Note 14: Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

The Company is involved in disputes, legal actions, regulatory investigations, inquiries, and other actions from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The Company, along with others in its industry, are 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. Such litigation and regulatory actions involve potential compensatory or punitive damage claims, fines, sanctions, or injunctive relief. Many continue on for some length of time and involve substantial litigation, effort, and negotiation before a result is achieved, and during the process the Company often cannot determine the substance or timing of any eventual outcome.

On May 19, 2008, an action captioned Brent v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. et. al was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Western Division, in which the plaintiff filed a class action counter-claim against two of the Company’s subsidiaries (the “Midland Defendants”). The complaint alleged that the Midland Defendants’ business practices violated consumers’ rights under the FDCPA and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. The plaintiff sought actual and statutory damages for the class of Ohio residents, plus attorney’s fees and costs of class notice and class administration. The dollar amount of damages originally sought in the case was an unspecified amount in excess of $25,000. On August 12, 2011, the court issued an order granting final approval to the parties agreed upon settlement of this lawsuit, as well as two other pending lawsuits in the Northern District of Ohio entitled Franklin v. Midland Funding LLC and Vassalle v. Midland Funding LLC, on a national class basis, and dismissed the cases against the Midland Defendants with prejudice. That order was subsequently appealed by certain objectors to the settlement, and on February 26, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s order approving the settlement, vacated the judgment certifying a nationwide settlement class, and remanded the case back to the Northern District of Ohio for further proceedings consistent with the Sixth Circuit’s ruling. By agreement dated November 8, 2013, the parties entered into a revised agreement to settle the lawsuits on a national class basis, subject to obtaining court approval after notice to the class. The Company has vigorously denied the claims asserted against it in these matters, but has agreed to the proposed settlement to avoid the burden and expense of continued litigation. Subject to court approval, settlement awards to eligible class members, as well as fees and costs, will be paid from a settlement fund of approximately $5.2 million, which has already been paid by the Company and its insurer in connection with the previous proposed settlement. If the number of class members who make claims exceeds a certain level, the total settlement could increase to an amount not to exceed $5.7 million. On November 27, 2013, the district court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the parties’ revised agreed upon settlement of this lawsuit, and will hold a hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the agreement and whether final approval should be given to it on May 15, 2014.

On November 2, 2010 and December 17, 2010, two national class actions entitled Robinson v. Midland Funding LLC and Tovar v. Midland Credit Management, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaints allege that certain of the Company’s subsidiaries violated the TCPA by calling consumers’ cellular phones without their prior express consent. The complaints seek monetary damages under the TCPA, injunctive relief, and other relief, including attorney fees. On May 10, 2011 and May 11, 2011 two class actions entitled Scardina v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding LLC and Encore Capital Group, Inc. and Martin v. Midland Funding, LLC, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege on behalf of a putative class of Illinois consumers that certain of the Company’s subsidiaries violated the TCPA by calling consumers’ cellular phones without their prior express consent. The complaints seek monetary damages under the TCPA, injunctive relief, and other relief, including attorney fees. On July 28, 2011, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Scardina and Martin cases to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California to be consolidated with the Tovar and Robinson cases. On October 11, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company’s motion to transfer. All four of these cases are now pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in a multidistrict litigation titled In re Midland Credit Management Inc. Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 11, 2012. On October 17, 2012, a national class action titled Hartman v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. was filed in the Middle District of Florida. The complaint in Hartman alleged that the Company’s subsidiary violated the TCPA by calling consumers’ cellular phones without their prior express consent. On November 20, 2012, the Hartman case was transferred to the Southern District of California to be consolidated with the multidistrict litigation. There have been, and may continue to be from time to time, similar claims filed against the Company alleging violations of the TCPA.

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. On September 16, 2013, AACC entered into a stipulation of settlement which sets forth the terms of the MOU. On December 16, 2013, the Michigan court issued an order granting final approval to the parties agreed upon settlement of the lawsuits, awarded the attorneys for the class members attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $550,000, and dismissed the Michigan actions with prejudice. On January 17, 2014, as a result of approval of the settlement by the Michigan court, the Delaware action was also dismissed with prejudice.

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 its pending litigation and revises its estimates when additional information becomes available. As of December 31, 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.

Leases

The Company leases office facilities in the United States, India, United Kingdom, Ireland, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Peru. The leases are structured as operating leases, and the Company incurred related rent expense in the amounts of $12.0 million, $6.9 million, and $5.8 million during the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively.

The Company has capital lease obligations primarily for certain computer equipment. Refer to Note 10 “Debt—Capital Lease Obligations” for additional information on the Company’s capital leases. Amortization of assets under capital leases is included in depreciation and amortization expense.

Future minimum lease payments under lease obligations consist of the following for the years ending December 31 (in thousands):


	Capital Leases			Operating Leases		Total
2014	$	5,903		$	17,582	$	23,485
2015		4,242			15,824		20,066
2016		2,262			12,624		14,886
2017		519			10,861		11,380
2018		110			8,115		8,225
Thereafter		—			20,540		20,540

Total minimal leases payments		13,036		$	85,546	$	98,582

Less: Interest		(817	)

Present value of minimal lease payments	$	12,219

Purchase Commitments

In the normal course of business, the Company enters into forward flow purchase agreements and other purchase commitment agreements. As of December 31, 2013, the Company has entered into agreements to purchase receivable portfolios with a face value of approximately $770.1 million for a purchase price of approximately $93.5 million. The Company has no purchase commitments extending past one year.

Guarantees

Encore’s Certificate of Incorporation and indemnification agreements between the Company and its officers and directors provide that the Company will indemnify and hold harmless its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences arising as a result of the officer or director serving in such capacity. The Company has also agreed to indemnify certain third parties under certain circumstances pursuant to the terms of certain underwriting agreements, registration rights agreements, credit facilities, portfolio purchase and sale agreements, and other agreements entered into by the Company in the ordinary course of business. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited. The Company believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal and, as of December 31, 2013, has no liabilities recorded for these agreements.