Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended |
Jun. 30, 2014 |
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
Commitments and Contingencies | ' |
Note 13 – Commitments and Contingencies |
Litigation. The Company is subject to various asserted and unasserted claims during the course of business. Due to the uncertainty surrounding the litigation process, except for those matters for which an accrual is described below, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, in connection with the asserted and unasserted legal actions against it. Although the outcome of many of these matters is currently not determinable, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and that the ultimate cost to resolve these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. In addition to the legal proceedings discussed below, the Company is subject to various legal proceedings arising from normal business operations. |
The Company assesses the materiality of litigation by reviewing a range of qualitative and quantitative factors. These factors include the size of the potential claims, the merits of the Company’s defenses and the likelihood of plaintiffs’ success on the merits, the regulatory environment that could impact such claims and the potential impact of the litigation on its business. The Company evaluates the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome of the legal or regulatory proceedings to which it is a party in accordance with accounting guidance. This assessment is subjective based on the status of the legal proceedings and is based on consultation with in-house and external legal counsel. The actual outcomes of these proceedings may differ from the Company’s assessments. |
|
North Carolina. As discussed in the Company’s annual report on form 10-K, on February 8, 2005, the Company, two of its subsidiaries, including its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Mr. Don Early, the Company’s Chairman of the Board, were sued in Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina in a putative class action lawsuit filed by James B. Torrence, Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline, who were customers of a Delaware state-chartered bank for whom the Company provided certain services in connection with the bank’s origination of payday loans in North Carolina, prior to the closing of the Company’s North Carolina branches in fourth quarter 2005. |
In July 2011, the parties completed a weeklong hearing on the Company’s motion to enforce its class action waiver provision and its arbitration provision. In January 2012, the trial court denied the Company’s motion to enforce its class action and arbitration provisions. The Company appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals. On February 4, 2014, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court erred, and ordered the trial court to dismiss the lawsuit and that the parties proceed to arbitration. On June 17, 2014, the Supreme Court of North Carolina refused to hear an appeal of this ruling. |
The Company and the two plaintiffs have reached an agreement in principle to settle the two individual arbitration proceedings (including any right to seek class arbitration) for an amount that is not material to the Company. The agreement is subject to negotiation and execution of a written settlement agreement. |
Canada. As discussed in the Company’s annual report on form 10-K, on September 30, 2011, the Company acquired all the outstanding shares of Direct Credit, a British Columbia company engaged in short-term, consumer Internet lending in certain Canadian provinces. On October 18, 2011, Matthew Lee, an alleged Alberta, Canada resident sued Direct Credit, all of its subsidiaries and three former directors of those subsidiaries in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in a purported class action. The plaintiff alleges that Direct Credit and its subsidiaries violated Canada’s criminal usury laws by charging interest on its loans at rates higher than 60%. The plaintiff purports to represent all Canadian borrowers of the subsidiary who resided outside of British Columbia. |
The parties have executed a written settlement of this matter, subject to an audit verification of proposed settlement amounts and receipt of required court approval of the settlement terms. The Company’s share of the settlement amount and ancillary expenses, net of indemnification from the prior owners of Direct Credit, is $500,000 (Canadian). In June 2014, the Company’s share of the settlement and the indemnification amount due from the prior owners of Direct Credit, were funded into a settlement trust held by an independent third party trustee. It is expected that the settlement will be finalized by the end of 2014, with execution of its requirements to continue into 2015. |
California. On August 13, 2012, the Company was sued in the United States District Court for the South District of California in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Paul Stemple. Mr. Stemple alleges that the Company used an automatic telephone dialing system with an “artificial or prerecorded voice” in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, et seq. The complaint does not identify any other members of the proposed class, nor how many members may be in the proposed class. This matter is in the early stages of litigation. The Company has filed an answer denying all claims. The parties are currently briefing class certification issues. |
Other Matters. The Company is also currently involved in ordinary, routine litigation and administrative proceedings incidental to its business, including customer bankruptcies and employment-related matters from time to time. The Company believes the likely outcome of any other pending cases and proceedings will not be material to its business or its financial condition. |