Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Letters of Credit and Bank Guarantees The Company had approximately $85 million in outstanding letters of credit and bank guarantees as of December 31, 2015 . The letters of credit and bank guarantees are primarily held in connection with lease arrangements and certain agent agreements. The letters of credit and bank guarantees have expiration dates through 2020 , with many having a one -year renewal option. The Company expects to renew the letters of credit and bank guarantees prior to expiration in most circumstances. Litigation and Related Contingencies The Company is subject to certain claims and litigation that could result in losses, including damages, fines and/or civil penalties, which could be significant, and in some cases, criminal charges. The Company regularly evaluates the status of legal matters to assess whether a loss is probable and reasonably estimable in determining whether an accrual is appropriate. Furthermore, in determining whether disclosure is appropriate, the Company evaluates each legal matter to assess if there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred and whether an estimate of possible loss or range of loss can be made. Unless otherwise specified below, the Company believes that there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss or additional loss may have been incurred for each of the matters described below. For certain of these matters, management is unable to provide a meaningful estimate of the possible loss or range of loss because, among other reasons: (a) the proceedings are in preliminary stages; (b) specific damages have not been sought; (c) damage claims are unsupported and/or unreasonable; (d) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (e) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; or (f) novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories are being asserted. State of Arizona Settlement Agreement On February 11, 2010, Western Union Financial Services, Inc. ("WUFSI"), a subsidiary of the Company, signed a settlement agreement ("Southwest Border Agreement"), which resolved all outstanding legal issues and claims with the State of Arizona (the "State") and required the Company to fund a multi-state not-for-profit organization promoting safety and security along the United States and Mexico border, in which California, Texas and New Mexico are participating with Arizona. As part of the Southwest Border Agreement, the Company has made and expects to make certain investments in its compliance programs along the United States and Mexico border and a monitor (the "Monitor") has been engaged for those programs. The Company has incurred, and expects to continue to incur, significant costs in connection with the Southwest Border Agreement. The Monitor has made a number of recommendations related to the Company's compliance programs, which the Company is implementing, including programs related to the Company's Business Solutions segment. On January 31, 2014, the Southwest Border Agreement was amended to extend its term until December 31, 2017 (the "Amendment"). The Amendment imposes additional obligations on the Company and WUFSI in connection with WUFSI’s anti-money laundering ("AML") compliance programs and cooperation with law enforcement. In particular, the Amendment requires WUFSI to continue implementing the primary and secondary recommendations made by the Monitor appointed pursuant to the Southwest Border Agreement related to WUFSI’s AML compliance program, and includes, among other things, timeframes for implementing such primary and secondary recommendations. Under the Amendment, the Monitor could make additional primary recommendations until January 1, 2015 and may make additional secondary recommendations until January 31, 2017. After these dates, the Monitor may only make additional primary or secondary recommendations, as applicable, that meet certain requirements as set forth in the Amendment. Primary recommendations may also be re-classified as secondary recommendations. The Amendment provides that if WUFSI is unable to implement an effective AML compliance program along the U.S. and Mexico border, as determined by the Monitor and subject to limited judicial review, within the timeframes to implement the Monitor’s primary recommendations, the State may, within 180 days after the Monitor delivers its final report on the primary recommendations on December 31, 2016, and subsequent to any judicial review of the Monitor’s findings, elect one , and only one, of the following remedies: (i) assert a willful and material breach of the Southwest Border Agreement and pursue remedies under the Southwest Border Agreement, which could include initiating civil or criminal actions; or (ii) require WUFSI to pay (a) $50 million plus (b) $1 million per primary recommendation or group of primary recommendations that WUFSI fails to implement successfully. There are currently more than 70 primary recommendations and groups of primary recommendations. If the Monitor concludes that WUFSI has implemented an effective AML compliance program along the U.S. and Mexico border within the timeframes to implement the Monitor’s primary recommendations, the State cannot pursue either of the remedies above, except that the State may require WUFSI to pay $1 million per primary recommendation or group of primary recommendations that WUFSI fails to implement successfully. If, at the conclusion of the timeframe to implement the secondary recommendations on December 31, 2017, the Monitor concludes that WUFSI has not implemented an effective AML compliance program along the U.S. and Mexico border, the State cannot assert a willful and material breach of the Southwest Border Agreement but may require WUFSI to pay an additional $25 million . Additionally, if the Monitor determines that WUFSI has implemented an effective AML compliance program along the U.S. and Mexico border but has not implemented some of the Monitor’s secondary recommendations or groups of secondary recommendations that were originally classified as primary recommendations or groups of primary recommendations on the date of the Amendment, the State may require WUFSI to pay $500,000 per such secondary recommendation or group of recommendations. There is no monetary penalty associated with secondary recommendations that are classified as such on the date of the Amendment or any new secondary recommendations that the Monitor makes after the date of the Amendment. The Amendment requires WUFSI to continue funding the Monitor’s reasonable expenses in $500,000 increments as requested by the Monitor. The Amendment also requires WUFSI to make a one-time payment of $250,000 , which was paid in March 2014, and thereafter $150,000 per month for five years to fund the activities and expenses of a money transfer transaction data analysis center formed by WUFSI and a Financial Crimes Task Force comprised of federal, state and local law enforcement representatives, including those from the State. In addition, California, Texas, and New Mexico are participating in the money transfer transaction data analysis center. The changes in WUFSI’s AML program required by the Southwest Border Agreement, including the Amendment, and the Monitor’s recommendations have had, and will continue to have, adverse effects on the Company’s business, including additional costs. Additionally, if WUFSI is not able to implement a successful AML compliance program along the U.S. and Mexico border or timely implement the Monitor’s recommendations, each as determined by the Monitor, the State may pursue remedies under the Southwest Border Agreement and Amendment, including assessment of fines and civil and criminal actions. The Company submitted all of the primary recommendations to the Monitor for review prior to an October 31, 2015 deadline and is currently in the process of demonstrating its compliance with the primary recommendations, but is unable to predict whether the Monitor will conclude that WUFSI has implemented an effective AML compliance program and whether the Monitor's primary and secondary recommendations have been successfully implemented. Based on the stage of this matter, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any. Should the State pursue remedies under the Southwest Border Agreement, the Company could face significant fines and actions which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. United States Department of Justice Investigations On March 20, 2012, the Company was served with a federal grand jury subpoena issued by the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California ("USAO-CDCA") seeking documents relating to Shen Zhou International ("US Shen Zhou"), a former Western Union agent located in Monterey Park, California. The principal of US Shen Zhou was indicted in 2010 and in December 2013, pled guilty to one count of structuring international money transfers in violation of United States federal law in U.S. v. Zhi He Wang (SA CR 10-196, C.D. Cal.). Concurrent with the government's service of the subpoena, the government notified the Company that it is a target of an ongoing investigation into structuring and money laundering. Since March 20, 2012, the Company has received additional subpoenas from the USAO-CDCA seeking additional documents relating to US Shen Zhou, materials relating to certain other former and current agents and other materials relating to the Company's AML compliance policies and procedures. The government has interviewed several current and former Western Union employees and has served grand jury subpoenas seeking testimony from several current and former employees. The government's investigation is ongoing and the Company may receive additional requests for information as part of the investigation. The Company has provided and continues to provide information and documents to the government. Due to the investigative stage of the matter and the fact that no criminal charges or civil claims have been brought, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the government's investigation, or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with the resolution of any possible charges or claims that may be brought against the Company. Should such charges or claims be brought, the Company could face significant fines, damage awards or regulatory consequences which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. In March 2012, the Company was served with a federal grand jury subpoena issued by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“USAO-EDPA”) seeking documents relating to Hong Fai General Contractor Corp. (formerly known as Yong General Construction) (“Hong Fai”), a former Western Union agent located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Since March 2012, the Company has received additional subpoenas from the USAO-EDPA seeking additional documents relating to Hong Fai. The government's investigation is ongoing and the Company may receive additional requests for information as part of the investigation. The Company has provided and continues to provide information and documents to the government. The government has interviewed several current and former Western Union employees. Due to the investigative stage of the matter and the fact that no criminal charges or civil claims have been brought, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the government's investigation, or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with the resolution of any possible charges or claims that may be brought against the Company. Should such charges or claims be brought, the Company could face significant fines, damage awards or regulatory consequences which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. On November 25, 2013, the Company was served with a federal grand jury subpoena issued by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (“USAO-MDPA”) seeking documents relating to complaints made to the Company by consumers anywhere in the world relating to fraud-induced money transfers since January 1, 2008. Concurrent with the government's service of the subpoena, the government notified the Company that it is the subject of the investigation. Since November 25, 2013, the Company has received additional subpoenas from the USAO-MDPA seeking documents relating to certain Western Union agents and Western Union’s agent suspension and termination policies. The government has interviewed several current and former employees and has served grand jury subpoenas seeking testimony from several current and former employees. The government has indicated that it believes Western Union failed to timely terminate or suspend certain Western Union agents who allegedly paid or forwarded thousands of fraud-induced transactions sent from the United States to various countries from at least 2008 to 2012. The government's investigation is ongoing and the Company may receive additional requests for information as part of the investigation. The Company has provided and continues to provide information and documents to the government. Due to the investigative stage of the matter and the fact that no criminal charges or civil claims have been brought, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the government's investigation, or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with the resolution of any possible charges or claims that may be brought against the Company. Should such charges or claims be brought, the Company could face significant fines, damage awards or regulatory consequences which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. On March 6, 2014, the Company was served with a federal grand jury subpoena issued by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“USAO-SDFL”) seeking a variety of AML compliance materials, including documents relating to the Company’s AML, Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), Suspicious Activity Report (“SAR”) and Currency Transaction Report procedures, transaction monitoring protocols, BSA and AML training programs and publications, AML compliance investigation reports, compliance-related agent termination files, SARs, BSA audits, BSA and AML-related management reports and AML compliance staffing levels. The subpoena also calls for Board meeting minutes and organization charts. The period covered by the subpoena is January 1, 2007 to November 27, 2013. The Company has received additional subpoenas from the USAO-SDFL and the Broward County, Florida Sheriff’s Office relating to the investigation, including a federal grand jury subpoena issued by the USAO-SDFL on March 14, 2014, seeking information about 33 agent locations in Costa Rica such as ownership and operating agreements, SARs and AML compliance and BSA filings for the period January 1, 2008 to November 27, 2013. Subsequently, the USAO-SDFL served the Company with seizure warrants requiring the Company to seize all money transfers sent from the United States to two agent locations located in Costa Rica for a 10 -day period beginning in late March 2014. On July 8, 2014, the government served a grand jury subpoena calling for records relating to transactions sent from the United States to Nicaragua and Panama between September 1, 2013 and October 31, 2013. Further, the government recently served Western Union with a subpoena calling for data relating to transactions sent and received by 43 Nicaraguan agents from October 1, 2008 to October 31, 2013 and transactions sent from the United States to the Bahamas, Peru, Dominican Republic, and Haiti from September 1, 2013 to January 2, 2014 and certain documents relating to those agents. The government also advised the Company that it is investigating concerns the Company was aware there were gaming transactions being sent to Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, Philippines, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Peru, and the Bahamas (in addition to Costa Rica) and that the Company failed to take proper steps to stop the activity. The government has also notified the Company that it is a target of the investigation. The government has interviewed several current and former Western Union employees. The government's investigation is ongoing and the Company may receive additional requests for information or seizure warrants as part of the investigation. The Company has provided and continues to provide information and documents to the government. Due to the investigative stage of the matter and the fact that no criminal charges or civil claims have been brought, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the government's investigation, or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with the resolution of any possible charges or claims that may be brought against the Company. Should such charges or claims be brought, the Company could face significant fines, damage awards or regulatory consequences which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows. Shareholder Action and Other Matters On December 10, 2013, City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against The Western Union Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer and a former executive officer of the Company, asserting claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 against all defendants. On September 26, 2014, the Court appointed SEB Asset Management S.A. and SEB Investment Management AB as lead plaintiffs. On October 27, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, which asserts the same claims as the original complaint, except that it brings the claims under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act only against the individual defendants. The consolidated amended complaint also adds as a defendant another former executive officer of the Company. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that, during the purported class period, February 7, 2012 through October 30, 2012, defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse material facts known to them, including those regarding: (1) the competitive advantage the Company derived from its compliance program; (2) the Company’s ability to increase market share, make limited price adjustments and withstand competitive pressures; (3) the effect of compliance measures under the Southwest Border Agreement on agent retention and business in Mexico; and (4) the Company’s progress in implementing an anti-money laundering program for the Southwest Border Area. On December 11, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The Court referred the motion to a Magistrate Judge, who, on April 14, 2015, issued a report and recommendation, which recommended that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and that the consolidated amended complaint be dismissed in full. On April 28, 2015, plaintiffs filed objections to the report and recommendation. On September 29, 2015, the Court (a) overruled in part and sustained in part plaintiffs’ objections to the report and recommendation; (b) adopted in part the recommendation; (c) granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint; and (d) dismissed the claims against one of the individual defendants and denied the motion as to the remaining defendants. In particular, the Court denied the motion to dismiss as to certain statements made by the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer and a former executive officer during an investor conference call on July 24, 2012, related to category (3) above concerning the effect of compliance measures under the Southwest Border Agreement on agent retention and business in Mexico. On November 3, 2015, defendants filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint. On February 5, 2016, plaintiffs notified the Court that a witness on whom they had relied in bringing their claims did not have firsthand knowledge of events occurring at Western Union during calendar year 2012, and that without the witness’ support of their claims the consolidated amended complaint would not have survived the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The same day, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. The Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company, both of which are pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The original complaints asserted claims for violation of various consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, conversion and declaratory relief, based on allegations that the Company waits too long to inform consumers if their money transfers are not redeemed by the recipients and that the Company uses the unredeemed funds to generate income until the funds are escheated to state governments. The Tennille complaint was served on the Company on April 27, 2009. The Smet complaint was served on the Company on April 6, 2010. On September 21, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Tennille complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille amended complaint and the Smet complaint. On November 8, 2010, the Court denied the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment and conversion claims. On February 4, 2011, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' consumer protection claims. On March 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, various elements to its declaratory relief claim and WUFSI as a defendant. On April 25, 2011, the Company and WUFSI filed a motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims. WUFSI also moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims and to stay the action pending arbitration. On November 21, 2011, the Court denied the motion to compel arbitration and the stay request. Both companies appealed the decision. On January 24, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted the companies' request to stay the District Court proceedings pending their appeal. During the fourth quarter of 2012, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which the Court preliminarily approved on January 3, 2013. On June 25, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying the class and granting final approval to the settlement. Under the approved settlement, a substantial amount of the settlement proceeds, as well as all of the class counsel’s fees, administrative fees and other expenses, would be paid from the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds, which are included within "Settlement obligations" in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets. These fees and other expenses are currently estimated to be approximately $50 million . During the final approval hearing, the Court overruled objections to the settlement that had been filed by several class members. In July 2013, two of those class members filed notices of appeal. On May 1, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision to overrule the objections filed by the two class members who appealed. On January 11, 2016, the United States Supreme Court denied petitions for certiorari that were filed by the two class members who appealed. On February 1, 2016, pursuant to the settlement agreement and the Court's June 25, 2013 final approval order, Western Union deposited the class members' unclaimed money transfer funds into a class settlement fund, from which class member claims, administrative fees and class counsel’s fees, as well as other expenses will be paid. On November 6, 2013, the Attorney General of California notified Western Union of the California Controller’s position that Western Union’s deposit of the unclaimed money transfer funds into the class settlement fund pursuant to the settlement “will not satisfy Western Union’s obligations to report and remit funds” under California’s unclaimed property law, and that “Western Union will remain liable to the State of California” for the funds that would have escheated to California in the absence of the settlement. The State of Pennsylvania and District of Columbia have previously expressed similar views. Other states have also recently expressed concerns about the settlement and many have not yet expressed an opinion. Since some states and jurisdictions believe that the Company must escheat its full share of the settlement fund and that the deductions for class counsel's fees, administrative costs, and other expenses that are required under the settlement agreement are not permitted, there is a reasonable possibility a loss could result up to approximately the amount of those fees and other expenses. However, given the number of jurisdictions involved and the fact that no actions have been brought, the Company is unable to provide a more precise estimate of the range of possible loss. The Company has had discussions with the United States Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC") regarding the Company's consumer protection and anti-fraud programs. On December 12, 2012, the Company received a civil investigative demand from the FTC requesting that the Company produce (i) all documents relating to communications with the Monitor appointed pursuant to the Southwest Border Agreement, including information the Company provided to the Monitor and any reports prepared by the Monitor; and (ii) all documents relating to complaints made to the Company by consumers anywhere in the world relating to fraud-induced money transfers since January 1, 2011. On April 15, 2013, the FTC filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York requesting an order to compel production of the requested documents. On June 6, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part the FTC's request. On August 14, 2013, the FTC filed a notice of appeal. On August 27, 2013, Western Union filed a notice of cross-appeal. On February 21, 2014, the Company received another civil investigative demand from the FTC requesting the production of all documents relating to complaints made to the Company by or on behalf of consumers relating to fraud-induced money transfers that were sent from or received in the United States since January 1, 2004, except for documents that were already produced to the FTC in response to the first civil investigative demand. On October 7, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered a summary order reversing in part and vacating and remanding in part the June 6, 2013 order entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On October 22, 2014, the Company received another civil investigative demand issued by the FTC requesting documents and information since January 1, 2004 relating to the Company’s consumer fraud program, its policies and procedures governing agent termination, suspension, probation and reactivation, its efforts to comply with its 2005 agreement with 47 states and the District of Columbia regarding consumer fraud prevention, and complaints made to the Company by or on behalf of consumers concerning fraud-induced money transfers that were sent to or from the United States, excluding complaint-related documents that were produced to the FTC in response to the earlier civil investigative demands. The civil investigative demand also seeks various documents concerning approximately 720 agents, including documents relating to the transactions they sent and paid and the Company’s investigations of and communications with them. On July 31, 2015, the Company received another civil investigative demand requesting documents and information relating to the total number of agent and subagent locations in 13 countries annually since 2010, the average and median dollar values for money transfers sent anywhere in the world annually since 2010, copies of the Company’s anti-fraud programs, know your agent policy, know your customer policy, representative agent contracts, transaction data, background investigation documents and fraud complaints associated with four agents in Greece, Peru and Mexico and consumer fraud reports not already produced to the FTC. The Company has responded to each of the civil investigative demands it has received from the FTC. The Company may receive additional civil investigative demands from the FTC, and discussions between the Company and the FTC are ongoing. Due to the investigative stage of the matter and the fact that no claims have been brought, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the government’s investigation, or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could be associated with the resolution of any possible claims that may be brought against the Company. In August 2013, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the "CFPB") served Paymap, Inc. ("Paymap"), a subsidiary of the Company which operates solely in the United States, with a civil investigative demand requesting information and documents about Paymap’s Equity Accelerator service, which is designed to help consumers pay off their mortgages more quickly. In August 2014, the CFPB advised the Company of its view that certain aspects of Paymap’s marketing violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act’s prohibition against unfair, deceptive and abusive acts and practices. In July 2015, Paymap agreed to resolve the matter without admitting or denying the CFPB's allegations ("Paymap Settlement Agreement"), and also agreed to pay approximately $33.4 million in restitution and a $5.0 million civil monetary penalty. The Company paid $5.0 million during the third quarter of 2015 and has segregated funds that are included in "Other assets" in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets which will be used to pay the remaining $33.4 million . As this matter has been settled, the Company believes that the potential for additional loss in excess of amounts already accrued is remote. On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., based on allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to class members’ wireless telephones without their consent. During the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier and the plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims, class counsel’s fees and the costs of administering the settlement. The agreement has been signed by the parties and, on November 10, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement. The Company accrued an amount equal to the retention under its insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that any amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer. However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are unable to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a resolution, the Company's financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows could be adversely impacted. As the parties have reached an agreement in this matter, the Company believes that the potential for additional loss in excess of amounts already accrued is remote. On February 10, 2015, Caryn Pincus filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Speedpay, Inc. (“Speedpay”), a subsidiary of the Company, asserting claims based on allegations that Speedpay imposed an unlawful surcharge on |