in multiple class action lawsuits alleging that the company lied about its student success rates, parent satisfaction, class size, graduates’ eligibility for the University of California and California State University, among other modes of data that was used in press releases and advertisements.

The class action lawsuits stem from a San Jose Mercury News investigation from April this year that looked to expose K12 as a fraudulent moneymaking enterprise that fabricated a wide variety of claims (summarized above).The investigation aimed to demonstrate how K12, a Virginia-based company, took advantage of California education law that have no specific rule about for-profit firms running charter schools in the state. Initially, K12 established online schools with individual, separate names so that the school and the corporation seemed unlinked for tax-exempt purposes because Federal Tax Laws prohibit charitable organizations from working to benefit a company. However, the report alleges that K12 employees started online schools posing as a “group of parents.” The company tried later to open a brick and mortar school in Contra Costa County, but was denied on the grounds that the Virginia administrative entity would be running day-today decision making. In addition, the report found that teachers lied about attendance to keep taxpayer dollars coming, very few online students earned diplomas, the company has reaped $312 million in profits over the last twelve years, schools that oversee the online academies get a cut of revenues and are inclined to turn the other way when they see inaccuracies, and many students test well-below state standards in reading and math.

Now, that being said, the company has rallied since April and many analysts were buying the stock to capitalize on the lower cost. In its most recent press release this Tuesday, the company saw earnings per share fall and revenues slumped by 9%. Following that, the stock was sliding but rallied again this morning. During the same press release, the company also said that they have settled with the Attorney General of California and no wrongdoing was admitted. The company logged a $7.1 million settlement for 4Q as a net charge that will go to taxpayers and government expenses accrued in the probe. The volatility of LRN is well documented and many buyers will stay away as more lawsuits are coming, but the truth is that the company is still enrolling students in public school areas and at-home.

DISCLOSURE:
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors, and do not represent the views of equities.com. Readers should not consider statements made by the author as formal recommendations and should consult their financial advisor before making any investment decisions. To read our full disclosure, please go to: http://www.equities.com/disclaimer

Companies

Symbol Name Price Change % Volume
 Follow LRN K12 Inc 11.70 154,769

Comments

You have to be logged in to leave a comment.

Take me to log in
Don’t have an account?

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Lundin Law PC Announces Securities Class Action Lawsuit against K12, Inc. and Encourages Investors with Losses to Contact the Firm

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / August 10, 2016 / Lundin Law PC (the “Firm”) announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against K12, Inc. (“K12” or the “Company”) (LRN) concerning possible violations of federal securities laws between November 7, 2013 and October 27, 2015 (the “Class Period”). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the Firm in advance of the September 19, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, click here. You can also call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

According to the complaint, K12 issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: that the Company published misleading advertisements about students’ academic progress, parent satisfaction, graduates’ eligibility for admission into the University of California and California State University, class sizes, the individualized and flexible nature of K12’s instruction, hidden costs, and the quality of the materials provided to students; that the Company submitted inflated student attendance numbers to the California Department of Education in order to receive additional funding; that K12 was open to potential civil and criminal liability due to these practices; that K12 would likely be forced to end these practices, which would have a negative impact on its operations and prospects; and as a result of the above, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When this news was disclosed, shares of K12 decreasing in value, causing investors harm.

Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders’ rights.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contact:

Lundin Law PC Brian Lundin, Esq. Telephone: 888-713-1033 Facsimile: 888-713-1125 brian@lundinlawpc.com http://lundinlawpc.com/

SOURCE: Lundin Law PC

View photos

Georgia’s largest online school paid millions, earns a D

Local Education

By Ty Tagami


The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Updated: 3:04 p.m. Friday, July 22, 2016Posted: 12:00 a.m. Saturday, July 23, 2016

Georgians spend tens of millions of dollars a year on one of the biggest online schools in the nation, yet nearly every measure indicates the high-tech, online education model has not worked for many of its more than 13,000 students.

Georgia Cyber Academy students log onto online classes from home, where they talk to and message with teachers and classmates and do assignments in a way that will “individualize their education, maximizing their ability to succeed,” according to an advertisement. But results show that most of them lag state performance on everything from standardized test scores to graduation rates.

The charter school’s leaders say they face unique challenges, with large numbers of students already behind when they enroll. They have plans to improve results but also claim the state’s grading methods are unfair and inaccurate. However, the state disagrees, and if the academy cannot show improvement soon, the commission that chartered the school could shut it down.

Since it opened with a couple thousand students in 2007, the academy has grown to become the state’s largest public school, with students from all 159 counties. In the 2015 fiscal year alone, it reported receiving $82 million in state and federal funding.

Parents such as Dione Ansah praise the academy as an attractive alternative to regular schools. The DeKalb County resident chose it for her two daughters after she lost her job and could no longer afford private school. The neighborhood middle school had a reputation for violence, she said, adding, “there was no way I was going to send my kids there.”

Families choose the academy for a variety of other reasons, such as a desire to learn at an individual pace, a medical condition that keeps kids at home or a need for a flexible schedule for work, such as a student with a budding acting career.

Evelyn Bailey, who graduated in May and will attend an Ivy League university this fall, said she was exposed to a diverse group of students through the classes and occasional organized field trips. Bailey thrived while attending class and doing homework on a computer screen in a windowless corner of her Douglasville basement.

“You have to be the kind of student that enjoys having more responsibility,” said Bailey, 18. “You have to be good at managing your time.”

Too few students apparently share her drive and temperament. The academy earned a “D” for 2015 from the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement. The academy scored near the bottom in the state that year for “growth,” a measure of how each student did on standardized state tests compared to others with similar past performance.

The graduation rate of 66 percent lagged behind the state average by 13 percentage points. Reading ability in third grade, a key marker of future academic success, also lagged, with 47 percent of its students able to digest books on their grade level versus a state average of 52 percent.

The State Charter Schools Commission, established in 2013 as an alternative to going through a school district to start a charter school, authorized the academy in 2014-15. The commission requires its schools to meet annual academic, financial and operational goals in three of the first four years of operation. The academy, which had operated for seven years under the Odyssey Charter School in Coweta County before obtaining its own charter, did not perform as required in its first year as an independent school. It scored one out of a possible 100 points on the academic portion of its evaluation, which assesses performance, mainly on standardized tests, compared to traditional schools. The results for 2015-16 are still being calculated.

This scoring system was not in place when the academy board signed the charter, and the school has not yet agreed to use it. But Bonnie Holliday, the commission’s executive director, said the school isn’t meeting goals under the original scoring system either.

“In the event standards are not met in future years,” she said, “the school is at risk for non-renewal in 2019.”

The academy is beset by many of the same problems that bedevil traditional public schools, including a high and rising number of students from families with meager incomes. Sixty nine percent of the academy’s students in 2015-16 were considered low-income under the federal school meal program; that’s 7 percentage points higher than the state average but below some metro Atlanta districts.

The school also grapples with high turnover. One in four academy students leaves each year; and about a third of the students are new in any given year, said Matt Arkin, the school’s founding head. It takes a year or more to adapt to a classroom on the computer, he said, adding that the performance looks better when counting only those who’ve been there for several years. For instance, for the 42 percent of students who start and finish high school there, the graduation rate is 85 percent. That is 19 percentage points higher than the school’s overall rate.

Some parents and teachers say large class sizes make it difficult for teachers to deliver on the school’s premise of harnessing technology to tailor teaching to each child.

“That’s all a lie; maybe in the younger years, as long as the teacher doesn’t have 70 kids,” said Sherry Horton. Her son did fine there, but her two daughters struggled in high school and couldn’t get their teachers’ attention, Horton said. She withdrew them. “If you put your kids in that school, know that you need to be on top of it every day with the teachers,” she said.

Arkin said class sizes are larger than he’d like, averaging 50 students. He said staffing is limited by tax money the school gets: more than $5,000 per student versus about $9,000 on average for Georgia schools.

As a state charter school, the academy gets no local property tax dollars. And the commission gives it less money per student than its other charter schools with school buildings to maintain, buses to fuel and lunches to cook.

Another problem mentioned by former teachers: attendance.

Jennifer Phillips, who taught seventhgrade English at the Academy several years ago, said a small proportion of her students showed up regularly for her online classes.

“Attendance was definitely a problem,” said Phillips, who left after one year, disillusioned.

Students can watch recordings of the classes later.

Some also said students whose parents weren’t monitoring them could misbehave and be disruptive, doodling on a PowerPoint slide projected to the whole class instead of demonstrating how to solve the math problem on it.

Others said disciplinary problems were minor compared to brick-and-mortar schools. Kelly Brooks, a current teacher at the academy, left a traditional middle school job after tiring of misbehavior. “Boys and girls at that age, they’re just so distracted by each other,” she said. Now, when kids misbehave, she can turn off their ability to speak to or send messages to their classmates.

She said there are other advantages with the technology. Students feel emboldened to approach her because they can send her what they might think are dumb questions without embarrassing themselves in front of their peers.

“So as long as a student is interested, they’re going to get way more out of this than in a traditional classroom,” she said.

While some students exploit that opportunity, the school’s overall performance suggests most are like Keontavious Hankerson, a Burke County student who liked his teachers but felt uninspired by the online experience.

His mother, Mary Webb, enrolled him in the academy two years ago after county teachers “gave him real bad grades because he couldn’t focus.” His performance improved the first year, when his father’s work schedule allowed him to stay home during the day and push him. The next year his father’s schedule changed, and Keontavious was left home with only a slightly older relative. He floundered, Webb said. She was impressed that the school provided a computer, books and even printer ink, but said she will re-enroll him in the county this fall.

Keontavious, 15, said he missed being around other kids. “I didn’t like being at home,” he said. “It was hard for me to stay on the computer.”

School officials acknowledge the problem: Self-driven students or those with parents who can push them tend to do best while those with less support often struggle.

“We’re a school that really seeks to challenge high performers, and push them to new heights. At the same time we’re a dropout prevention and dropout recovery school,” Arkin said.

About four in five at the high school level and about half of the younger kids came to the academy after falling behind at their prior school, he said.

The school pays K12, a for-profit company, to provide technology and curriculum services, including $36.9 million in 2014-15.

Mary Gifford, a senior vice president at K12, said Georgia’s growth measure is inaccurate at grading schools with extremes of high- and low-performers and high student turnover.

The state disagrees, saying their school grading model uses test scores in a way that is “reflective” of those characteristics.

Ryan Mahoney, chairman of the academy’s nonprofit board, dismissed the likelihood of being closed. The first year’s results were based mainly on the 2015 Georgia Milestones tests, which, he noted, were waived for low-performing traditional schools since the tests were new. If the commission sticks to its rules, he said, most of the agency’s 15 schools that were around in 2014-15 would have to close.

“I’m sure that’s not what the commission intended,” he said. He wants the commission to change the way it grades schools. He also wants more money for the school.

Holliday, the commission’s executive director, said schools might get a reprieve if they meet standards by the fourth year of their contract, but added any underperforming school is at risk of closure “regardless of whether it’s one school or 10 schools … any school operating under the assumption that commissioners will give them a pass for poor performance is mistaken.”

Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle, who spoke at the academy’s graduation ceremony, is optimistic about the school, but said it must make do with current funding.

“They have a very efficient model for the delivery of education, and they should be maximizing that,” he said. “K12 as an institution needs to be less concerned about money and more concerned about student achievement.”

He said charter schools like the academy prod traditional schools to improve and that it has the potential to be a “disruptive” force for education in the way Uber is changing transportation. While the academy “clearly is not at the highest standard that we would like,” he said, it is serving “many students at a very, very high level.”

Online charter schools have drawn critical attention nationwide, even from charter advocates. In mid-June, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools called for change, citing research that found online charter schools had turned in “large-scale underperformance.”

Karega Rausch, vice president of research for the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, which helped with the report, said virtual schools in Georgia and across the country are doing poorly on a host of measures. “There’s a whole lot of corroborating evidence to suggest there’s a problem,” he said. “A lot more authorizers need to close a lot more virtual schools. Period.”

Arkin said his turnaround plan includes more advisers to help new students adapt and a new data system in middle school to help teachers analyze student performance and adjust their teaching. And he said the school is getting better, noting that some of its scores on the state’s report card climbed closer to the state average in 2014-15 from the year before, when the academy operated under Odyssey.

Even parents who are critical said it would be a shame if the academy closed, since it provides an alternative in some parts of the state where there is no other.

Susan Rachel’s daughter spent a year in the academy. Now, Rachel, from the Augusta area, is complaining about class sizes, harried teachers, students slipping profanity onto the electronic blackboard and, ultimately, a model of education that didn’t seem to be all that different from traditional public school. She described it as “the factory model in your living room, spitting out kids as fast as you can enroll them.”

But don’t close the academy, she said. Parents need an alternative: “I mean, it’s better than nothing.”

Data specialist Jennifer Peebles contributed to this article

Robbins Arroyo LLP: K12, Inc. (LRN) Misled Shareholders According to a Recently Filed Class Action

July 22, 2016 07:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time

SAN DIEGO & HERNDON, Va.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces
that a class action complaint was filed against K12, Inc. (NYSE: LRN) in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The
complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers of K12 securities
between November 7, 2013 and October 27, 2015, for alleged violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by K12’s officers and directors. K12
Inc., a technology-based education company, offers proprietary
curriculum, software systems, and educational services to facilitate
individualized learning for students primarily in kindergarten through
12th grade.

“In the Matter of the Investigation of:
For-Profit Virtual Schools.”

Tweet this

View this information on the law firm’s Shareholder Rights Blog: www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/k12-inc-july-2016

K12 Accused of Lying About The Success Rate of Its Students

According to the complaint, throughout the class period, K12 filed
several press releases and submitted multiple filings with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission touting the company’s business
prospects. The company issued a press release on February 4, 2014,
stating, “Our Managed Schools are now…using many of the new educational
programs we put in place this year which we believe will improve
educational outcomes for all engaged families.” The company further
emphasized that improving academic outcomes is its number one priority
and that it would invest in new systems to drive further improvements
for its students. However, the complaint alleges that K12 officials
failed to disclose that: (1) K12 was publishing misleading
advertisements about students’ academic progress, parent satisfaction,
their graduates’ eligibility for University of California and California
State University admission, class sizes, the individualized and flexible
nature of K12’s instruction, hidden costs, and the quality of the
materials provided to students; (2) K12 submitted inflated student
attendance numbers to the California Department of Education in order to
collect additional funding; (3) as a result, K12 was open to potential
civil and criminal liability; and (4) the company would likely be forced
to end these practices, which would have a negative impact on K12’s
operations and prospects.

On October 27, 2015, Stanford’s Center for Research on Education
Outcomes published a study and a related press release about online
charter schools, including K12, stating, “Innovative new research
suggests that students of online charter schools had significantly
weaker academic performance in math and reading, compared with their
counterparts in conventional schools.” On the same day, K12 reported
disappointing first quarter 2016 financial results compared to the same
quarter in fiscal year 2015, including revenues of $221.2 million
compared to $236.7 million, Earnings Before Interest, Taxes,
Depreciation and Amortization of negative $3.9 million compared to $3.7
million, and an operating loss of $20.5 million compared to an operating
loss of $13.2 million. On October 27, 2015, K12 disclosed in its Form
10-Q that it received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State
of California, Bureau of Children’s Justice in connection with an
investigation known as “In the Matter of the Investigation of:
For-Profit Virtual Schools.” On this news, K12 stock fell over 20% to
close at $9.71 per share on October 30, 2015.

K12 Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue at
(800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com,
or via the shareholder
information form
on the firm’s website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder
rights law. The firm represents individual and institutional investors
in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has
helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves
and the companies in which they have invested.

Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Contacts

Robbins Arroyo LLPDarnell R. Donahue619-525-3990 or Toll
Free 800-350-6003DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.comwww.robbinsarroyo.com

Glancy Prongay & Murray Announces the Filing of a Securities Class Action on Behalf of K12 Inc. Investors and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

July 20, 2016 02:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time

LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP
(“GPM”) announces that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of investors who purchased K12 Inc.
(“K12” or the “Company”) (NYSE: LRN)
securities between November 7, 2013, and October 27, 2015,
inclusive (the “Class Period”). K12 investors have sixty days from
the date of this notice
 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their K12 investments are encouraged to
contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal rights in this
class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com.

The complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that K12 was
publishing misleading advertisements about students’ academic progress,
parent satisfaction, their graduates’ eligibility for University of
California and California State University admission, class sizes, the
individualized and flexible nature of K12’s instruction, hidden costs,
and the quality of the materials provided to students; (2) that K12
submitted inflated student attendance numbers to the California
Department of Education in order to collect additional funding; (3)
that, as a result of the aforementioned practices, the Company was open
to potential civil and criminal liability; (4) that the Company would
likely be forced to end these practices, which would have a negative
impact on K12’s operations and prospects, and/or that K12 was, in fact,
ending the practices; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants’ statements about K12’s business, operations, and prospects,
were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of K12 during the Class Period you have sixty
days from the date of this notice
to ask the Court to appoint you as
lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of
the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of
the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067
at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at http://glancylaw.com.
If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone
number and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los AngelesLesley Portnoy,
310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224shareholders@glancylaw.comhttps://www.glancylaw.com

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Release Summary

Glancy Prongay & Murray Announces the Filing of a Securities Class Action on Behalf of K12 Inc. Investors and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

Contacts

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los AngelesLesley Portnoy,
310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224shareholders@glancylaw.comhttps://www.glancylaw.com

Charter School Must Pay California Millions

By DON DEBENEDICTIS 

     LOS ANGELES (CN) — The operator of 14 online charter schools in California must pay the state $8.5 million, provide $160 million in debt relief and reform itself to resolve charges of false advertising and using misrepresentations to increase its taxpayer funding.     The settlement should end a July 8 lawsuit the attorney general filed against Virginia-based K12 Inc. and its 14 California schools, and a 2012 whistleblower lawsuit against K12 and its California Virtual Academy @ Los Angeles.     The profit-seeking K12 and its “virtual,” or online, schools, misrepresented their students’ achievements, test scores, class size, individualized instruction and parent satisfaction, the state says in its Superior Court complaint.     All 14 California defendants are named a variation of “California Virtual Academy”: California Virtual Academy @ San Mateo, California Virtual Academy @ Los Angeles, and so on. All 14 are organized as, or operated by, nonprofit California Public Benefit corporations.     “K12 ‘provides substantially all of the management, technology and academic support services in addition to curriculum, learning systems and instructional services’ for the virtual school defendants,” the attorney general says in the lawsuit, without specifying what she is quoting in the interior quotes.     The complaint continues: “The virtual school defendants receive funds from the State of California every year to pay for the education of the approximately 13,000 students attending these schools. Pursuant to the agreements, the virtual school defendants pay significant management and technology fees to K12 based on a percentage of the total funding the virtual school defendants receive.”     The fees include the cost of using K12’s software to take the Internet classes, for which students must pay, despite the defendants’ offer of a free education, according to the state.     Also, K12 et al. advertised that graduates would qualify for the University of California and California State University campuses, though they did not offer classes in several areas required for UC admission, according to the complaint.     At K12’s direction, the 14 schools inflated their daily attendance to collect unjustified funding from the state Department of Education: They credited students with a full day at school for logging in to class for as little as one minute, according to the whistleblower lawsuit.     “All children deserve, and are entitled under the law, to an equal education,” Attorney General Kamala Harris said in a statement. “K12 and its schools misled parents and the State of California by claiming taxpayer dollars for questionable student attendance, misstating student success and parent satisfaction, and loading nonprofit charities with debt.”     Harris put the total value of the settlement at $168.5 million because the agreement requires K12 to expunge about $160 million in so-called “balanced budget credits” the company provided the online schools under their contracts. Harris called the $160 million debt relief.     But in an angry retort, K12’s CEO said the company never sought or expected to collect on the credits, which he called subsidies, not debts.     “The attorney general’s claim of $168.5 million in today’s announcement is flat wrong,” Stuart Udell said in a statement. “Despite our full cooperation throughout the process, the Office of the Attorney General grossly mischaracterized the value of the settlement just as it did with regard to the issues it investigated.”     Udell put the value of the settlement at only $2.5 million: the amount K12 will pay to resolve claims it inflated attendance figures. It will pay another $6 million to cover the costs of the attorney general’s investigation and to fund other “enforcement cases to protect the rights of children” by the office, according to the main settlement document.     K12’s attorneys, Timothy Hatch with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Los Angeles and Peter Wald with Latham & Watkins in San Francisco did not respond to requests for comment. Neither did the attorney for the charter schools, Paul C. Minney, with Young, Minney & Corr in Sacramento.     K12 did not admit wrongdoing or liability in the settlement, but it had been under fire for some time. In addition to the attorney general’s months-long probe, the California Department of Education was monitoring it, and the San Jose Mercury News published a series of investigative stories on it this spring.     The case began with a whistleblower lawsuit filed under seal in 2012 by a teacher from the California Virtual Academy @ Los Angeles. Susie Kaplar claimed she had been fired for refusing to pad her attendance figures. Because she filed the suit on behalf of the state, the attorney general’s office was able to take it over and bring its own suit.     The settlement agreement for her lawsuit includes the $2.5 million payment on attendance data. Under state law, Kaplar should collect an undisclosed portion of the settlement. She also will receive $80,000 in damages and attorneys’ fees.     Kaplar’s attorney, J. Mark Moore in Canoga Park, did not return a call seeking comment.     The California Charter Schools Association, which usually supports charter operators, praised the attorney general’s actions.     “CCSA condemns the predatory and dishonest practices employed by K12, Inc. to dupe parents using misleading marketing schemes, siphon taxpayer dollars with inflated student attendance data, and coerce [the nonprofit schools] into dubious contracting arrangements,” the association said in a statement.     It also endorsed legislation pending in Sacramento to prevent for-profit companies from controlling or operating charter schools.

California Reaches Settlement With K12 Inc Over Fraudulent Claims, K12 Inc Responds

Jul 11, 2016

TARNISHING THE GOLDEN STATE: California Attorney General Kamala Harris announced on July 8 that her office had reached a $168.5 million settlement as a result of its investigation into K12 Inc and its affiliate, California Virtual Schools (CAVA). K12 Inc, a for-profit online charter school operator, and CAVA, a collective of nonprofit online charter schools serving 13,000 California students, will forgive $160 million in debt, pay $6 million to cover the costs of the investigation and pay $2.5 million in response to several private lawsuits. 

The Bureau of Children’s Justice and False Claims within the California Justice Department alleged that K12 Inc and CAVA presented false and misleading statements about class sizes, fees and students’ progress. K12 and CAVA will also be subject to contract reform and independent reviews.

K12 Inc has responded to the Attorney General’s statements by saying that it has neither admitted nor committed wrongdoing. The company said Harris’ settlement figures were incorrect and emphasized that it would only be paying $2.5 million to settle cases. K12 Inc CEO Stuart Udell told the Wall Street Journal that Harris “grossly mischaracterized the value of the settlement, just as her office did with regard to the issues it investigated.”

Add Comment

Close

Comments

Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy to Graduate Class of 2016

— Statewide K-12 online school’s third graduating class is largest to date —

06:00 ET
from Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy

MANISTEE, Mich., June 1, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy (MGLVA), a tuition-free, online public charter school, will recognize its largest graduating class to date at a ceremony on June 4 in Okemos, Michigan. MGLVA continues to grow since opening in 2013, with 87 graduates this year, including 21 students who graduated early in January 2016.

“Watching our group of successful graduates get larger with every school year is inspiring,” said Kendall Schroeder, Head of School at Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy. “The Class of 2016 has shown us what’s possible when learning is more individualized. We offer an education model that allows our teachers and staff to work more closely with each student to help them achieve academic and personal growth.”

Twelve students are graduating with honors this year. Christine Valencia is the Valedictorian, and Avalon McKinney is the Salutatorian.

Members of the Class of 2016 plan to attend institutions of higher education and career training programs, including Oral Roberts University, University of Michigan, Oakland University and Paul Mitchell School of Cosmetology.

MGLVA is an alternative education option that includes online instruction, hands-on curriculum and the support of Michigan-licensed teachers. MGLVA accepts students in grades K through 12 who reside anywhere in the state. MGLVA families benefit from the flexibility that comes with online access to an engaging, rigorous curriculum designed to give each student an individualized learning experience. Students are not forced to move at the same pace that a traditional classroom moves. MGLVA students can move more quickly through their lessons or take more time, depending on how swiftly they master certain skills and concepts.

High school students enjoy a course catalog of more than 150 core, elective and Advanced Placements (AP) courses. Math, English, science and history courses are offered in multiple versions to meet the needs of diverse learners. Up to four levels of World Languages are offered as well. Students graduate with a high school diploma that meets all state requirements.

MGLVA hosts a series of online information sessions as a way to help parents learn about the program. Find more details about the school at its website here: http://mglva.k12.com.

About Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy 

Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy (MGLVA) is a full-time, online public charter school authorized by Manistee Area Public Schools, serving students in grades K through 12. MGLVA is tuition-free, giving parents and families the choice to access the award-winning curriculum and tools provided by K12 Inc. (NYSE: LRN), the nation’s largest provider of proprietary curriculum and online education programs. For more information about MGLVA, visit http://mglva.k12.com.

Logo – http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20150316/181974LOGO

SOURCE Michigan Great Lakes Virtual Academy

Related Links

http://mglva.k12.com