Litigation And Related Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2012
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation And Related Contingencies	13. 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 accrue 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 accrued for a number of the matters noted below. If a range of loss is estimated, and some amount within that range appears to be a better estimate than any other amount within that range, then that amount is accrued. If no amount within the range can be identified as a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue the minimum amount in the range. For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, or the loss cannot be reasonably estimated, no accrual has been made. It is possible that litigation and regulatory matters could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures or accrue liabilities in amounts that could not be reasonably estimated at October 31, 2012. While the potential future liabilities 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 liabilities are likely to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. As of October 31, 2012, we accrued liabilities of $20.8 million, compared to $79.0 million at April 30, 2012. For some matters where a liability has not been accrued, we are able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For those matters, and for matters where a liability has been accrued, as of October 31, 2012, we estimate the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued to be approximately $0 to $118 million, of which approximately 78% relates to our discontinued operations. 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 and related contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews. Litigation and Other Claims, Including Indemnification Claims, Pertaining to Discontinued Mortgage Operations Although SCC ceased its mortgage loan origination activities in December 2007 and sold its loan servicing business in April 2008, SCC and the Company have been, remain, and may in the future be subject to regulatory investigations, claims, including indemnification 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 including depositors and underwriters, 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 impact of the financial crisis on 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 subsequently filed a motion to decertify the class, which the court granted. Plaintiffs’ petition for appeal is 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 not paying 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 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 (FHLB) 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 RMBSs. 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, filed motions to dismiss, which the court denied. Discovery is stayed pending the outcome of an appeal on the motions. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability 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. On February 22, 2012, a lawsuit was filed by SCC against American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (now known as Homeward Residential, Inc. (Homeward)) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, styled Sand Canyon Corporation v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (Index No. 650504/2012), alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in connection with the Cooperation Agreement entered into with SCC in connection with SCC’s sale of its mortgage loan servicing business to the defendant in 2008. SCC is seeking relief to, among other things, require the defendant to provide loan files only by the method prescribed in applicable agreements. The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant subsequently filed an appeal, which remains pending. On May 31, 2012, a lawsuit was filed by Homeward in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against SCC styled Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Sand Canyon Corporation (Index No. 651885/2012). SCC removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 28, 2012 (Case No. 1:12-cv-05067-PGG). Plaintiff, in its capacity as the master servicer for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2 and for the benefit of the trustee and the certificate holders of such trust, asserts claims for breach of contract, anticipatory breach, indemnity and declaratory judgment in connection with alleged losses incurred as a result of the breach of representations and warranties relating to loans sold to the trust and representation and warranties related to SCC. Plaintiff seeks specific performance of alleged repurchase obligations and/or damages to compensate the trust and its certificate holders for alleged actual and anticipated losses, as well as a repurchase of all loans due to alleged misrepresentations by SCC as to itself and representations given as to the loans’ compliance with its underwriting standards and the value of underlying real estate. SCC is seeking leave to file a motion to dismiss. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability 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. On September 28, 2012, a second lawsuit was filed by Homeward in the District Court for the Southern District of New York against SCC styled Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Sand Canyon Corporation (Case No. 12-cv-7319). Plaintiff, in its capacity as the master servicer for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-3 and for the benefit of the trustee and the certificate holders of such trust, asserts claims for breach of contract and indemnity in connection with losses allegedly incurred as a result of the breach of representations and warranties relating to 96 loans sold to the trust. Plaintiff seeks specific performance of alleged repurchase obligations and/or damages to compensate the trust and its certificate holders for alleged actual and anticipated losses. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability 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. As of October 31, 2012, underwriters and depositors were involved in multiple lawsuits related to securitization transactions in which SCC participated. These lawsuits allege a variety of claims, including violations of federal and state securities law and common law fraud, based on alleged materially inaccurate or misleading disclosures. SCC has received notice of a claim for indemnification from underwriters or depositors relating to 12 of these lawsuits and involving approximately 38 securitization transactions collateralized in whole or in part by loans originated by SCC. Because SCC is not the servicer for any of these securitizations, is not party to these lawsuits (with the exception of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation case discussed above), and does not have control of this litigation, SCC does not have precise information regarding the current aggregate unpaid principal balance of the mortgage loans that SCC sold in those transactions, nor, in many cases, the portion of any unpaid balance that is subject to litigation. Additional lawsuits against the underwriters or depositors may be filed in the future, and SCC may receive additional notices of claims for indemnification from underwriters or depositors with respect to existing or new lawsuits. We have not concluded that a loss related to any of these indemnification claims is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to any of these claims. We believe SCC has meritorious defenses to these indemnification claims and intends to defend them vigorously, but there can be no assurance as to their outcome or their impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. American International Group, Inc. has threatened to assert claims of various types, including violations of state securities laws, common law torts and fraud, and breach of contract, in the approximate amount of $650 million in connection with the sale and securitization of SCC-originated mortgage loans. We believe SCC has meritorious defenses to these threatened claims and will defend them vigorously if a lawsuit is filed asserting these claims, but, if such suit is filed, there can be no assurance as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. On April 3, 2012, the Nevada Attorney General issued a subpoena to SCC indicating it was conducting an investigation concerning “the alleged commission of a practice declared to be unlawful under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act.” A majority of the documents requested in the subpoena involve SCC’s lending to minority (African American and Latino) borrowers. No complaint has been filed to date. SCC plans to continue to cooperate with the Nevada Attorney General. 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). The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek actual damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees. 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) and in the Williams case in March 2011 (consisting of office managers who worked in company-owned offices in California from 2004 to 2011). To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation, we reached agreements to settle these cases in January and February 2012, respectively, subject to approval by the courts in which the cases are pending. In Lemus, the settlement required a maximum payment of $35 million, with the actual cost of the settlement dependent on the number of valid claims submitted by class members. The court granted final approval of the settlement on August 22, 2012, for an amount not materially different from our liability recorded at July 31, 2012. In Williams, the settlement provided for a maximum payment of $7.5 million, with the actual cost of the settlement dependent on the number of valid claims submitted by class members. The court granted final approval of the settlement on November 8, 2012. The time for appeal has not yet expired. We previously recorded a liability for our estimate of the expected loss. If for any reason the Williams settlement does not become final, 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. In the Ugas case, the court initially certified a class on the claim for failure to provide meal periods (consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in California from 2006 to 2011), but subsequently decertified the class in a ruling dated July 9, 2012. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear an appeal. The court also certified a class on the claim for failure to compensate tax professionals for all hours worked (consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in one district in California from 2006-2009). That class remains pending. In the Petroski case, 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). We filed motions to decertify the classes, along with motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. A trial date has been set for June 3, 2013. We have not concluded that a loss related to the Ugas or Petroski matters is probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to these matters. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in these cases and intend to defend them 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. 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 refund anticipation loan (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. The intermediate appellate court subsequently reversed the decertification decision. On September 7, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the decision of the intermediate appellate court, thereby allowing the trial court’s decertification ruling to stand. 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 refund anticipation check (RAC) products. 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. These cases were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, styled IN RE: H&R Block Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation (MDL No. 2373). We filed a motion to compel arbitration, which 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 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. Compliance Fee Litigation On April 16, 2012 and April 19, 2012, putative class action lawsuits were filed against us in Missouri state and federal courts, respectively, concerning a compliance fee charged to retail tax clients beginning in the 2011 tax season. These cases are styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri (Case # 1216CV12290), and Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK). Taken together, the plaintiffs seek to represent all retail tax clients nationwide who were charged a compliance fee, and assert claims of violation of state consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. We are seeking to compel arbitration on certain claims. We have not concluded that a loss related to these lawsuits is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to either of these lawsuits. 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. Express IRA Litigation On January 2, 2008, the Mississippi Attorney General in the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Mississippi First Judicial District (Case No. G 2008 6 S 2) filed a lawsuit regarding our former Express IRA product that 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 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. 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. A class was certified on the remaining claims on November 20, 2012. 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. Although we sold MCM effective January 31, 2012, we remain responsible for any liabilities relating to certain litigation matters through an indemnification agreement. A portion of our accrual is related to these indemnity obligations. Other We are from time to time a 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 a party to claims and lawsuits that we consider to be ordinary, routine litigation incidental to our business, including, but not limited to, claims and lawsuits 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 (Other Claims). 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.

13. 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 accrue 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 accrued for a number of the matters noted below. If a range of loss is estimated, and some amount within that range appears to be a better estimate than any other amount within that range, then that amount is accrued. If no amount within the range can be identified as a better estimate than any other amount, we accrue the minimum amount in the range.

For such matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, or the loss cannot be reasonably estimated, no accrual has been made. It is possible that litigation and regulatory matters could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures or accrue liabilities in amounts that could not be reasonably estimated at October 31, 2012. While the potential future liabilities 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 liabilities are likely to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. As of October 31, 2012, we accrued liabilities of $20.8 million, compared to $79.0 million at April 30, 2012.

For some matters where a liability has not been accrued, we are able to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss. For those matters, and for matters where a liability has been accrued, as of October 31, 2012, we estimate the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued to be approximately $0 to $118 million, of which approximately 78% relates to our discontinued operations.

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 and related contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews.

Litigation and Other Claims, Including Indemnification Claims, Pertaining to Discontinued Mortgage Operations

Although SCC ceased its mortgage loan origination activities in December 2007 and sold its loan servicing business in April 2008, SCC and the Company have been, remain, and may in the future be subject to regulatory investigations, claims, including indemnification 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 including depositors and underwriters, 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 impact of the financial crisis on 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 subsequently filed a motion to decertify the class, which the court granted. Plaintiffs’ petition for appeal is 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 not paying 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 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 (FHLB) 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 RMBSs. 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, filed motions to dismiss, which the court denied. Discovery is stayed pending the outcome of an appeal on the motions. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability 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.

On February 22, 2012, a lawsuit was filed by SCC against American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (now known as Homeward Residential, Inc. (Homeward)) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, styled Sand Canyon Corporation v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (Index No. 650504/2012), alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in connection with the Cooperation Agreement entered into with SCC in connection with SCC’s sale of its mortgage loan servicing business to the defendant in 2008. SCC is seeking relief to, among other things, require the defendant to provide loan files only by the method prescribed in applicable agreements. The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The defendant subsequently filed an appeal, which remains pending.

On May 31, 2012, a lawsuit was filed by Homeward in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against SCC styled Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Sand Canyon Corporation (Index No. 651885/2012). SCC removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 28, 2012 (Case No. 1:12-cv-05067-PGG). Plaintiff, in its capacity as the master servicer for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2 and for the benefit of the trustee and the certificate holders of such trust, asserts claims for breach of contract, anticipatory breach, indemnity and declaratory judgment in connection with alleged losses incurred as a result of the breach of representations and warranties relating to loans sold to the trust and representation and warranties related to SCC. Plaintiff seeks specific performance of alleged repurchase obligations and/or damages to compensate the trust and its certificate holders for alleged actual and anticipated losses, as well as a repurchase of all loans due to alleged misrepresentations by SCC as to itself and representations given as to the loans’ compliance with its underwriting standards and the value of underlying real estate. SCC is seeking leave to file a motion to dismiss. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability 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.

On September 28, 2012, a second lawsuit was filed by Homeward in the District Court for the Southern District of New York against SCC styled Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Sand Canyon Corporation (Case No. 12-cv-7319). Plaintiff, in its capacity as the master servicer for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-3 and for the benefit of the trustee and the certificate holders of such trust, asserts claims for breach of contract and indemnity in connection with losses allegedly incurred as a result of the breach of representations and warranties relating to 96 loans sold to the trust. Plaintiff seeks specific performance of alleged repurchase obligations and/or damages to compensate the trust and its certificate holders for alleged actual and anticipated losses. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability 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.

As of October 31, 2012, underwriters and depositors were involved in multiple lawsuits related to securitization transactions in which SCC participated. These lawsuits allege a variety of claims, including violations of federal and state securities law and common law fraud, based on alleged materially inaccurate or misleading disclosures. SCC has received notice of a claim for indemnification from underwriters or depositors relating to 12 of these lawsuits and involving approximately 38 securitization transactions collateralized in whole or in part by loans originated by SCC. Because SCC is not the servicer for any of these securitizations, is not party to these lawsuits (with the exception of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation case discussed above), and does not have control of this litigation, SCC does not have precise information regarding the current aggregate unpaid principal balance of the mortgage loans that SCC sold in those transactions, nor, in many cases, the portion of any unpaid balance that is subject to litigation. Additional lawsuits against the underwriters or depositors may be filed in the future, and SCC may receive additional notices of claims for indemnification from underwriters or depositors with respect to existing or new lawsuits. We have not concluded that a loss related to any of these indemnification claims is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to any of these claims. We believe SCC has meritorious defenses to these indemnification claims and intends to defend them vigorously, but there can be no assurance as to their outcome or their impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

American International Group, Inc. has threatened to assert claims of various types, including violations of state securities laws, common law torts and fraud, and breach of contract, in the approximate amount of $650 million in connection with the sale and securitization of SCC-originated mortgage loans. We believe SCC has meritorious defenses to these threatened claims and will defend them vigorously if a lawsuit is filed asserting these claims, but, if such suit is filed, there can be no assurance as to its outcome or its impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

On April 3, 2012, the Nevada Attorney General issued a subpoena to SCC indicating it was conducting an investigation concerning “the alleged commission of a practice declared to be unlawful under the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act.” A majority of the documents requested in the subpoena involve SCC’s lending to minority (African American and Latino) borrowers. No complaint has been filed to date. SCC plans to continue to cooperate with the Nevada Attorney General.

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). The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek actual damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys’ fees.

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) and in the Williams case in March 2011 (consisting of office managers who worked in company-owned offices in California from 2004 to 2011). To avoid the cost and inherent risk associated with litigation, we reached agreements to settle these cases in January and February 2012, respectively, subject to approval by the courts in which the cases are pending. In Lemus, the settlement required a maximum payment of $35 million, with the actual cost of the settlement dependent on the number of valid claims submitted by class members. The court granted final approval of the settlement on August 22, 2012, for an amount not materially different from our liability recorded at July 31, 2012. In Williams, the settlement provided for a maximum payment of $7.5 million, with the actual cost of the settlement dependent on the number of valid claims submitted by class members. The court granted final approval of the settlement on November 8, 2012. The time for appeal has not yet expired. We previously recorded a liability for our estimate of the expected loss. If for any reason the Williams settlement does not become final, 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.

In the Ugas case, the court initially certified a class on the claim for failure to provide meal periods (consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in California from 2006 to 2011), but subsequently decertified the class in a ruling dated July 9, 2012. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear an appeal. The court also certified a class on the claim for failure to compensate tax professionals for all hours worked (consisting of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in one district in California from 2006-2009). That class remains pending. In the Petroski case, 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). We filed motions to decertify the classes, along with motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. A trial date has been set for June 3, 2013. We have not concluded that a loss related to the Ugas or Petroski matters is probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to these matters. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in these cases and intend to defend them 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.

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 refund anticipation loan (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. The intermediate appellate court subsequently reversed the decertification decision. On September 7, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the decision of the intermediate appellate court, thereby allowing the trial court’s decertification ruling to stand. 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 refund anticipation check (RAC) products. 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. These cases were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, styled IN RE: H&R Block Refund Anticipation Loan Litigation (MDL No. 2373). We filed a motion to compel arbitration, which 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 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.

Compliance Fee Litigation

On April 16, 2012 and April 19, 2012, putative class action lawsuits were filed against us in Missouri state and federal courts, respectively, concerning a compliance fee charged to retail tax clients beginning in the 2011 tax season. These cases are styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri (Case # 1216CV12290), and Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK). Taken together, the plaintiffs seek to represent all retail tax clients nationwide who were charged a compliance fee, and assert claims of violation of state consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. We are seeking to compel arbitration on certain claims. We have not concluded that a loss related to these lawsuits is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to either of these lawsuits. 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.

Express IRA Litigation

On January 2, 2008, the Mississippi Attorney General in the Chancery Court of Hinds County, Mississippi First Judicial District (Case No. G 2008 6 S 2) filed a lawsuit regarding our former Express IRA product that 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 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. 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. A class was certified on the remaining claims on November 20, 2012. 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.

Although we sold MCM effective January 31, 2012, we remain responsible for any liabilities relating to certain litigation matters through an indemnification agreement. A portion of our accrual is related to these indemnity obligations.

Other

We are from time to time a 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 a party to claims and lawsuits that we consider to be ordinary, routine litigation incidental to our business, including, but not limited to, claims and lawsuits 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 (Other Claims). 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.