Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 14: Commitments and Contingencies *Litigation* The Company is involved in disputes and legal actions from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The Company, along with others in its industry, is routinely subject to legal actions based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), comparable state statutes, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), state and federal unfair competition statutes, and common law causes of action. The violations of law alleged in these actions often include claims that the Company lacks specified licenses to conduct its business, attempts to collect debts on which the statute of limitations has run, has made inaccurate assertions of fact in support of its collection actions, and/or has acted improperly in connection with its efforts to contact consumers. These cases are frequently styled as supposed class actions. On March 8, 2013, March 19, 2013 and March 20, 2013, three actions entitled Shell v. Asset Acceptance Capital Corp., et. al., Neumann v. Asset Acceptance Capital Corp., et. al., and Jaluka v. Asset Acceptance Capital Corp. et. al., respectively, were filed in the Macomb County Circuit Court of the State of Michigan. On April 19, 2013, a fourth action entitled Dix v. Asset Acceptance Capital Corp. et al was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These actions were brought by purported stockholders of AACC, against the Company, AACC, and certain other named entities and individuals, and allege, among other things, that the Company has aided and abetted AACC’s directors in breaching their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and candor or disclosure owed to AACC stockholders. Plaintiffs in the actions sought, among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the proposed acquisition, or rescission of the proposed acquisition (in the event the transaction has already been consummated), as well as costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees, and other equitable or injunctive relief as the court may deem just and proper. The plaintiffs did not specify the dollar amount of damages sought in each action. On June 2, 2013, AACC entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) with the plaintiffs in the Michigan actions and Delaware action that sets forth the parties’ agreement in principle for settlement. As explained in the MOU, without admitting any wrongdoing, AACC agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger, and to enter into a stipulation of settlement providing for the certification of a class, for settlement purposes only, that includes certain persons or entities who held shares of AACC common stock and the release of all asserted claims. Once the stipulation of settlement is approved by the Michigan court, which has yet to and may not occur, the attorneys for the class members intend to seek an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in a total amount not to exceed $550,000, which the defendants have agreed to not oppose. Except as described above and in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2013, there have been no material developments in any of the legal proceedings disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012. In certain legal proceedings, the Company may have recourse to insurance or third party contractual indemnities to cover all or portions of its litigation expenses, judgments, or settlements. In accordance with authoritative guidance, the Company records loss contingencies in its financial statements only for matters in which losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Where a range of loss can be reasonably estimated with no best estimate in the range, the Company records the minimum estimated liability. The Company continuously assesses the potential liability related to the Company’s pending litigation and revises its estimates when additional information becomes available. As of June 30, 2013, the Company has no material reserves for litigation. Additionally, based on the current status of litigation matters, either the estimate of exposure is immaterial to the Company’s financial statements or an estimate cannot yet be determined. The Company’s legal costs are recorded to expense as incurred. *Purchase Commitments* In the normal course of business, the Company enters into forward flow purchase agreements and other purchase commitment agreements. As of June 30, 2013, the Company has entered into agreements to purchase receivable portfolios with a face value of approximately $435.8 million for a purchase price of approximately $35.5 million. The Company has no purchase commitments beyond December 2014.

Note 14: Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

The Company is involved in disputes and legal actions from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The Company, along with others in its industry, is routinely subject to legal actions based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), comparable state statutes, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), state and federal unfair competition statutes, and common law causes of action. The violations of law alleged in these actions often include claims that the Company lacks specified licenses to conduct its business, attempts to collect debts on which the statute of limitations has run, has made inaccurate assertions of fact in support of its collection actions, and/or has acted improperly in connection with its efforts to contact consumers. These cases are frequently styled as supposed class actions.

On March 8, 2013, March 19, 2013 and March 20, 2013, three actions entitled Shell v. Asset Acceptance Capital Corp., et. al., Neumann v. Asset Acceptance Capital Corp., et. al., and Jaluka v. Asset Acceptance Capital Corp. et. al., respectively, were filed in the Macomb County Circuit Court of the State of Michigan. On April 19, 2013, a fourth action entitled Dix v. Asset Acceptance Capital Corp. et al was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These actions were brought by purported stockholders of AACC, against the Company, AACC, and certain other named entities and individuals, and allege, among other things, that the Company has aided and abetted AACC’s directors in breaching their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and candor or disclosure owed to AACC stockholders. Plaintiffs in the actions sought, among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the proposed acquisition, or rescission of the proposed acquisition (in the event the transaction has already been consummated), as well as costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys’ and experts’ fees, and other equitable or injunctive relief as the court may deem just and proper. The plaintiffs did not specify the dollar amount of damages sought in each action. On June 2, 2013, AACC entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) with the plaintiffs in the Michigan actions and Delaware action that sets forth the parties’ agreement in principle for settlement. As explained in the MOU, without admitting any wrongdoing, AACC agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger, and to enter into a stipulation of settlement providing for the certification of a class, for settlement purposes only, that includes certain persons or entities who held shares of AACC common stock and the release of all asserted claims. Once the stipulation of settlement is approved by the Michigan court, which has yet to and may not occur, the attorneys for the class members intend to seek an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in a total amount not to exceed $550,000, which the defendants have agreed to not oppose.

Except as described above and in the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2013, there have been no material developments in any of the legal proceedings disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In certain legal proceedings, the Company may have recourse to insurance or third party contractual indemnities to cover all or portions of its litigation expenses, judgments, or settlements. In accordance with authoritative guidance, the Company records loss contingencies in its financial statements only for matters in which losses are probable and can be reasonably estimated. Where a range of loss can be reasonably estimated with no best estimate in the range, the Company records the minimum estimated liability. The Company continuously assesses the potential liability related to the Company’s pending litigation and revises its estimates when additional information becomes available. As of June 30, 2013, the Company has no material reserves for litigation. Additionally, based on the current status of litigation matters, either the estimate of exposure is immaterial to the Company’s financial statements or an estimate cannot yet be determined. The Company’s legal costs are recorded to expense as incurred.

Purchase Commitments

In the normal course of business, the Company enters into forward flow purchase agreements and other purchase commitment agreements. As of June 30, 2013, the Company has entered into agreements to purchase receivable portfolios with a face value of approximately $435.8 million for a purchase price of approximately $35.5 million. The Company has no purchase commitments beyond December 2014.