Litigation And Related Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2011
Litigation And Related Contingencies
Litigation And Related Contingencies	12. Litigation and Related Contingencies We are party to investigations, legal claims and lawsuits arising out of our business operations. As required, we accrue our best estimate of loss contingencies when we believe a loss is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of any such loss. Amounts accrued, including obligations under indemnifications, totaled $86.3 million and $70.6 million at July 31, 2011 and April 30, 2011, respectively. Litigation is inherently unpredictable and it is difficult to project the outcome of particular matters with reasonable certainty and, therefore, the actual amount of any loss may prove to be larger or smaller than the amounts reflected in our consolidated financial statements. Litigation and Claims Pertaining to Discontinued Mortgage Operations Although mortgage loan origination activities were terminated and the loan servicing business was sold during fiscal year 2008, SCC and HRB remain subject to investigations, claims and lawsuits pertaining to SCC's mortgage business activities that occurred prior to such termination and sale. These investigations, claims and lawsuits include actions by state and federal regulators, municipalities, third party indemnitees, individual plaintiffs, and cases in which plaintiffs seek to represent a class of others alleged to be similarly situated. Among other things, these investigations, claims and lawsuits allege discriminatory or unfair and deceptive loan origination and servicing practices, fraud, rights to indemnification, and violations of securities laws, the Truth in Lending Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act. Given the non-prime mortgage environment, the number of these investigations, claims and lawsuits has increased over historical experience and is likely to continue to increase. The amounts claimed in these investigations, claims and lawsuits are substantial in some instances, and the ultimate resulting liability is difficult to predict and thus cannot be reasonably estimated. In the event of unfavorable outcomes, the amounts that may be required to be paid in the discharge of liabilities or settlements could be substantial and could have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations. On June 3, 2008, the Massachusetts Attorney General filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts (Case No. 08-2474-BLS) styled Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., alleging unfair, deceptive and discriminatory origination and servicing of mortgage loans and seeking equitable relief, disgorgement of profits, restitution and statutory penalties. In November 2008, the court granted a preliminary injunction limiting the ability of the owner of SCC's former loan servicing business to initiate or advance foreclosure actions against certain loans originated by SCC or its subsidiaries without (1) advance notice to the Massachusetts Attorney General and (2) if the Attorney General objects to foreclosure, approval by the court. An appeal of the preliminary injunction was denied. To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation, the parties have reached an agreement to settle this case. The settlement requires a cash payment from SCC to the Attorney General of $9.8 million, in addition to certain loan modification relief to Massachusetts borrowers estimated at $115 million in benefits. The agreement also provides for a contingent cash payment of up to $5 million in the event certain loan modification relief is not available. We have a liability recorded for our best estimate of the expected loss. We do not believe losses in excess of our accrual would be material to our financial statements, although it is possible that our losses could exceed the amount we have accrued. On February 1, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against SCC and other related entities styled Cecil Barrett, et al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Civil Action No. 08-10157-RWZ). Plaintiffs allege discriminatory practices relating to the origination of mortgage loans in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief in addition to actual and punitive damages. The court dismissed H&R Block, Inc. from the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction. In March 2011, the court issued an order certifying a class, which defendants sought to appeal. On August 24, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear the appeal, noting that the district court could reconsider its certification decision in light of a recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated matter. We do not believe losses in excess of our accrual would be material to our financial statements, although it is possible that our losses could exceed the amount we have accrued. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and intend to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated results of operations. On December 9, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against SCC and H&R Block, Inc. styled Jeanne Drake, et al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Case No. SACV09-1450 CJC). Plaintiffs allege breach of contract, promissory fraud, intentional interference with contractual relations, wrongful withholding of wages and unfair business practices in connection with the failure to pay severance benefits to employees when their employment transitioned to American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. in connection with the sale of certain assets and operations of Option One. Plaintiffs seek to recover severance benefits of approximately $8 million, interest and attorney's fees, in addition to penalties and punitive damages on certain claims. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is pending. All parties have filed motions for summary judgment. The court has set a hearing on all pending motions on August 29, 2011. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable nor have we established a loss contingency related to this matter. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and intend to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated results of operations. On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Case No. 10CH45033) styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation, et al. against multiple defendants, including various SCC related entities and H&R Block, Inc. related entities, arising out of Federal Home Loan Bank's (FHLB's) purchase of mortgage-backed securities. Plaintiff asserts claims for rescission and damages under state securities law and for common law negligent misrepresentation in connection with its purchase of two securities originated and securitized by SCC. These two securities had a total initial principal amount of approximately $50 million, of which approximately $42 million remains outstanding. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable nor have we established a loss contingency related to this matter. We believe the claims in this case are without merit and we intend to defend them vigorously. There can be no assurances, however, as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated results of operations. Employment-Related Claims and Litigation We have been named in several wage and hour class action lawsuits throughout the country, including Alice Williams v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, Case No.RG08366506 (Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, filed January 17, 2008) (alleging improper classification of office managers in California); Arabella Lemus v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. CGC-09-489251 (United States District Court, Northern District of California, filed June 9, 2009) (alleging failure to timely pay compensation to tax professionals in California and to include itemized information on wage statements); Delana Ugas v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. BC417700 (United States District Court, Central District of California, filed July 13, 2009) (alleging failure to compensate tax professionals in California for all hours worked and to provide meal periods); and Barbara Petroski v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-00075 (United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, filed January 25, 2010) (alleging failure to compensate tax professionals nationwide for off-season training). A class was certified in the Lemus case in December 2010 (consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in California from 2007 to 2010); in the Williams case in March 2011 (consisting of office managers who worked in company-owned offices in California from 2004 to 2011); and in the Ugas case in August 2011 (consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in California from 2006 to 2011). A conditional class was certified in the Petroski case in March 2011 (consisting of tax professionals nationwide who worked in company-owned offices and who were not compensated for certain training courses occurring on or after April 15, 2007). The plaintiffs in the wage and hour class action lawsuits seek actual damages, pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, in addition to statutory penalties under California and federal law, which could equal up to 30 days of wages per tax season for class members who worked in California. A portion of our loss contingency accrual is related to these lawsuits for the amount of loss that we consider probable and estimable. For those wage and hour class action lawsuits for which we are able to estimate a range of possible loss, the current estimated range is $0 to $70 million in excess of the accrued liability related to those matters. This estimated range of possible loss is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. Because this estimated range does not include matters for which an estimate is not possible, the range does not represent our maximum loss exposure for the wage and hour class action lawsuits. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in these lawsuits and intend to defend them vigorously. The amounts claimed in these matters are substantial in some instances and the ultimate liability with respect to these matters is difficult to predict. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of these cases or their impact on our consolidated results of operations, individually or in the aggregate. RAL Litigation We have been named in multiple lawsuits as defendants in litigation regarding our refund anticipation loan program in past years. All of those lawsuits have been settled or otherwise resolved, except for one. The sole remaining case is a putative class action styled Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., April Term 1992 Civil Action No. 3246 in the Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, instituted on April 23, 1993. The plaintiffs allege inadequate disclosures with respect to the RAL product and assert claims for violation of consumer protection statutes, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, usury, and violation of the Truth In Lending Act. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. A Pennsylvania class was certified, but later decertified by the trial court in December 2003. An appellate court subsequently reversed the decertification decision. We are appealing the reversal. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this matter. Plaintiffs have not provided a dollar amount of their claim and we are not able to estimate a possible range of loss. We believe we have meritorious defenses to this case and intend to defend it vigorously. There can be no assurances, however, as to the outcome of this case or its impact on our consolidated results of operations. Express IRA Litigation We have been named defendants in lawsuits regarding our former Express IRA product. All of those lawsuits have been settled or otherwise resolved, except for one. The one remaining case was filed on January 2, 2008 by the Mississippi Attorney General in the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Mississippi First Judicial District (Case No. G 2008 6 S 2) and is styled Jim Hood, Attorney for the State of Mississippi v. H&R Block, Inc., H&R Block Financial Advisors, Inc., et al. The complaint alleges fraudulent business practices, deceptive acts and practices, common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the sale of the product in Mississippi and seeks equitable relief, disgorgement of profits, damages and restitution, civil penalties and punitive damages. We are not able to estimate a possible range of loss. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in this case, and we intend to defend this case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated results of operations. Although we sold H&R Block Financial Advisors, Inc. (HRBFA) effective November 1, 2008, we remain responsible for any liabilities relating to the Express IRA litigation, among other things, through an indemnification agreement. A portion of our accrual is related to these indemnity obligations. RSM McGladrey Litigation EquiCo, its parent and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates, are parties to a class action filed on July 11, 2006 and styled Do Right's Plant Growers, et al. v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., et al. (the "RSM Parties"), Case No. 06 CC00137, in the California Superior Court, Orange County. The complaint contains allegations relating to business valuation services provided by EquiCo, including allegations of fraud, conversion and unfair competition. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages, in addition to pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. On March 17, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on all claims. To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case, subject to approval by the California Superior Court. The settlement requires a maximum payment of $41.5 million, although the actual cost of the settlement will depend on the number of valid claims submitted by class members. The California Superior Court preliminarily approved the settlement on July 29, 2011. A final approval hearing is set for October 20, 2011. The defendants believe they have meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and, if for any reason the settlement is not approved, they will continue to defend the case vigorously. Although we have a liability recorded for expected losses, there can be no assurance regarding the outcome of this matter. On December 7, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (2010-L-014920) against M&P, RSM and H&R Block styled Ronald R. Peterson ex rel. Lancelot Investors Fund, L.P., et al. v. McGladrey & Pullen LLP, et al. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on December 28, 2009 (Case No. 1:10-CV-00274). The complaint, which was filed by the trustee for certain bankrupt investment funds, seeks unspecified damages and asserts claims against RSM for vicarious liability and alter ego liability and against H&R Block for equitable restitution relating to audit work performed by M&P. The amount claimed in this case is substantial. On November 3, 2010, the court dismissed the case against all defendants in its entirety with prejudice. The trustee has filed an appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals with respect to the claims against M&P and RSM. No claims remain against H&R Block. RSM and M&P operate in an alternative practice structure ("APS"). Accordingly, certain claims and lawsuits against M&P could have an impact on RSM. More specifically, any judgments or settlements arising from claims and lawsuits against M&P that exceed its insurance coverage could have a direct adverse effect on M&P's operations. Although RSM is not responsible for the liabilities of M&P, significant M&P litigation and claims could impair the profitability of the APS and impair the ability to attract and retain clients and quality professionals. This could, in turn, have a material effect on RSM's operations and impair the value of our investment in RSM. There is no assurance regarding the outcome of any claims or litigation involving M&P. Other In October 2010, we signed a definitive merger agreement to acquire all of the outstanding shares of 2SS Holdings, Inc. ("2SS"), developer of TaxACT digital tax preparation solutions, for $287.5 million in cash. In May 2011, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. district court in Washington, D.C., (Case No. 1:11-cv-00948) against H&R Block and 2SS styled United States v. H&R Block, Inc., 2SS Holdings, Inc., and TA IX L.P., to block our proposed acquisition of 2SS. A preliminary injunction hearing is set to occur in September 2011. There are no assurances that the DOJ's lawsuit will be resolved in our favor or that the transaction will be consummated. In addition, we are from time to time party to investigations, claims and lawsuits not discussed herein arising out of our business operations. These investigations, claims and lawsuits include actions by state attorneys general, other state regulators, individual plaintiffs, and cases in which plaintiffs seek to represent a class of others similarly situated. We believe we have meritorious defenses to each of these investigations, claims and lawsuits, and we are defending or intend to defend them vigorously. The amounts claimed in these matters are substantial in some instances, however, the ultimate liability with respect to such matters is difficult to predict. In the event of an unfavorable outcome, the amounts we may be required to pay in the discharge of liabilities or settlements could have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations. We are also party to claims and lawsuits that we consider to be ordinary, routine litigation incidental to our business, including claims and lawsuits (collectively, "Other Claims") concerning the preparation of customers' income tax returns, the fees charged customers for various products and services, relationships with franchisees, intellectual property disputes, employment matters and contract disputes. While we cannot provide assurance that we will ultimately prevail in each instance, we believe the amount, if any, we are required to pay in the discharge of liabilities or settlements in these Other Claims will not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations.

We are party to investigations, legal claims and lawsuits arising out of our business operations. As required, we accrue our best estimate of loss contingencies when we believe a loss is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of any such loss. Amounts accrued, including obligations under indemnifications, totaled $86.3 million and $70.6 million at July 31, 2011 and April 30, 2011, respectively. Litigation is inherently unpredictable and it is difficult to project the outcome of particular matters with reasonable certainty and, therefore, the actual amount of any loss may prove to be larger or smaller than the amounts reflected in our consolidated financial statements.

Although mortgage loan origination activities were terminated and the loan servicing business was sold during fiscal year 2008, SCC and HRB remain subject to investigations, claims and lawsuits pertaining to SCC's mortgage business activities that occurred prior to such termination and sale. These investigations, claims and lawsuits include actions by state and federal regulators, municipalities, third party indemnitees, individual plaintiffs, and cases in which plaintiffs seek to represent a class of others alleged to be similarly situated. Among other things, these investigations, claims and lawsuits allege discriminatory or unfair and deceptive loan origination and servicing practices, fraud, rights to indemnification, and violations of securities laws, the Truth in Lending Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act. Given the non-prime mortgage environment, the number of these investigations, claims and lawsuits has increased over historical experience and is likely to continue to increase. The amounts claimed in these investigations, claims and lawsuits are substantial in some instances, and the ultimate resulting liability is difficult to predict and thus cannot be reasonably estimated. In the event of unfavorable outcomes, the amounts that may be required to be paid in the discharge of liabilities or settlements could be substantial and could have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations.

On June 3, 2008, the Massachusetts Attorney General filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts (Case No. 08-2474-BLS) styled Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., alleging unfair, deceptive and discriminatory origination and servicing of mortgage loans and seeking equitable relief, disgorgement of profits, restitution and statutory penalties. In November 2008, the court granted a preliminary injunction limiting the ability of the owner of SCC's former loan servicing business to initiate or advance foreclosure actions against certain loans originated by SCC or its subsidiaries without (1) advance notice to the Massachusetts Attorney General and (2) if the Attorney General objects to foreclosure, approval by the court. An appeal of the preliminary injunction was denied. To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation, the parties have reached an agreement to settle this case. The settlement requires a cash payment from SCC to the Attorney General of $9.8 million, in addition to certain loan modification relief to Massachusetts borrowers estimated at $115 million in benefits. The agreement also provides for a contingent cash payment of up to $5 million in the event certain loan modification relief is not available. We have a liability recorded for our best estimate of the expected loss. We do not believe losses in excess of our accrual would be material to our financial statements, although it is possible that our losses could exceed the amount we have accrued.

On February 1, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against SCC and other related entities styled Cecil Barrett, et al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Civil Action No. 08-10157-RWZ). Plaintiffs allege discriminatory practices relating to the origination of mortgage loans in violation of the Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief in addition to actual and punitive damages. The court dismissed H&R Block, Inc. from the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction. In March 2011, the court issued an order certifying a class, which defendants sought to appeal. On August 24, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear the appeal, noting that the district court could reconsider its certification decision in light of a recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated matter. We do not believe losses in excess of our accrual would be material to our financial statements, although it is possible that our losses could exceed the amount we have accrued. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and intend to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated results of operations.

On December 9, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against SCC and H&R Block, Inc. styled Jeanne Drake, et al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Case No. SACV09-1450 CJC). Plaintiffs allege breach of contract, promissory fraud, intentional interference with contractual relations, wrongful withholding of wages and unfair business practices in connection with the failure to pay severance benefits to employees when their employment transitioned to American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. in connection with the sale of certain assets and operations of Option One. Plaintiffs seek to recover severance benefits of approximately $8 million, interest and attorney's fees, in addition to penalties and punitive damages on certain claims. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is pending. All parties have filed motions for summary judgment. The court has set a hearing on all pending motions on August 29, 2011. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable nor have we established a loss contingency related to this matter. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and intend to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated results of operations.

On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Case No. 10CH45033) styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation, et al. against multiple defendants, including various SCC related entities and H&R Block, Inc. related entities, arising out of Federal Home Loan Bank's (FHLB's) purchase of mortgage-backed securities. Plaintiff asserts claims for rescission and damages under state securities law and for common law negligent misrepresentation in connection with its purchase of two securities originated and securitized by SCC. These two securities had a total initial principal amount of approximately $50 million, of which approximately $42 million remains outstanding. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable nor have we established a loss contingency related to this matter. We believe the claims in this case are without merit and we intend to defend them vigorously. There can be no assurances, however, as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated results of operations.

Employment-Related Claims and Litigation

We have been named in several wage and hour class action lawsuits throughout the country, including Alice Williams v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, Case No.RG08366506 (Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, filed January 17, 2008) (alleging improper classification of office managers in California); Arabella Lemus v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. CGC-09-489251 (United States District Court, Northern District of California, filed June 9, 2009) (alleging failure to timely pay compensation to tax professionals in California and to include itemized information on wage statements); Delana Ugas v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al., Case No. BC417700 (United States District Court, Central District of California, filed July 13, 2009) (alleging failure to compensate tax professionals in California for all hours worked and to provide meal periods); and Barbara Petroski v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-00075 (United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, filed January 25, 2010) (alleging failure to compensate tax professionals nationwide for off-season training). A class was certified in the Lemus case in December 2010 (consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in California from 2007 to 2010); in the Williams case in March 2011 (consisting of office managers who worked in company-owned offices in California from 2004 to 2011); and in the Ugas case in August 2011 (consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in California from 2006 to 2011). A conditional class was certified in the Petroski case in March 2011 (consisting of tax professionals nationwide who worked in company-owned offices and who were not compensated for certain training courses occurring on or after April 15, 2007).

The plaintiffs in the wage and hour class action lawsuits seek actual damages, pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, in addition to statutory penalties under California and federal law, which could equal up to 30 days of wages per tax season for class members who worked in California. A portion of our loss contingency accrual is related to these lawsuits for the amount of loss that we consider probable and estimable. For those wage and hour class action lawsuits for which we are able to estimate a range of possible loss, the current estimated range is $0 to $70 million in excess of the accrued liability related to those matters. This estimated range of possible loss is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. Because this estimated range does not include matters for which an estimate is not possible, the range does not represent our maximum loss exposure for the wage and hour class action lawsuits. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in these lawsuits and intend to defend them vigorously. The amounts claimed in these matters are substantial in some instances and the ultimate liability with respect to these matters is difficult to predict. There can be no assurances as to the outcome of these cases or their impact on our consolidated results of operations, individually or in the aggregate.

RAL Litigation

We have been named in multiple lawsuits as defendants in litigation regarding our refund anticipation loan program in past years. All of those lawsuits have been settled or otherwise resolved, except for one.

The sole remaining case is a putative class action styled Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., April Term 1992 Civil Action No. 3246 in the Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County, instituted on April 23, 1993. The plaintiffs allege inadequate disclosures with respect to the RAL product and assert claims for violation of consumer protection statutes, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, usury, and violation of the Truth In Lending Act. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. A Pennsylvania class was certified, but later decertified by the trial court in December 2003. An appellate court subsequently reversed the decertification decision. We are appealing the reversal. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this matter. Plaintiffs have not provided a dollar amount of their claim and we are not able to estimate a possible range of loss. We believe we have meritorious defenses to this case and intend to defend it vigorously. There can be no assurances, however, as to the outcome of this case or its impact on our consolidated results of operations.

Express IRA Litigation

We have been named defendants in lawsuits regarding our former Express IRA product. All of those lawsuits have been settled or otherwise resolved, except for one.

The one remaining case was filed on January 2, 2008 by the Mississippi Attorney General in the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Mississippi First Judicial District (Case No. G 2008 6 S 2) and is styled Jim Hood, Attorney for the State of Mississippi v. H&R Block, Inc., H&R Block Financial Advisors, Inc., et al. The complaint alleges fraudulent business practices, deceptive acts and practices, common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty with respect to the sale of the product in Mississippi and seeks equitable relief, disgorgement of profits, damages and restitution, civil penalties and punitive damages. We are not able to estimate a possible range of loss. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in this case, and we intend to defend this case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated results of operations.

Although we sold H&R Block Financial Advisors, Inc. (HRBFA) effective November 1, 2008, we remain responsible for any liabilities relating to the Express IRA litigation, among other things, through an indemnification agreement. A portion of our accrual is related to these indemnity obligations.

RSM McGladrey Litigation

EquiCo, its parent and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates, are parties to a class action filed on July 11, 2006 and styled Do Right's Plant Growers, et al. v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., et al. (the "RSM Parties"), Case No. 06 CC00137, in the California Superior Court, Orange County. The complaint contains allegations relating to business valuation services provided by EquiCo, including allegations of fraud, conversion and unfair competition. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive damages, in addition to pre-judgment interest and attorneys' fees. On March 17, 2009, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on all claims. To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case, subject to approval by the California Superior Court. The settlement requires a maximum payment of $41.5 million, although the actual cost of the settlement will depend on the number of valid claims submitted by class members. The California Superior Court preliminarily approved the settlement on July 29, 2011. A final approval hearing is set for October 20, 2011. The defendants believe they have meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and, if for any reason the settlement is not approved, they will continue to defend the case vigorously. Although we have a liability recorded for expected losses, there can be no assurance regarding the outcome of this matter.

On December 7, 2009, a lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (2010-L-014920) against M&P, RSM and H&R Block styled Ronald R. Peterson ex rel. Lancelot Investors Fund, L.P., et al. v. McGladrey & Pullen LLP, et al. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on December 28, 2009 (Case No. 1:10-CV-00274). The complaint, which was filed by the trustee for certain bankrupt investment funds, seeks unspecified damages and asserts claims against RSM for vicarious liability and alter ego liability and against H&R Block for equitable restitution relating to audit work performed by M&P. The amount claimed in this case is substantial. On November 3, 2010, the court dismissed the case against all defendants in its entirety with prejudice. The trustee has filed an appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals with respect to the claims against M&P and RSM. No claims remain against H&R Block.

RSM and M&P operate in an alternative practice structure ("APS"). Accordingly, certain claims and lawsuits against M&P could have an impact on RSM. More specifically, any judgments or settlements arising from claims and lawsuits against M&P that exceed its insurance coverage could have a direct adverse effect on M&P's operations. Although RSM is not responsible for the liabilities of M&P, significant M&P litigation and claims could impair the profitability of the APS and impair the ability to attract and retain clients and quality professionals. This could, in turn, have a material effect on RSM's operations and impair the value of our investment in RSM. There is no assurance regarding the outcome of any claims or litigation involving M&P.

Other

In October 2010, we signed a definitive merger agreement to acquire all of the outstanding shares of 2SS Holdings, Inc. ("2SS"), developer of TaxACT digital tax preparation solutions, for $287.5 million in cash. In May 2011, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. district court in Washington, D.C., (Case No. 1:11-cv-00948) against H&R Block and 2SS styled United States v. H&R Block, Inc., 2SS Holdings, Inc., and TA IX L.P., to block our proposed acquisition of 2SS. A preliminary injunction hearing is set to occur in September 2011. There are no assurances that the DOJ's lawsuit will be resolved in our favor or that the transaction will be consummated.

In addition, we are from time to time party to investigations, claims and lawsuits not discussed herein arising out of our business operations. These investigations, claims and lawsuits include actions by state attorneys general, other state regulators, individual plaintiffs, and cases in which plaintiffs seek to represent a class of others similarly situated. We believe we have meritorious defenses to each of these investigations, claims and lawsuits, and we are defending or intend to defend them vigorously. The amounts claimed in these matters are substantial in some instances, however, the ultimate liability with respect to such matters is difficult to predict. In the event of an unfavorable outcome, the amounts we may be required to pay in the discharge of liabilities or settlements could have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations.

We are also party to claims and lawsuits that we consider to be ordinary, routine litigation incidental to our business, including claims and lawsuits (collectively, "Other Claims") concerning the preparation of customers' income tax returns, the fees charged customers for various products and services, relationships with franchisees, intellectual property disputes, employment matters and contract disputes. While we cannot provide assurance that we will ultimately prevail in each instance, we believe the amount, if any, we are required to pay in the discharge of liabilities or settlements in these Other Claims will not have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations.