Litigation And Related Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2011
Litigation And Related Contingencies [Abstract]
Litigation And Related Contingencies	13. Litigation and Related Contingencies We are a defendant in a large number of litigation matters. In some of the matters, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive damages, are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. In addition, jurisdictions may permit plaintiffs to allege monetary damages in amounts well exceeding reasonably possible verdicts in the jurisdiction for similar matters. This variability in pleadings, together with the actual experience in litigating or resolving through settlement numerous claims over an extended period of time, demonstrates to management that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value. Due to the vagaries of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time may be difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and appellate courts will apply the law in the context of the pleadings or evidence presented, whether by motion practice, or at trial or on appeal. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law. We establish liabilities for litigation and regulatory loss contingencies when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities have been established for a number of the matters noted below. For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made. It is possible that some of the matters could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that could not be estimated at October 31, 2011. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known, we do not believe any such charges are likely to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations. As of October 31, 2011, we have accrued $84.4 million, including obligations under indemnifications, compared to $70.6 million at April 30, 2011. Matters as to Which an Estimate Can Be Made For some of the matters disclosed below, we are able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. As of October 31, 2011, we estimate the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued for these matters to be approximately $0 to $104 million. Matters as to Which an Estimate Cannot Be Made For other matters disclosed below, we are not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. We are often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by the court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts, and the progress of settlement negotiations. On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to litigation contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews. 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 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. SCC has filed a motion to decertify the class, which remains pending. A portion of our loss contingency accrual is related to this lawsuit for the amount of loss that we consider probable and estimable. 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. On September 2, 2011, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal, which remains pending. 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 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. Plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss H&R Block, Inc. from the suit. The remaining defendants, including SCC, have filed motions to dismiss, which are pending. 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. SCC or its subsidiaries entered into indemnification agreements with certain third parties that sold or underwrote the sale of securities. Some of those third parties are defendants in lawsuits where various parties are seeking damages and other remedies based on the activities of such third parties in the sale of RMBS, including in some instances, SCC securitizations. SCC has received claims from some of these third parties for indemnification against losses, including defense costs, that those third parties might incur as a result of these lawsuits. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable nor have we established a loss contingency related to this matter. 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); 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). In Petroski, a conditional class was certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act 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). Two classes were also certified under state law in California and New York (consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in those states). A trial date has been set in the Williams case for April 30, 2012. 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 state 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. 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 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. 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 one remaining lawsuit regarding our former Express IRA product. That 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 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. Litigation and Claims Pertaining to the Discontinued Operations of RSM McGladrey 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 for 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 granted final approval of the settlement on October 20, 2011. We previously recorded a liability for our best estimate of the expected loss. At the closing of the sale of RSM, we indemnified M&P for certain litigation matters and certain obligations related primarily to previously sold RSM subsidiaries. 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. On October 31, 2011, the court granted the DOJ's motion for a permanent injunction to block the transaction. The defendants did not file an appeal. On November 14, 2011, the parties agreed to terminate the merger agreement. 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.

13. Litigation and Related Contingencies

We are a defendant in a large number of litigation matters. In some of the matters, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive damages, are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. In addition, jurisdictions may permit plaintiffs to allege monetary damages in amounts well exceeding reasonably possible verdicts in the jurisdiction for similar matters. This variability in pleadings, together with the actual experience in litigating or resolving through settlement numerous claims over an extended period of time, demonstrates to management that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value.

Due to the vagaries of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time may be difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how trial and appellate courts will apply the law in the context of the pleadings or evidence presented, whether by motion practice, or at trial or on appeal. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law.

We establish liabilities for litigation and regulatory loss contingencies when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Liabilities have been established for a number of the matters noted below. For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual has been made. It is possible that some of the matters could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that could not be estimated at October 31, 2011. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known, we do not believe any such charges are likely to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations. As of October 31, 2011, we have accrued $84.4 million, including obligations under indemnifications, compared to $70.6 million at April 30, 2011.

Matters as to Which an Estimate Can Be Made

For some of the matters disclosed below, we are able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. As of October 31, 2011, we estimate the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued for these matters to be approximately $0 to $104 million.

Matters as to Which an Estimate Cannot Be Made

For other matters disclosed below, we are not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. We are often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by the court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts, and the progress of settlement negotiations. On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to litigation contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews.

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 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. SCC has filed a motion to decertify the class, which remains pending. A portion of our loss contingency accrual is related to this lawsuit for the amount of loss that we consider probable and estimable. 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. On September 2, 2011, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal, which remains pending. 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 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. Plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss H&R Block, Inc. from the suit. The remaining defendants, including SCC, have filed motions to dismiss, which are pending. 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.

SCC or its subsidiaries entered into indemnification agreements with certain third parties that sold or underwrote the sale of securities. Some of those third parties are defendants in lawsuits where various parties are seeking damages and other remedies based on the activities of such third parties in the sale of RMBS, including in some instances, SCC securitizations. SCC has received claims from some of these third parties for indemnification against losses, including defense costs, that those third parties might incur as a result of these lawsuits. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable nor have we established a loss contingency related to this matter.

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); 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). In Petroski, a conditional class was certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act 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). Two classes were also certified under state law in California and New York (consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in those states). A trial date has been set in the Williams case for April 30, 2012.

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 state 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. 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 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. 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 one remaining lawsuit regarding our former Express IRA product. That 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 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.

Litigation and Claims Pertaining to the Discontinued Operations of RSM McGladrey

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 for 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 granted final approval of the settlement on October 20, 2011. We previously recorded a liability for our best estimate of the expected loss.

At the closing of the sale of RSM, we indemnified M&P for certain litigation matters and certain obligations related primarily to previously sold RSM subsidiaries.

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. On October 31, 2011, the court granted the DOJ's motion for a permanent injunction to block the transaction. The defendants did not file an appeal. On November 14, 2011, the parties agreed to terminate the merger agreement.

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.