Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. Announces A Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed Against ITT Educational Services, Inc.

WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.:

“There can be no assurance . . . that the ultimate outcome of the SEC investigation will not have a material adverse effect on our financial conditions or results of operation.”

• Do you, or did you, own shares of ITT Educational Services, Inc. (NYSE: ESI)?
• Did you purchase your shares before April 22, 2010, or between April 22, 2010 and February 25, 2013, inclusive?
• Did you lose money in your investment in ITT Educational Services, Inc.?
• Do you want to discuss your rights?

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock of ITT Educational Services, Inc. (“ITT” or the “Company”) (NYSE: ESI) between April 22, 2010 and February 25, 2013, inclusive (the “Class Period”), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the “Complaint”).

If you purchased shares of ITT during the Class Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold ITT, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 300, Garden City, NY at [phone], by e-mail to [e-mail], or at: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/itt-educational-services-inc-esi.

ITT is a leading proprietary provider of postsecondary degree programs in the United States based on revenue and student enrollment. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts, about the Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that: (a) the Company failed to properly account for the 2009 loan risk-sharing agreement and its PEAKS Private Student Loan Program (“PEAKS Program”); and (b) the Company failed to maintain proper internal controls to ensure that risk-sharing agreements were properly recorded. As a result of defendants’ false and misleading statements, the Company’s stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business and financial results in press releases, analyst conference calls, and filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), specifically with respect to the Company’s compliance with relevant accounting standards when reporting its risk-sharing activities in loan programs. As a result of defendants’ false statements, ITT stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $112.69 per share on April 22, 2010.

On February 22, 2013, the Company filed its Form 10-K with the SEC which disclosed that the SEC was investigating ITT’s involvement in some private student-loan agreements. ITT revealed that it had received a subpoena from the SEC on February 8, 2013 requesting documents related to a 2009 loan risk-sharing agreement and ITT’s PEAKS Program, along with a letter informing the Company of the investigation. In its Form 10-K, the Company stated in part: “There can be no assurance . . . that the ultimate outcome of the SEC investigation will not have a material adverse effect on our financial conditions or results of operation.” On this news, shares in ITT fell almost 17%, closing at $15.53 per share on February 25, 2013, from a close of $18.63 per share on February 22, 2013, on volume of over 1.7 million shares.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 10, 2013. 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.