Litigation And Related Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jan. 31, 2012
Litigation And Related Contingencies [Abstract]
Litigation And Related Contingencies	14. Litigation and Related Contingencies We are a defendant in a large number of litigation matters, arising both in the ordinary course of business and otherwise, including as described below. The matters described below are not all of the lawsuits to which we are subject. In some of the matters, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive damages, are sought. U.S. jurisdictions permit 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. We believe that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value due to this variability in pleadings and our experience in litigating or resolving through settlement numerous claims over an extended period of time. The outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time may be difficult to ascertain. Among other things, 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. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law. In addition to litigation matters, we are also subject to other claims and regulatory investigations arising out of our business activities, including as described below. 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 litigation and regulatory matters could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that could not be reasonably estimated at January 31, 2012. 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 financial position, results of operations and cash flows. As of January 31, 2012, we have accrued $89.0 million, including obligations under certain indemnifications, compared to $70.6 million at April 30, 2011. Matters as to Which an Estimate Can Be Made For some matters, we are able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For those matters, as of January 31, 2012, we estimate the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued to be approximately $0 to $61 million. Matters as to Which an Estimate Cannot Be Made For other matters, 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 Other Claims Pertaining to Discontinued Mortgage Operations Although SCC's mortgage loan origination activities ceased in December 2007 and SCC's loan servicing business was sold in April 2008, SCC and HRB have been, remain and may in the future be 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, 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 and other common law torts, rights to indemnification, and violations of securities laws, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 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 time and is expected to continue to increase further. 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 in many cases 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 financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Certain of these matters are described in more detail below. 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 SCC has meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and it intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. 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 financial position, results of operations and cash flows. 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, H&R Block, Inc. and other entities, arising out of FHLB's purchase of mortgage-backed securities. The plaintiff seeks 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 $41 million remains outstanding. The plaintiff 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 SCC has meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. SCC has been working with the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the staff's investigation of matters related to eighteen RMBS transactions of SCC. Based on the progress of the investigation, the scope of which has continued to narrow in focus, SCC has offered to resolve the matter with the payment of approximately $28 million. As a result, SCC has established a liability as of January 31, 2012, which is included in our loss contingency accrual. Although we believe that this matter can be resolved on satisfactory terms, any resolution of this matter would require approval by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and of the U.S District Court, neither of which has been obtained, and which we cannot provide assurance will be obtained on satisfactory terms or at all. 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 other 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 notices 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 any of these matters is probable nor have we established a loss contingency related to any of these matters. 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 and failure to compensate for all hours worked and to provide meal periods to office managers in California); Arabella Lemus, et al. 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, et al. 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, et al. 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 laws 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. The amounts claimed in these matters are substantial in some instances and the ultimate liability with respect to these matters is difficult to predict. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in these cases and intend to defend the cases vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of these cases or their impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows, individually or in the aggregate. To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation, we reached an agreement to settle the Lemus case in January 2012, subject to approval by the federal court in California in which the case is pending. This settlement would require a maximum payment of $35 million, although the actual cost of the settlement would depend on the number of valid claims submitted by class members. The federal court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 10, 2012. A final approval hearing is scheduled to occur on May 10, 2012. We have recorded a liability for our estimate of the expected loss. If for any reason the settlement is not approved, we will continue to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. RAL and RAC 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 TILA. 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 the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of this case or its impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. A series of class action lawsuits were filed against us in various federal courts beginning on November 17, 2011 concerning the RAL and RAC products, styled Anthony Johnson v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 2:11-cv-09577) (C.D. Cal.); Norma Molina-Servin v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:11-cv-08244) (N.D. Ill.); William Wimbley v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:11-cv-24159) (S.D. Fla.); Sandy Morton v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:11-cv-00859) (E.D. Ark.); Iris Orta v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 2:11-cv-01149) (E.D. Wis.); Maggie Murchio v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No.1:12-cv-00063) (W.D. Md.); and Catherine Gaddy v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:12-cv-00052) (M.D. N.C). The plaintiffs generally allege we engaged in unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent acts in violation of various state consumer protection laws by facilitating RALs that were accompanied by allegedly inaccurate TILA disclosures, and by offering RACs without any TILA disclosures. Certain plaintiffs also allege violation of disclosure requirements of various state statutes expressly governing RALs and provisions of those statutes prohibiting tax preparers from charging or retaining certain fees. Collectively, the plaintiffs seek to represent clients who purchased RAL or RAC products in up to forty-two states and the District of Columbia during timeframes ranging from 2007 to the present. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, disgorgement of profits, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiffs filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 9, 2011 to consolidate the cases before a single court for pretrial proceedings (In Re Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation, MDL No. 2334). This motion remains pending. 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 the claims in these cases, and we intend to defend the cases vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome or the impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. 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 intend to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. 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 On April 17, 2009, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed by Brian Menezes, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant International Textile Group, Inc. against McGladrey Capital Markets, LLC (MCM) in the Court of Common Pleas, Greenville County, South Carolina (C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346) styled Brian P. Menezes, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant, International Textile Group, Inc. (f/k/a Safety Components International, Inc.) v. McGladrey Capital Markets, LLC (f/k/a RSM EquiCo Capital Markets, LLC), et al. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in October 2011 styled In re International Textile Group Merger Litigation, adding a putative class action claim against MCM. Plaintiffs allege claims of aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against MCM in connection with a fairness opinion MCM provided to the Special Committee of Safety Components International, Inc. (SCI) in 2006 regarding the merger between International Textile Group, Inc. and SCI. Plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 8, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim against all defendants. Plaintiffs' other claims remain 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 financial position, results of operations and cash flows. 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. The amount we paid during our third quarter did not exceed the amount we had previously accrued. Other 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 may include actions by state attorneys general, other state regulators, federal 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 financial position, results of operations and cash flows. 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 financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

14. Litigation and Related Contingencies

We are a defendant in a large number of litigation matters, arising both in the ordinary course of business and otherwise, including as described below. The matters described below are not all of the lawsuits to which we are subject. In some of the matters, very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive damages, are sought. U.S. jurisdictions permit 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. We believe that the monetary relief which may be specified in a lawsuit or claim bears little relevance to its merits or disposition value due to this variability in pleadings and our experience in litigating or resolving through settlement numerous claims over an extended period of time.

The outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time may be difficult to ascertain. Among other things, 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. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel will themselves view the relevant evidence and applicable law.

In addition to litigation matters, we are also subject to other claims and regulatory investigations arising out of our business activities, including as described below.

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 litigation and regulatory matters could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that could not be reasonably estimated at January 31, 2012. 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 financial position, results of operations and cash flows. As of January 31, 2012, we have accrued $89.0 million, including obligations under certain indemnifications, compared to $70.6 million at April 30, 2011.

Matters as to Which an Estimate Can Be Made

For some matters, we are able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For those matters, as of January 31, 2012, we estimate the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued to be approximately $0 to $61 million.

Matters as to Which an Estimate Cannot Be Made

For other matters, 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 Other Claims Pertaining to Discontinued Mortgage Operations

Although SCC's mortgage loan origination activities ceased in December 2007 and SCC's loan servicing business was sold in April 2008, SCC and HRB have been, remain and may in the future be 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, 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 and other common law torts, rights to indemnification, and violations of securities laws, the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 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 time and is expected to continue to increase further. 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 in many cases 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 financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Certain of these matters are described in more detail below.

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 SCC has meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and it intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

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 financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

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, H&R Block, Inc. and other entities, arising out of FHLB's purchase of mortgage-backed securities. The plaintiff seeks 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 $41 million remains outstanding. The plaintiff 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 SCC has meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

SCC has been working with the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the staff's investigation of matters related to eighteen RMBS transactions of SCC. Based on the progress of the investigation, the scope of which has continued to narrow in focus, SCC has offered to resolve the matter with the payment of approximately $28 million. As a result, SCC has established a liability as of January 31, 2012, which is included in our loss contingency accrual. Although we believe that this matter can be resolved on satisfactory terms, any resolution of this matter would require approval by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and of the U.S District Court, neither of which has been obtained, and which we cannot provide assurance will be obtained on satisfactory terms or at all.

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 other 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 notices 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 any of these matters is probable nor have we established a loss contingency related to any of these matters.

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 and failure to compensate for all hours worked and to provide meal periods to office managers in California); Arabella Lemus, et al. 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, et al. 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, et al. 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 laws 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. The amounts claimed in these matters are substantial in some instances and the ultimate liability with respect to these matters is difficult to predict. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in these cases and intend to defend the cases vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of these cases or their impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows, individually or in the aggregate.

To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation, we reached an agreement to settle the Lemus case in January 2012, subject to approval by the federal court in California in which the case is pending. This settlement would require a maximum payment of $35 million, although the actual cost of the settlement would depend on the number of valid claims submitted by class members. The federal court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 10, 2012. A final approval hearing is scheduled to occur on May 10, 2012. We have recorded a liability for our estimate of the expected loss. If for any reason the settlement is not approved, we will continue to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

RAL and RAC 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 TILA. 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 the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of this case or its impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

A series of class action lawsuits were filed against us in various federal courts beginning on November 17, 2011 concerning the RAL and RAC products, styled Anthony Johnson v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 2:11-cv-09577) (C.D. Cal.); Norma Molina-Servin v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:11-cv-08244) (N.D. Ill.); William Wimbley v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:11-cv-24159) (S.D. Fla.); Sandy Morton v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:11-cv-00859) (E.D. Ark.); Iris Orta v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 2:11-cv-01149) (E.D. Wis.); Maggie Murchio v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No.1:12-cv-00063) (W.D. Md.); and Catherine Gaddy v. H&R Block, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:12-cv-00052) (M.D. N.C). The plaintiffs generally allege we engaged in unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent acts in violation of various state consumer protection laws by facilitating RALs that were accompanied by allegedly inaccurate TILA disclosures, and by offering RACs without any TILA disclosures. Certain plaintiffs also allege violation of disclosure requirements of various state statutes expressly governing RALs and provisions of those statutes prohibiting tax preparers from charging or retaining certain fees. Collectively, the plaintiffs seek to represent clients who purchased RAL or RAC products in up to forty-two states and the District of Columbia during timeframes ranging from 2007 to the present. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, disgorgement of profits, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiffs filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 9, 2011 to consolidate the cases before a single court for pretrial proceedings (In Re Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation, MDL No. 2334). This motion remains pending. 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 the claims in these cases, and we intend to defend the cases vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome or the impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

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 intend to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

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

On April 17, 2009, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed by Brian Menezes, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant International Textile Group, Inc. against McGladrey Capital Markets, LLC (MCM) in the Court of Common Pleas, Greenville County, South Carolina (C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346) styled Brian P. Menezes, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant, International Textile Group, Inc. (f/k/a Safety Components International, Inc.) v. McGladrey Capital Markets, LLC (f/k/a RSM EquiCo Capital Markets, LLC), et al. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in October 2011 styled In re International Textile Group Merger Litigation, adding a putative class action claim against MCM. Plaintiffs allege claims of aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, gross negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against MCM in connection with a fairness opinion MCM provided to the Special Committee of Safety Components International, Inc. (SCI) in 2006 regarding the merger between International Textile Group, Inc. and SCI. Plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On February 8, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim against all defendants. Plaintiffs' other claims remain 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 financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

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. The amount we paid during our third quarter did not exceed the amount we had previously accrued.

Other

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 may include actions by state attorneys general, other state regulators, federal 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 financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

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 financial position, results of operations and cash flows.