Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-Q

For the transition period from                to              

Commission file number: 0-27403

TIGRENT INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(239) 542-0643

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK, INC.

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

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  x   No  o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has electronically submitted 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  o

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 the definition of “larger accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.:

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

There were 13,028,587 shares of common stock outstanding as of August 19, 2010.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

PART I.  FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1.  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

TIGRENT INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

(in thousands)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

TIGRENT INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss)
(Unaudited, in thousands, except per share data)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

4

Table of Contents

TIGRENT INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(Unaudited, in thousands)

TIGRENT INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
(Unaudited, in thousands)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

5

Table of Contents

TIGRENT INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited)

Note 1 — Basis of Presentation

The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements (“Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements”) include the accounts of Tigrent Inc. and its wholly-owned and majority-owned subsidiaries (collectively referred to herein as the “Company,” “Tigrent,” “we,” “us” or “our”). All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

The accompanying Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009 included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for its year ended December 31, 2009 (“2009 Annual Report”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on April 15, 2010.

The accompanying Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X. Certain information and note disclosures normally included in annual financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP have been condensed or omitted pursuant to those rules and regulations.

In the opinion of management, all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments, which are considered necessary to make a fair presentation of the Company’s financial position and operating results have been included. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make certain estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of contingent liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amount of revenue and expenses during the reporting period.  The results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of the results expected for the year ending December 31, 2010.

Going Concern

We have continued to experience a decline in sales of both Proprietary brands and the RDE brands in the second quarter of 2010. During the first six months of 2010, we reduced our event schedule and focused primarily on events that we believed to have higher potential for profitability.  The reduction in events, and the related decline in marketing expenditures, resulted in a decrease in registrants for product and services related to all of the brands we offer of approximately 17.5%.  The percentage of customers who attended our workshops and purchased our basic training courses in the first six months of 2010 was approximately 19%, which is flat as a percentage, but generated lower dollars per head as compared with the same period last year. We believe that, while there is still consumer interest in our brand offerings, a combination of deteriorating demand for live seminar events, product fatigue, our price points and the economic environment will continue to have significant impact on our total sales and profitability.

Management has evaluated whether we have sufficient liquidity to fund our working capital needs through December 31, 2010.  In its analysis, management analyzed projected sales and expenses and considered the scalability of our business expenses relative to the size of our revenues.  Significant efforts to control costs through reductions in staff and other cost-cutting measures, as well as potential additional cash flow received upon our continued efforts to sell our non-core assets, were taken into consideration.   However, the Company continues to incur a negative cash flow (totaling $5.9 million for the period ending June 30, 2010) due to the on-going challenges with sales of our products.  We have insufficient working capital to meet operating needs, raising substantial doubt about the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern.  The Company’s financial statements as of June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 and for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 are prepared assuming the Company continues as a going concern and do not include any adjustments that might result from the Company’s inability to meet its obligations and continue its operations.

6

Table of Contents

Management’s Plan

In response to the continued decline in profitability and the related impact to our cash position, we have modified the live event schedule to limit our events to the markets believed to be most profitable.  Accordingly, we expect to significantly reduce the number of future live seminar events.  The primary focus of the reduction is in the U.S., where we plan to decrease our weekly live seminar events by approximately 70% for the remainder of 2010 and in 2011, as compared to 2009.   During the fourth quarter of this year, we plan to launch new digitally-delivered programs which are expected to significantly decrease our event and fulfillment costs and are anticipated to improve our profit margin. Additionally, the marketing cost of the digitally-delivered programs is anticipated to be substantially less than the marketing costs of our current business model.

In addition to the shift in strategic emphasis from live course offerings to digitally-delivered programs, we continue to implement reductions in staff to align with our anticipated sales level, we have decreased occupancy costs and have reduced operating costs in all areas.  We continue to pursue the sale of our non-core assets but cannot be assured when as if such sales will be completed.  We are also in current discussions with some of our larger creditors to negotiate amounts owed.  The sufficiency of our cash resources is dependent on these actions.

We may seek to obtain additional capital through issuance of equity which may dilute the equity holdings of current investors.  In addition, we may seek to borrow additional capital from institutional and commercial banking sources or other sources to fund operations on terms that may include restrictive covenants, liens on assets, high effective interest rates and repayment provisions that reduce cash resources and limit future access to capital markets. We do not currently have any commitments for future external funding. Our ability to raise additional capital may be adversely impacted by the current economic environment and the Company’s financial results and liquidity position.

If we cannot generate the required revenues to sustain operations or obtain additional capital on acceptable terms, we will need to substantially revise our business plan, file for bankruptcy, sell assets or cease operations and our investors could suffer the loss of a significant portion or all of their investment in us.  The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome from these uncertainties.

Note 2 — Summary of Significant Accounting Policies and Recent Accounting Pronouncements

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

The Company’s significant accounting policies are discussed in Note 2 - Significant Accounting Policies and Related Information of its audited consolidated financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, included in the 2009 Annual Report. These accounting policies have not changed significantly.

Recently Adopted Accounting Pronouncements

In January 2010, the FASB issued guidance that requires reporting entities to make new disclosures about recurring or nonrecurring fair-value measurements including significant transfers into and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements and information on purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements on a gross basis in the reconciliation of Level 3 fair value measurements. The guidance became effective for the Company with the reporting period beginning January 1, 2010, except for the Level 3 reconciliation disclosures that are effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2010. Adoption of this new guidance did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In September 2009, the FASB ratified EITF Issue No. 08-1, Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables (“EITF No. 08-1”). This guidance applies to multiple-deliverable arrangements that are currently within the scope of ASC 605-25, Revenue Recognition, formerly EITF 00-21, Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables (“EITF No. 00-21”). This guidance modifies the separation criteria of EITF No. 00-21 by eliminating the criterion for objective and reliable evidence of fair value for the undelivered products or services. Instead, revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables should be divided into separate units of accounting if the deliverables meet both of the following criteria: (i) the delivered items have value to the customer on a standalone basis; and (ii) if the arrangement includes a general right of return relative to the delivered items, delivery or performance of the undelivered items is considered probable and substantially in control of the vendor. This guidance eliminates the use of the residual method of allocation and requires, instead, that arrangement consideration be allocated, at the inception of the arrangement, to all deliverables based on their

7

Table of Contents

relative selling price (i.e., the relative selling price method). When applying the relative selling price method, a hierarchy is used for estimating the selling price for each of the deliverables as follows: (i) vendor-specific objective evidence (“VSOE”) of the selling price; (ii) third-party evidence (“TPE”) of the selling price — prices of the vendor’s or any competitor’s largely interchangeable products or services, in standalone sales to similarly situated customers; or (iii) best estimate of the selling price. This guidance will be effective for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010, with earlier application permitted. Adoption of this new guidance is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Note 3 — Notes Receivable

Notes receivable consists of the following (in thousands):

Note 4—Impairment of Assets

We performed impairment testing of our long-lived assets in accordance with the applicable accounting literature. The Company tests for impairment annually or when events or changes in circumstances indicate that an asset’s carrying amount may not be recoverable. In accordance with ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, the Company used Level 3 inputs, defined as unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets and liabilities to measure estimated fair market values. In estimating fair market values, the Company used market indicators such as appraisals, recent market activity and other related information.

For the six month period ended June 30, 2010, we recorded $0.2 million in impairment charges related to our investment in Tranquility Bay, as the carrying value of the property continues to erode and exceeded the expected sales price.

Note 5 — Certain Relationships and Related Transactions

As of June 30, 2010, our remaining ownership interest in Costa Rica and Panamanian entities included a hotel and beachfront land concession known as Monterey del Mar, S.A. (“MDM”) and Mar y Tierra del Oeste, S.A. (“MTO”), respectively. We have a 67.5% ownership interest in the entities totaling $1.4 million, which is included in Investments in real estate. The MDM/MTO investment is accounted for in our consolidated financial statements. For the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, using the equity method of accounting, we recorded our share of the losses related to our interests in these entities of approximately $156,000 and $32,000, respectively.

8

Table of Contents

In addition, we own a 50% interest in Monterey del Llano, S.A., which owns a one-third interest in Monterey Group, S.A., whose only asset is two and one-half acres of beachfront land adjacent to MDM/MTO, our hotel property. Our former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Whitney, indirectly owns approximately 50.0% of Monterey del Llano, S.A., and 22.0% of Monterey Group, S.A. Monterey del Llano, S.A., and Monterey Group, S.A., are not operating entities and have no operating results. Therefore, we do not record an equity interest related to these entities.

A committee of independent members of the Board of Directors is reviewing the Costa Rica transactions regarding compliance with the applicable governance and related party transaction requirements.

Note 6 — Income Taxes

Significant management judgment is required in developing our provision for income taxes, including the determination of foreign tax liabilities, deferred tax assets and liabilities and any valuation allowances that might be required against the deferred tax assets.  Management evaluates its ability to realize its deferred tax assets on an annual basis and adjusts its valuation allowance when it believes that it is more likely than not that all or a portion of the asset will not be realized. Management has determined that it is more likely than not that the net deferred tax assets will not be realized, and therefore a full valuation has been recorded on the net deferred tax assets.

During the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, the Company recorded a net income tax expense of $2.0 million and $0.4 million, respectively. The increase in 2010 is primarily due to the utilization of available net operating loss carry forwards and alternative minimum tax credits in the first six months of 2009, which were not available in 2010. The Company also recorded state income tax expense related to jurisdictions where we did not have net operating losses to offset taxable income.

The Company’s net deferred tax asset balances as of June 30, 2010 and 2009 were comprised primarily of deferred revenue offset by deferred expenses, and foreign net operating losses, and were both reduced by a full valuation allowance. The effective income tax rate differs from the federal statutory rate primarily due to foreign rate differentials, state income taxes, and valuation allowance. For the six month period ended June 30, 2010 the valuation allowance has decreased $1.2 million, of which $2.2 million of the decrease occurred in the three months ended June 30, 2010.

On March 17, 2009 we were notified by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) that our Company’s federal tax returns for the years ended December 31, 2005, December 31, 2006, and December 31, 2007 are under examination. We believe that our accruals for tax liabilities are adequate. However, as tax regulations are subject to interpretation and tax litigation is inherently uncertain, estimates used in determination of our tax liability may not be representative of actual outcomes.

Note 7 — Long-Term Debt

Long-term debt consists of the following (in thousands):

9

Table of Contents

(a) In the event that the note receivable collateralized by the land and building in Central Florida is repaid by the original debtor, the Company is obligated to satisfy this note.

(b) As of June 30, 2010, the carrying values of MDM/MTO and Tranquility Bay are $1.4 million and $0.8 million, respectively. See Note 12 — Contingencies - Litigation for further discussion of MDM, Tranquility Bay and litigation involving M. Barry Strudwick and Susan Weiss.

(c) These notes are to be secured by the Company’s interests in (i) MDM and in that certain hotel property in Costa Rica operated for the benefit of MDM and (ii) Tranquility Bay, undeveloped real property in Lee County, Florida. The Company missed payments of approximately $220,337.00 and $5,983.00 with respect to the First Note and Second Note, respectively, which were due on July 15, 2010, which nonpayment became an event of default on July 25, 2010, which resulted in the acceleration of the amounts due and payable on the notes.  As of the date of this filing, the amount of principal due upon acceleration is $1,916,666 under the First Note and $300,000 under the Second Note and both have been classified in current liabilities in our Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2010. The Company is currently in discussions with the holders of the Notes regarding payment of the amounts due.

Note 8 — Net Income (Loss) per Share

Basic net income (loss) per share is calculated using the weighted average number of common shares outstanding. Diluted income (loss) per share reflects the potential dilution that could occur from common shares issuable through stock options, warrants and restricted performance shares, as appropriate. As of June 30, 2010, and June 30, 2009, in accordance with the treasury stock method, there were no dilutive effects of the outstanding stock options or warrants. There were 75,500 stock options and 41,667 warrants to purchase common stock outstanding granted as of June 30, 2010, and 241,350 stock options and 690,719 warrants to purchase common stock as of June 30, 2009. There were no restricted performance shares outstanding as of June 30, 2010 or 2009. See Note 9— Stock Options and Restricted Performance Shares for further discussion of stock options and restricted performance shares.

Note 9 — Stock Options and Restricted Performance Shares

1998 Stock Option Plan

Our 1998 Stock Option Plan (“1998 Plan”) provided for the issuance of up to 2,187,500 shares of our common stock as incentive stock options and nonqualified stock options. The 1998 Plan expired on August 30, 2008, but options that were issued under the 1998 Plan prior to the expiration date are still outstanding and exercisable when vested. Employees, directors and consultants were eligible to receive awards under the 1998 Plan. The exercise price of a stock option grant under the 1998 Plan was not less than the average market price of our stock on the date of the grant and no options had a term of more than ten years. Options granted under the 1998 Plan typically vested as follows: 25% of the options vested on the grant date, an additional 25% vested on the first anniversary of the grant date, another 25% vested on the second anniversary of the grant date, and 100% of the shares vested on the third anniversary of the grant date, although the Compensation Committee had discretion to approve a different vesting period. All options expire ten years from the date of grant.

2009 Incentive Plan

Our 2009 Incentive Plan (“Incentive Plan”), which was approved by our shareholders on September 2, 2009, provides for the issuance of up to 1.3 million shares of our common stock. The Incentive Plan allows for the granting of a broad range of award types, including stock options (incentive and non-qualified), stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units, performance shares and performance units and other stock awards. Employees, directors, management and consultants are eligible to receive awards. The purpose of the Incentive Plan is to motivate participants to achieve long range goals, attract and retain eligible employees, provide incentives competitive with other similar companies and align the interest of employees and directors with those of our shareholders. The Incentive Plan is administered by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.  In September 2008, our Board of Directors entered into a Restricted Performance Share Agreement (“Agreement”) with our former Chief Executive Officer, providing for the issuance of

10

Table of Contents

600,000 restricted shares of the Company’s Common Stock, which vest in accordance with certain market and service conditions. Effective March 16, 2010, our Chief Executive Officer was no longer with the Company, and these shares were forfeited on June 14, 2010.  As of June 30, 2010, no awards are outstanding under this plan.

Compensation Expense and Related Valuation Techniques

The Company calculates share-based compensation expense in accordance with ASC 718, Compensation—Stock Compensation (“ASC 718”), (formerly SFAS No. 123 (revised 2004), Share-Based Payment ). In accordance with ASC 718, we record compensation expense for all share-based payment awards made to employees and directors under the Company’s 1998 Plan and the Company’s Incentive Plan based on estimated fair value at the date of grant. ASC 718 requires companies to estimate the fair value of share-based payment awards on the date of grant using an option-pricing valuation model. The value of the portion of the awards that is ultimately expected to vest is recognized as an expense over the requisite service periods. Under ASC 718, the Company determined the estimated value of stock option awards under the 1998 Plan using the Black-Scholes valuation model and restricted performance shares under the Incentive Plan using a Barrier valuation model to estimate the fair value of the restricted stock and a Lattice valuation model to calculate the derived service period. ASC 718 requires the Company to recognize expense over the service period for options that are expected to vest and record adjustments to stock option compensation expense at the end of the service period if actual forfeitures differ from original estimates. The Company recognizes share-based compensation expense on a straight-line basis. There were no stock options or other share based compensation granted during the six months ended June 30, 2010.

Note 10 — Stockholders’ Deficit, Noncontrolling Interest and Pro Forma Information

The following reflects the equity activity, including our noncontrolling interest, for the period ended June 30, 2010 (in thousands):

(a)  On May 26, 2010, Tigrent Inc. (the “Company”) entered into definitive agreements with Rich Global, LLC (“Rich Global”) and Rich Dad Operating Company, LLC (“RDO”) to restructure the agreements under which the Company licenses and operates under the Rich Dad brand.  Rich Global and RDO (collectively, the “Rich Dad Parties”) are entities controlled by Robert and Kim Kiyosaki.  The Company has entered into a (i) License Agreement, dated May 26, 2010 (the “License Agreement”), with Rich Global and RDO, for the Rich Dad Brand, and (ii) Settlement Agreement and Release, dated May 26, 2010 (the “Settlement Agreement”), with Rich Global and RDO, related to the Company’s previous licensing agreement for the Rich Dad brand and which commits the parties to enter into a cooperative marketing agreement that contemplates the development and implementation of improved customer contact management strategies.

The License Agreement is for a term of approximately five years or until December 31, 2014.  Rich Global is a consenting party to the License Agreement with respect to the use of its database. The License Agreement gives the Company the non-exclusive right to sell and market Rich Dad products in live seminars and training courses in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. The License Agreement provides that the Company must establish escrow and cash collateral accounts in an aggregate amount equal to 30% of the Company’s deferred revenues during the term of the

11

Table of Contents

License Agreement (“Reserve Goal”). The purpose of the escrow and cash collateral accounts is to ensure that the Company can fulfill its contractual commitments to the customers who purchased the Rich Dad and Tigrent courses. Until the Reserve Goal has been met, the Company will pay (i) to RDO a current royalty (“current royalty”) of 3% of Gross Revenue related to the Rich Dad brands and (ii) into the escrow account a deferred royalty of 5% of Gross Revenues (“unfulfilled royalty”) related to the Rich Dad brands.  Under the License Agreement, the term “Gross Revenues” means gross revenues related to the Rich Dad brands, net of merchant fees, taxes, shipping, refunds, rebates, bad debt and sums paid to RDO’s third party coaching provider under a separate cross marketing agreement.

In addition, the Company will pay into the cash collateral account on a monthly basis the amount by which the average cash balance of all unrestricted funds in the Company’s accounts for the prior 90 day period (excluding the proceeds from the sale of, or other realization upon, any non-core assets or any cash accounts from Rich Dad Education, LLC (“RDE”) made available to the Company) exceeds $6 million. The Company’s merchant deposit reserve funds will also be credited to the Reserve Goal.  After the Reserve Goal has been met, the Company will pay to RDO royalty payments equal to 10% of Gross Revenue related to the Rich Dad brands in lieu of paying the current royalty to RDO and the unfulfilled royalty into the escrow account. If the combined amounts in the escrow account and the cash collateral account exceeds the Reserve Goal, the excess funds may be withdrawn from the escrow account twice each year and applied to the deferred fulfillment royalties that are due to RDO. In addition, on a quarterly basis, RDO may withdraw 40% of payments into the escrow account during the prior three-month period.

The License Agreement contains covenants relating to performance standards and cash operating profits. The Company is limited from making any capital expenditures with respect to any businesses other than the Rich Dad Education Business that exceed $500,000 per year without obtaining written approval from RDO. The Company must also consult with RDO prior to hiring a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or any other officer who reports directly to the Chief Executive Officer. RDO will have the right to allow one representative to observe all meetings of the Company’s Board of Directors in a non-voting capacity.

In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, we issued 9.9% of the Company’s outstanding common stock (1,290,000 shares) to Rich Global and redeemed Rich Global’s 49% interest in RDE, the limited liability company that was formed by the Company and Rich Global to operate the Rich Dad business. The Company’s common stock issued to Rich Global is subject to a shareholder agreement with the Company, that gives Rich Global demand and piggyback registration rights after January 1, 2011. The Company and Rich Global transferred the RDE assets to the Company, except the data base of customer names and customer leads, resulting in full ownership by the Company of the business previously conducted by RDE.   The Company and Rich Global agreed to dissolve RDE, and terminate the license and administrative services agreements associated with RDE. The Company has responsibility for any and all liabilities remaining in RDE, including but not limited to obligations related to the fulfillment of course work for the Rich Dad students. The Company has agreed to release Rich Global from all general claims related to RDE and Rich Global has agreed to release the Company from specific claims that it made against the Company and RDE in connection with its alleged default letter dated March 27, 2009. Among other things, the Settlement Agreement proposes enhanced cooperation in advertising, marketing, and educational programs between the Company and RDO through a customer contact and data base management strategy that emphasizes seamless support of the Rich Dad brand and its customers.

Note 11— Segment Information

The Company operates primarily in two business segments, Proprietary brands and Rich Dad ™ Education. Our revenue is generated through the sale of real estate and financial instruments training courses, programs and products and is categorized into segments depending on the channel under which the customer was acquired. Operating results for the reportable segments are evaluated regularly by executive management.

12

Table of Contents

Our segment revenue and gross profit are as follows (in thousands):

(1) Segment gross profit is calculated as revenue less direct course expenses and is impacted by intersegment fulfillment charges.

For the six months ended June 30, 2010, 82.5% of our revenue was generated domestically and 17.5% was generated internationally.  For the six months ended June 30, 2009, 84.7% of our revenue was generated domestically and 15.3% was generated internationally.

13

Table of Contents

Note 12 — Contingencies

Litigation

On November 14, 2006, the Company was notified by the SEC that it is conducting a formal, nonpublic investigation to determine whether the Company complied with securities laws in connection with (i) the claimed efficacy or trading success of our stock market training programs, and, (ii) our acquisition of certain other companies. The SEC has requested documents and information from us in the course of their investigation.

On December 11, 2006, the Company received a subpoena from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) requesting documents and information in connection with an investigation relating to our marketing activities from January 1, 2002 to the present. The Company was notified that a grand jury investigation related to this matter had commenced.  The Company and its subsidiaries have not been charged in any indictment, and none of the Company’s present or former directors or officers has been charged in any indictment.

On March 6, 2008, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia returned an indictment charging Linda Woolf and David Gengler, two former independent contractors, with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud. Woolf and Gengler were alleged in the indictment to have been independent contractors of the Company’s EduTrades, Inc. subsidiary at the time of their alleged criminal activities. The defendants are no longer independent contractors for the Company or any of its subsidiaries. On March 11, 2008, the SEC filed civil fraud charges against Woolf and Gengler alleging that Woolf and Gengler made false and misleading statements to sell “Teach Me to Trade” packages for EduTrades, Inc. On April 13, 2009, a trial was commenced on the criminal charges in the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia (“Virginia Court”). On May 7, 2009, the jury returned a guilty verdict as to both Woolf and Gengler. On June 11, 2009, Woolf and Gengler filed a joint motion for a judgment of acquittal or in the alternative for a new trial (“Motion for Judgment of Acquittal”). On October 23, 2009, the Court issued its Order and Memorandum Opinion granting the Motion for Judgment of Acquittal on the basis of insufficient evidence to prove that Woolf or Gengler devised or knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud as alleged in the indictment and dismissing the indictment of Woolf and Gengler and finding that should the Court’s judgment of acquittal be reversed or vacated the interests of justice require a new trial.  On November 23, 2009 the United States filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to attempt to reverse the district court’s order on October 23, 2009, which granted defendants’ joint motion for judgment of acquittal; dismissed the indictment; and conditionally granted defendants a new trial if the judgment of acquittal is later vacated or reversed.

On January 11, 2007, Whitney Canada, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary, and Whitney Information Network (“WIN”) received notice of an Amended Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action in the Province of Québec, Canada on behalf of all persons who are alleged to have made various real estate investments at the alleged inducement of, or through, Marc Jémus, François Roy, Robert Primeau and/or their companies, and/or B2B Trust, and/or Whitney Canada, Inc., and/or the Company and/or Jean Lafrenière. The complaint filed in Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, District of Hull (Canada) (“Canadian Court”), seeks repayment of $39,235 to the petitioner, unspecified payment to each member of the class of an amount corresponding to their lost investments, payment of $10,000 to each member of the class as general damages, recovery of costs and other litigation expenses, and unspecified equitable relief. On October 19-20, 2009 WIN argued its motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and challenging the authorization of the class claims against WIN.  On November 3, 2009 the Canadian Court denied our motion for lack of jurisdiction. On August 19, 2010, the Canadian Court denied the plaintiffs’ Re-re-Amended Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class action against the Company, but granted the motion against, Whitney Canada, Inc.  We will vigorously defend against the claims made in this lawsuit.

The Company, certain of its subsidiaries, and certain of its former officers and directors (“Company Defendants”) are involved in litigation arising out of the Company’s past business activities with Gulfstream Development Group, LLC (“Gulfstream”). The plaintiffs in each of these cases seek to hold the Company Defendants liable for losses the plaintiffs are alleged to have suffered as a result of the plaintiffs’ business dealings with Gulfstream.  In June 2003, the Company entered into an agreement with Gulfstream in which we were compensated for appointing Gulfstream as the exclusive offeror of homes for customers of our advanced real estate courses. Customers were offered the opportunity to purchase residential lots in Southwest Florida from Gulfstream, other lot owners, or Mr. Russell A. Whitney, our former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.  Gulfstream constructed homes on lots owned by our customers.  Under the Referral Services Agreement with Gulfstream, Gulfstream compensated the Company for each customer that closed on a home built by Gulfstream.  Our relationship with Gulfstream was terminated in 2008. The actions related to Gulfstream include:

14

Table of Contents

On March 22, 2007, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Tigrent Group Inc., formerly known as Whitney Education Group, Inc. (“WEG”) received a complaint styled Glenn Acciard, et al. v. Russell Whitney, individually, John Kane, individually and WEG, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Court in and for Lee County, Florida (“Lee County Court”) alleging that the WEG, two of our former executive officers, and 18 other defendants not associated with the Company breached certain of their alleged fiduciary duties to the named plaintiffs, all of whom are alleged to be our customers. The allegations in the complaint include claims of constructive and common law fraud and other violations. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, unspecified punitive damages, interest, a refund of the purchase price of the lots sold to the plaintiffs, costs, attorney’s fees and unspecified equitable relief. On July 31, 2007, the case was removed to the Florida Court. On March 28, 2008, the Company and Tigrent Learning Inc., formerly known as Wealth Intelligence Academy, Inc. (“WIA”) were added as defendants. On January 20, 2009, the Company, Mr. Kane, WEG, and WIA filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the Acciard lawsuit. The case is currently in the discovery phase. We will vigorously defend against the claims made in this lawsuit.

On August 23, 2007, WEG received a complaint styled Sirli Jehe and Kalev Kruuk v. Russell Whitney, John Kane, WEG, et al., in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County, Florida alleging breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, a violation of mortgage broker and lending laws, Florida Land Sales Practices Act and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The plaintiffs seek a refund of the price of the lots sold to them by a third party defendant, monetary damages in excess of $100,000, unspecified punitive damages, costs, attorney’s fees, and unspecified equitable relief. Numerous motions to dismiss are currently pending. We will vigorously defend against the claims made in this lawsuit.

On September 21, 2007, WEG received a complaint styled Jeffrey Watson v. Whitney Education Group, Inc. and Russell Whitney filed in the Lee County Court that alleges that WEG and Mr. Whitney breached a customer contract, violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and conspired to commit fraud. Motions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint are currently pending. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified punitive damages, and a declaratory judgment determining the rights of the parties, attorney’s fees and costs. A motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the Company is currently pending. We will vigorously defend against the claims made in this lawsuit.

On November 7, 2007, WEG received two complaints filed by James M. Easterly both styled Huron River Area Credit Union v. James M. Easterly and both filed in Lee County Court. In both lawsuits, James M. Easterly filed third party complaints against Russell Whitney, Whitney Information Network, Inc., John Kane, and other third party co-defendants alleging breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, violation of Florida Land Sales Practices Act, violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, civil conspiracy to defraud, and Florida RICO conspiracy. In each third party complaint, Easterly seeks damages in excess of $100,000 and unspecified equitable relief. Multiple motions to dismiss are pending. On June 17, 2010, the Lee County Court issued is final order granting the Company’s motion to consolidate the two cases.   We will vigorously defend against the claims made in this lawsuit.

On January 29, 2010, the Company was served with a complaint on behalf of itself and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Tigrent Group Inc. (formerly Whitney Education Group, Inc.) and Tigrent Learning Inc. (formerly Wealth Intelligence Academy, Inc.).  The complaint is styled Thomas L. Altimas, et al. v. Russell Whitney, individually, and Whitney Information Network, Inc , Whitney Education Group, Inc. and Wealth Intelligence Academy, Inc., et al. and was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (“Middle District Court”) in September 2009.  The complaint alleges that the Company, its named subsidiaries, Russell Whitney, and other defendants not associated with the Company participated in a scheme to defraud the plaintiffs through the sale of real estate in southwest Florida during the estimated period of 2002 to 2007.  The complaint includes claims of breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, fraud in the inducement, civil conspiracy, Florida RICO, federal RICO, and other violations. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, including punitive damages, treble damages, interest, a refund of the purchase price of the properties sold to the plaintiffs, costs, attorney’s fees and unspecified equitable relief.  On March 15, 2010, the Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses.  The case is currently in the discovery stage.  The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims made in the lawsuit.

15

Table of Contents

On November 3, 2008, the Office of Attorney General of the State of Florida issued an investigative subpoena pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act that seeks information about consumer-investors who attended the Company’s Millionaire University (“MU”) course and invested in Florida homes built by Gulfstream, Gulfstream Realty (“GR”) and Gulfstream Realty and Development, LLC (“GRD”) since August 1, 2004, as well as the amount of payments received by the Company from Gulfstream, GR and GRD. The Company has produced documents responsive to the subpoena. On October 29, 2009, we received a second investigative subpoena from the Office of Attorney General of the State of Florida seeking documents relating to Gulfstream Development Group, LLC, including the amount of payments received by the Company or by any current or former officer, director, employee or independent contractor of the Company from Gulfstream.

On October 21, 2008, Mr. Simon, our former Co-President and Chief Operating Officer, filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Lee County Court for $1.4 million for funds allegedly owed to him due to the improper termination of his employment agreement. On January 11, 2010, the Court denied Mr. Simon’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The lawsuit is currently in the discovery phase. We will vigorously defend against the claims made in this lawsuit.

On April 13, 2009, the Company and two of its subsidiaries, WEG and WIA, were served with a complaint filed by Learning Annex Holdings, LLC and Learning Annex, LLC (collectively “Learning Annex”) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The complaint alleges, among other things, misappropriation of business opportunity, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of covenant to negotiate in good faith, constructive trust, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and fraud arising out of an alleged agreement to form a business relationship. On April 20, 2009, RDE was served with the complaint. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on May 8, 2009. We filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint on June 12, 2009.  The parties participated in a court ordered settlement conference on May 24, 2010, but no settlement was reached.  Discovery is closed and a pre-trial hearing was held on August 10, 2010.  The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims made in the lawsuit.

On March 27, 2009, RDE received a notice of default from Rich Global under the License Agreement between Rich Global and RDE dated July 18, 2006 (“RD License Agreement”), alleging, among other items, that RDE has failed to make certain payments required under the RD License Agreement and related agreements, and demanding that RDE and the Company cure the alleged events of default within 30 days. The aggregate amount of the items claimed in the notice appears to be not more than $10.0 million.  On March 16, 2010, we entered into a Letter Agreement with Rich Global and Rich Dad Operating Company, LLC (“RDO”) RDO to amend and restructure the agreements pursuant to which we license and operate the Rich Dad brand. For more information on the restructuring agreement, please refer to the section entitled “Licensing Agreements with the Rich Dad Parties” in Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

On July 9, 2009 The Company and its subsidiary, WEG, received a summons and complaint filed by and on behalf of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, P.A. (“RRA”) in the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida. The suit alleges damages totaling $348,000 for unpaid legal invoices. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims made in the lawsuit.  On November 6, 2009, the Company filed a counterclaim against RRA alleging legal malpractice with respect to the filing of lawsuits by RRA against Susan Weiss and M. Barry Strudwick that were the subject of the settlement entered into on September 13, 2009.  The counterclaim seeks unspecified damages in excess of $3.8 million dollars.  In November of 2009, a forfeiture action was filed against RRA founder Scott Rothstein (“Rothstein”) in connection with allegations against Rothstein and RRA pertaining to a Ponzi scheme involving the sale of structured settlements.  On November 10, 2009, four creditors filed an involuntary petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code against RRA.  On December 2, 2009, Carolina Casualty Insurance Company (“Carolina Casualty”) filed a Complaint for Rescission against RRA related to RRA’s involuntary bankruptcy seeking a declaratory judgment rescinding two lawyer’s professional liability policies that Carolina Casualty issued to RRA for the policy periods 2008-09 and 2009-10 (the “Rescission Action”).  In the Rescission Action, Carolina Casualty seeks declarations rescinding the two lawyer professional liability policies and holding that coverage is precluded for all claims and suits reported under those policies based upon alleged misrepresentations in the applications RRA submitted in support of the renewal of the policies.  The

16

Table of Contents

Company filed a motion to intervene in the Rescission Action on the basis that the Company had a stake in the outcome of the Rescission Action.  Our motion to intervene was denied on June 7, 2010.  On July 16, 2010, the Court heard our Motion to Reconsider the Court’s denial of our Motion to Intervene and we await a ruling on our Motion to Reconsider.

On or about October 6, 2009, the Company and two of its subsidiaries, EduTrades and WIA, received a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Eric Springer and Maurice J. Seghers, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all persons who purchased investor-education products sold under the Teach Me To Trade (“TMTT”) brand.  Two former independent contractors, Linda Woolf and David Gengler, along with their companies, Hands on Capital, Inc., and Lashaico, Inc., are additional defendants to the lawsuit.  The complaint alleges, among other things, Fraud, Negligent Misrepresentation, Civil Conspiracy, and Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices arising out of the Company’s business relationship with and use of Linda Woolf and David Gengler as trainers for the TMTT brand.  Plaintiffs seek for themselves and others similarly situated a refund of all amounts spent on TMTT products and services, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, an award of attorney’s fees, and unspecified legal and equitable relief.  The complaint relies on the findings from the verdict in the Woolf and Gengler criminal trial.  As has been previously reported, the verdict in the Woolf and Gengler criminal trial was vacated on October 23, 2009 by way of an Order granting Woolf and Gengler’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.  On October 30, 2009 the Company and its subsidiaries accepted service of the complaint.  On July 27, 2010, the Court granted the parties motion to stay the case indefinitely.  The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims made in the lawsuit.

On March 11, 2010, the Office of Attorney General of the State of Florida issued an investigative subpoena pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act that seeks information about our courses and seminars offered in Florida, including those offered under the Rich Dad brand.  On April 15, 2010, the Company produced documents responsive to the subpoena.

The Company is involved from time to time in routine legal matters incidental to our business, including disputes with students and requests from state regulatory agencies. Based upon available information, the Company believes that the resolution of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

Note 13 — Subsequent Events

On July 30, 2010, Tigrent Inc. (the “Company”) agreed to a forbearance (the “Forbearance”) with M. Barry Strudwick, Susan Weiss and certain other parties with respect to the previously disclosed settlement memorandum (“Settlement Memorandum”) providing for settlement and release of certain claims with respect to its previously disclosed litigation relating to Monterey del Mar, S.A., a Panamanian company and other matters. Under the terms of the Settlement Memorandum, the Company agreed to pay Mr. Strudwick and Ms. Weiss a total of $3.8 million, $1.2 million of which was paid in 2009. The Company issued two promissory notes for the remaining $2.6 million, one in the amount of $2.3 million (the “First Note”) and the other in the amount of $300,000 (the “Second Note” and, together with the First Note, the “Notes”). The Company missed payments of approximately $220,337 and $5,983 with respect to the First Note and Second Note, respectively, which were due on July 15, 2010, which nonpayment became an event of default on July 25, 2010 after continuing for a period of over ten (10) days.

Under the terms of the Forbearance, the holders of the Notes agreed to forbear from enforcing their rights and remedies under the Notes and the Settlement Memorandum for a period ending August 13, 2010 (the “Forbearance Period”) in consideration of the payment of $50,000 made by the Company on July 30, 2010 to be applied against the Company’s obligations under the Notes.  The Company and the holders of the Notes continue to consider and discuss plans to repay or restructure the Notes. Although the Company intends to work diligently with the holders of the Notes to finalize a repayment or restructuring plan, there is no guarantee that the parties will reach a mutually agreeable plan. If the Company is unable to pay or negotiate a repayment or restructuring plan with the holders of the Notes during the Forbearance Period, the holders may attempt to fully exercise their rights and remedies under the Notes and Settlement Memorandum, subject to any applicable defenses.

As of the date of this report, RDO has the option to declare us in default on certain royalty payment obligations owed under our License Agreement with them and Rich Global.   Under the License Agreement we are required to pay (i) to RDO a current royalty of 3% of Gross Revenue related to the Rich Dad brands and (ii) into the escrow account a deferred

17

Table of Contents

royalty of 5% of Gross Revenues related to the Rich Dad brands. Failure to make any payments required under the License Agreement gives rise to an option in favor of RDO of declaring a default.  If RDO chooses to declare us in default, and we fail to cure that default within 30 days of receipt of notice from RDO, RDO may, at its sole and absolute discretion, declare a material breach of License Agreement and terminate the agreement effective immediately.  We failed to make the deferred royalty payment of $309,401 into the escrow account for June and failed to make the current royalty and deferred royalty payments for July of $195,661 and $326,101, respectively, to RDO and into the escrow account, respectively. Although we have been working with RDO to structure a plan to make such payments, and they have not yet declared us in default, there is no guarantee that they will not do so in the future.  For the six months ended June 30, 2010, Rich Dad™ Education offerings represented approximately 91.9% of our revenue.  If RDO declares us in default on these obligations, it would materially adversely affect our business operating results and financial condition to such an extent that we would be forced to substantially revise our business plan, file for bankruptcy, sell assets or cease operations.

ITEM 2.  MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

In this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, “Tigrent” and the terms “Company”, “we”, “us” and “our” refer to Tigrent Inc. and its wholly-owned and majority-owned subsidiaries.

Forward-Looking Statements

This discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with our condensed consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes included in this report and the audited consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. Operating results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of results that may occur in future periods.

This report contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. The forward-looking statements are contained principally in the sections entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and “Risk Factors.” These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performances or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements about our course breakage estimates, media spending allocations, settlement of defaults, consumer interest in our products and services, the impact of shifting from live to primarily digitally-delivered programs, plans to reduce future live seminar events; plans to further lower operating expenses, preserve capital and align costs, our working capital deficit, future expenses related to SEC and DOJ investigations and related legal proceedings, the sufficiency of our cash balances and our ability to continue as a going concern.    In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as “anticipate,” “will,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “plan,” and similar expressions intended to identify such forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements reflect our current views with respect to future events, are based on assumptions, and are subject to risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that these statements will prove to be correct. We discuss many of these risks in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q in greater detail in the section entitled “Risk Factors” under Part 1, Item 1A of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on April 15, 2010 and under Part II, Item 1A below. Given these uncertainties, you should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Also, forward-looking statements represent our estimates and assumptions only as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. You should read this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and the documents that we incorporate by reference in and have filed as exhibits to this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from what we expect. Except as required by law, we assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements publicly, or to update the reasons actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, even if new information becomes available in the future.

18

Table of Contents

Executive Overview

Our Business

Our Company is a provider of practical, high-quality and value-based training, conferences, publications, technology-based tools and mentoring to help customers become financially literate. We provide customers with comprehensive instruction and mentoring in the topics of real estate and financial instruments investing and entrepreneurship in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Our training is offered in non-accredited free preview workshops, as well as basic training, advanced courses, mentoring and coaching.

In July 2006, we created Rich Dad Education, LLC (“RDE”) with Rich Global, LLC (“Rich Global”). This entity has provided basic training courses under the Rich Dad™ Education brand that focus on the real estate teachings and philosophies of Robert Kiyosaki as detailed in the book entitled, Rich Dad Poor Dad. The Rich Dad Poor Dad book series is published in 51 languages, is available in 106 countries, and has sold over 28 million copies worldwide.  On May 26, 2010, the Company entered into definitive agreements with Rich Global, LLC (“Rich Global”) and Rich Dad Operating Company, LLC (“RDO”) to restructure the agreements under which we license and operate under the Rich Dad brand.  Rich Global and RDO (together, the “Rich Dad Parties”) are entities controlled by Robert and Kim Kiyosaki. More details about the restructuring and the proposed terms of the license agreements are discussed below under the section entitled “Licensing Agreements with the Rich Dad Parties”.

We currently have two Rich Dad™ Education offerings, including:

·     Rich Dad™ Learn to be Rich —focuses on real estate training,

·     Rich Dad™ Stock Success —concentrates on financial instruments training

We began offering our Rich Dad™ Learn to be Rich basic training to customers in the United States in 2006. In 2007, we expanded our Rich Dad™ Learn to be Rich training to include customers in Canada and the United Kingdom. During 2008, we created the Rich Dad™ Stock Success training and introduced it to customers in the United States and the United Kingdom. We began offering this training to our customers in Canada in 2009.

For the six months ended June 30, 2010, Rich Dad™ Education represented approximately 91.9% and our Proprietary brands represented approximately 8.1% of our revenue. Our international business, which includes both Rich Dad™ Education and Proprietary brands, was approximately 17.5% of our total revenue.

Management’s Plan

In response to the continued decline in profitability and the related impact to our cash position, we have initiated a further reduction in the live event schedule.  Accordingly, we expect to significantly reduce the number of future live seminar events.  The primary focus of the reduction is in the U.S., where we plan to decrease our weekly live seminar events by approximately 70% for the remainder of 2010 and in 2011, as compared to 2009.  During the fourth quarter of this year, we plan to launch new digitally-delivered programs which are expected to significantly decrease our event and fulfillment costs which are expected to improve our profit margin. Additionally, the marketing cost of the digitally-delivered programs is anticipated to be substantially less than the marketing costs of our current business model.

In addition to the shift in strategic emphasis from live course offerings to digitally-delivered programs, we continue to implement reductions in staff to align with our anticipated sales level, we have decreased occupancy costs and have reduced operating costs in all areas.  We are also in current discussions with some of our larger creditors to negotiate amounts owed.  The sufficiency of our cash resources is dependent on the successful conclusion of negotiations with those creditors.

We may seek to obtain additional capital through issuance of equity which may dilute the equity holdings of current investors.  In addition, we may seek to borrow additional capital from institutional and commercial banking sources or other sources to fund operations on terms that may include restrictive covenants, liens on assets, high effective interest rates and repayment provisions that reduce cash resources and limit future access to capital markets. We do not currently

19

Table of Contents

have any commitments for future external funding. Our ability to raise additional capital may be adversely impacted by the current economic environment and the Company’s financial results and liquidity position.

If we cannot generate the required revenues to sustain operations or obtain additional capital on acceptable terms, we will need to substantially revise our business plan, file for bankruptcy, sell assets or cease operations and our investors could suffer the loss of a significant portion or all of their investment in us.  The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome from these uncertainties.

Our Strategy

Our objective is to be a leading provider of training services and products that provide customers with the skills, knowledge and tools to achieve their personal and financial goals. In addition to our current course offerings, we will continue to assess the viability of alternative training curriculum and delivery methods as potential sources of business growth.

Our strategy is focused on the following areas:

·                  Enhanced sales and utilization of the Rich Dad brand. We intend to concentrate our marketing efforts on the Rich Dad brand, and increase lifetime customer value through cooperative marketing strategies among the various Rich Dad partners and make broader, coordinated use of the Rich Dad customer data base and other managed customer contact strategies.

·                  Focus on fulfillment of customer obligations. We intend to increase the speed and cost efficiency with which we fulfill our long term customer commitments. We have expanded the options for course fulfillment in order to reduce the number of expired contracts and the resulting breakage determination. We have increased the number of courses offered on DVDs and via the internet and expanded the number of location options for customers in the United States. Additionally, we have implemented an outreach notification program which involves contacting our customers by email and the U.S. mail as courses near expiration.

·                  Enhanced eLearning. We intend to develop new interactive and online distributed course content for all brands and enhanced technology platforms capable of streaming video, interactive e-learning, and distributed e-learning.

·                  Consistent quality assurance. We believe that to be a viable provider of training we need to ensure that our course offerings meet our strict quality assurance guidelines. To that end, we will continue to monitor and enforce standards for marketing, sales presentations and training delivery throughout our organization.

Intellectual Property

We regard our training materials and products, trademarks, service marks, trade names, copyrights and patents as proprietary. As such, we primarily rely on federal statutory and common law protections to uphold our interests in these materials. We market various courses and training programs under the Rich Dad brand, as licensee, as well as our Proprietary brands, as described below under the section entitled “Training Programs”. While several of our proprietary materials may contain commonly used terms and do not afford us significant trademark protection, we also use employee and third party non-compete and confidentiality agreements as well as other contractual methods of protecting proprietary rights to safeguard our intellectual property.

Licensing Agreements with the Rich Dad Parties

Effective July 18, 2006, we entered into a limited liability company agreement with Rich Global to promote the financial philosophy espoused by Robert Kiyosaki in his book, Rich Dad Poor Dad. Under this agreement, we established RDE, 51% of which was owned by us, and the remaining 49% by Rich Global. Pursuant to a license agreement dated

20

Table of Contents

July 6, 2006 (“Rich Dad License”), Rich Global granted RDE a license to use the Rich Dad trademarks, trade names and other business information in seminars that it conducts in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.

On May 26, 2010, Tigrent Inc. (the “Company”) entered into definitive agreements with Rich Global, LLC (“Rich Global”) and Rich Dad Operating Company, LLC (“RDO”) to restructure the agreements under which the Company licenses and operates under the Rich Dad brand.  Rich Global and RDO (collectively, the “Rich Dad Parties”) are entities controlled by Robert and Kim Kiyosaki.  The Company has entered into a (i) License Agreement, dated May 26, 2010 (the “License Agreement”), with Rich Global and RDO, for the Rich Dad Brand, and (ii) Settlement Agreement and Release, dated May 26, 2010 (the “Settlement Agreement”), with Rich Global and RDO, related to the Company’s previous licensing agreement for the Rich Dad brand and which commits the parties to enter into a cooperative marketing agreement that contemplates the development and implementation of improved customer contact management strategies.

The License Agreement is for a term of approximately five years or until December 31, 2014.  Rich Global is a consenting party to the License Agreement with respect to the use of its database. The License Agreement gives the Company the non-exclusive right to sell and market Rich Dad products in live seminars and training courses in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. The License Agreement provides that the Company must establish escrow and cash collateral accounts in an aggregate amount equal to 30% of the Company’s deferred revenues during the term of the License Agreement (“Reserve Goal”). The purpose of the escrow and cash collateral accounts is to ensure that the Company can fulfill its contractual commitments to the customers who purchased the Rich Dad and Tigrent courses. Until the Reserve Goal has been met, the Company will pay (i) to RDO a current royalty (“current royalty”) of 3% of Gross Revenue related to the Rich Dad brands and (ii) into the escrow account a deferred royalty of 5% of Gross Revenues (“unfulfilled royalty”) related to the Rich Dad brands.  Under the License Agreement, the term “Gross Revenues” means gross revenues related to the Rich Dad brands, net of merchant fees, taxes, shipping, refunds, rebates, bad debt and sums paid to RDO’s third party coaching provider under a separate cross marketing agreement.

In addition, the Company will pay into the cash collateral account on a monthly basis the amount by which the average cash balance of all unrestricted funds in the Company’s accounts for the prior 90 day period (excluding the proceeds from the sale of, or other realization upon, any non-core assets or any cash accounts from Rich Dad Education, LLC (“RDE”) made available to the Company) exceeds $6 million. The Company’s merchant deposit reserve funds will also be credited to the Reserve Goal.  After the Reserve Goal has been met, the Company will pay to RDO royalty payments equal to 10% of Gross Revenue related to the Rich Dad brands in lieu of paying the current royalty to RDO and the unfulfilled royalty into the escrow account. If the combined amounts in the escrow account and the cash collateral account exceeds the Reserve Goal, the excess funds may be withdrawn from the escrow account twice each year and applied to the deferred fulfillment royalties that are due to RDO. In addition, on a quarterly basis, RDO may withdraw 40% of payments into the escrow account during the prior three-month period.

License Agreement contains covenants relating to performance standards and cash operating profits. The Company is limited from making any capital expenditures with respect to any businesses other than the Rich Dad Education Business that exceed $500,000 per year without obtaining written approval from RDO. The Company must also consult with RDO prior to hiring a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer or any other officer who reports directly to the Chief Executive Officer. RDO has the right to allow one representative to observe all meetings of the Company’s Board of Directors in a non-voting capacity.

In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, we issued 9.9% of the Company’s outstanding common stock (1,290,000 shares) to Rich Global and redeemed Rich Global’s 49% interest in RDE, the limited liability company that was formed by the Company and Rich Global to operate the Rich Dad business. The Company’s common stock issued to Rich Global is subject to a shareholder agreement with the Company, that gives Rich Global demand and piggyback registration rights after January 1, 2011. The Company and Rich Global transferred the RDE assets to the Company, except the data base of customer names and customer leads, resulting in full ownership by the Company of the business previously conducted by RDE.   The Company and Rich Global agreed to dissolve RDE, and terminate the license and administrative services agreements associated with RDE. The Company has responsibility for any and all liabilities remaining in RDE, including but not limited to obligations related to the fulfillment of course work for the Rich Dad students. The Company has agreed to release Rich Global from all general claims related to RDE and Rich Global has agreed to release the Company from specific claims that it made against the Company and RDE in connection with its alleged default letter dated March 27, 2009. Among other things, the Settlement Agreement proposes enhanced cooperation in advertising,

21

Table of Contents

marketing, and educational programs between the Company and RDO through a customer contact and data base management strategy that emphasizes seamless support of the Rich Dad brand and its customers.

Marketing

We acquire our customers through direct marketing activities, including television infomercials, radio advertising, direct mail, newspaper advertising, email marketing, search engine optimization and marketing, internet-based banner ads and contextual and behavioral targeting digital delivery. Potential customers are invited to attend free preview two-hour workshops in their local areas, during which we offer follow-up three day basic training courses. Customers enroll and attend the basic training courses and receive the reference materials that are designed to accompany the training, which is usually held over the weekend within two or three weeks of the initial free preview workshop. In 2010, approximately 18.7% of the attendees at the preview workshops enrolled in the basic training courses.

At the basic training courses, customers are taught the fundamentals of course topics and are encouraged to enroll in advanced, detailed courses covering specific topics within the training segment. Our basic and advanced trainings are described below in “Training Programs.”

Training Programs

As of June 30, 2010, we offered over 200 courses throughout our geographic markets. For the six months ended June 30, 2010, basic training courses accounted for 10.6% of worldwide revenue and advanced training courses accounted for 76.4% of our worldwide revenue. The remaining 13.0% of revenue came from coaching and our other training services, products, and programs.

Basic Training Courses

In the first six months of 2010, we offered basic training courses under the following marketing programs and brands:

Rich Dad™ Education was created by us in conjunction with Rich Global. The courses are based on the real estate, financial instruments and entrepreneurship teachings and philosophies of Robert Kiyosaki, author of Rich Dad Poor Dad . We currently have two Rich Dad™ Education courses, which are Rich Dad™ Learn to be Rich courses focused on real estate investing and Rich Dad™ Stock Success courses focused on financial instruments investing. The courses concentrate on principles while allowing customers to apply what they have learned playing the board game, CASHFLOW® which was developed by Mr. Kiyosaki. These courses are offered in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.

In the United Kingdom, we also offer our products under the following brands:

Building Wealth™ offers a curriculum focused on the general business of real estate and the fundamentals of negotiating real estate purchases with sellers, rehabilitating distressed properties and leasing rental units to tenants to generate multiple sources of cash flow. Customers are taught the mechanics of completing a real estate transaction in their community, from making an offer to closing the transaction, with emphasis on creative financing strategies.

Making Money from Property with Martin Roberts offers a real estate curriculum focused on property auctions. The seminar reflects the real estate expertise of Martin Roberts, a well-known UK presenter and property journalist who develops properties in the United Kingdom, Europe and Canada. Customers are taught about buying at auction, rental and capital growth strategies, negotiating transactions and buying properties overseas.

Teach Me To Trade® offers a curriculum focused on financial instruments trading strategies, using software and specific teaching techniques designed by the Company. Customers are taught to understand the stock market, foreign exchange, options, futures, investment strategies, risks and how to improve returns in both bull and bear markets.

Women in Wealth™ teaches women how to take control of their financial circumstances, gain enough money and independence to achieve their goals and gain information on the latest wealth-building strategies and techniques.

22

Table of Contents

Advanced Training Courses

Customers who attend our basic training courses may choose to continue with advanced training courses in real estate or financial instruments investing or entrepreneurship skills. The advanced training courses of study under the Tigrent Learning brand (formerly the Wealth Intelligence Academy ® (“WIA”) brand) include: