We are a defendant in numerous 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 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 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 a 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 of 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 claims and other loss contingencies arising out of our business activities, including as described below.

We accrue liabilities for litigation, claims, and other loss contingencies and any related settlements (each referred to, individually, as a "matter" and, collectively, as "matters") 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 such matters could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures or accrue liabilities in amounts that could not be reasonably estimated as of April 30, 2016. 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 adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. As of April 30, 2016 and 2015, we accrued liabilities of $2.3 million and $8.9 million, respectively, for matters addressed in this note.

For some matters where a liability has not been accrued, we are able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss. This estimated range of reasonably possible loss is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions, as well as known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimated range will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. Those matters for which an estimate is not reasonably possible are not included within this estimated range. Therefore, this estimated range of reasonably possible loss represents what we believe to be an estimate of reasonably possible loss only for certain matters meeting these criteria. It does not represent our maximum loss exposure. For those matters, and for matters where a liability has been accrued, as of April 30, 2016, we believe the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued is not material.

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 reasonably possible loss or range of loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by courts on motions or appeals, analysis by experts, or the status of any settlement negotiations.

On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to litigation and other loss contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible loss or range of loss based on such reviews. Costs incurred with defending matters are expensed as incurred. Any receivable for insurance recoveries is recorded separately from the corresponding liability, and only if recovery is determined to be probable and reasonably estimable.

We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the various matters described in this note, and we intend to defend them vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to their outcomes. In the event of unfavorable outcomes, it could require modifications to our operations; in addition, the amounts that may be required to be paid to discharge or settle the matters could be substantial and could have a material adverse impact on our business and consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

LITIGATION, CLAIMS, INCLUDING INDEMNIFICATION CLAIMS, OR OTHER LOSS CONTINGENCIES 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 or the Company has been, remains, and may in the future be subject to litigation, claims, including indemnification and contribution claims, and other loss contingencies pertaining to SCC's mortgage business activities that occurred prior to such termination and sale. These contingencies, claims, and lawsuits include actions by regulators, third parties seeking indemnification, including depositors, underwriters, and securitization trustees, individual plaintiffs, and cases in which plaintiffs seek to represent a class of others alleged to be similarly situated. Among other things, these contingencies, claims, and lawsuits allege or may allege discriminatory or unfair and deceptive loan origination and servicing (including debt collection, foreclosure, and eviction) practices, other common law torts, rights to indemnification and contribution, breach of contract, violations of securities laws, and a variety of federal statutes, including the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Fair Housing Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), Home Ownership & Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), as well as similar state statutes. Given the impact of the financial crisis on the non-prime mortgage environment, the aggregate volume of these matters is substantial although it is difficult to predict either the likelihood of new matters being initiated or the outcome of existing matters. In many of these matters, including certain of the lawsuits and claims described below, it is not possible to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss due to, among other things, the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, some of which are beyond the Company's control, and the indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters.

On May 31, 2012, a lawsuit was filed by Homeward Residential, Inc. (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. 12-cv-5067). The 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 SCC and to loans sold to the trust. The plaintiff seeks specific performance of alleged repurchase obligations 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 as to the loans' compliance with its underwriting standards and the value of underlying real estate. In response to a motion filed by SCC, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for breach of the duty to cure or repurchase, anticipatory breach, indemnity, and declaratory judgment. The case is proceeding on the remaining claims. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this matter.

On September 28, 2012, a second lawsuit was filed by Homeward in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against SCC styled Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Sand Canyon Corporation (Case No. 12-cv-7319). The 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. The plaintiff seeks specific performance of alleged repurchase obligations or damages to compensate the trust and its certificate holders for alleged actual and anticipated losses. In response to a motion filed by SCC, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for breach of the duty to cure or repurchase and for indemnification of its costs associated with the litigation. The case is proceeding on the remaining claims. A portion of the accrual for representation and warranty claims, as discussed in note 16, is related to loans in this case. We have not concluded that a loss related to this lawsuit is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this lawsuit.

On April 5, 2013, a third lawsuit was filed by Homeward in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against SCC. The suit, styled Homeward Residential, Inc. v. Sand Canyon Corporation (Case No. 13-cv-2107), was filed as a related matter to the September 2012 Homeward suit mentioned above. In this April 2013 lawsuit, the plaintiff, in its capacity as the master servicer for Option One Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-4 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 159 loans sold to the trust. The plaintiff seeks specific performance of alleged repurchase obligations or damages to compensate the trust and its certificate holders for alleged actual and anticipated losses. In response to a motion filed by SCC, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for breach of the duty to cure or repurchase and for indemnification of its costs associated with the litigation. The case is proceeding on the remaining claims. A portion of the accrual for representation and warranty claims, as discussed in note 16, is related to loans in this case. We have not concluded that a loss related to this lawsuit is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this lawsuit.

Underwriters and depositors are, or have been, involved in multiple lawsuits related to securitization transactions in which SCC participated. These lawsuits allege or alleged a variety of claims, including violations of federal and state securities laws and common law fraud, based on alleged materially inaccurate or misleading disclosures. SCC has received notices of claims for indemnification relating to lawsuits to which underwriters or depositors are party. Based on information currently available to SCC, it believes that the 22 lawsuits in which notice of a claim has been made involve 39 securitization transactions with original investments of approximately $14 billion (of which the outstanding principal amount is approximately $4 billion). Because SCC has not been a party to these lawsuits (with the exception of Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Case No. 10CH45033) and settled as to SCC in August 2015), and has not had control of this litigation or any settlements thereof, SCC does not have precise information about the amount of damages or other remedies being asserted, the defenses to the claims in such lawsuits or the terms of any settlements of such lawsuits. SCC therefore cannot reasonably estimate the amount of potential losses or associated fees and expenses that may be incurred in connection with such lawsuits, which may be material. 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 or settlements of such lawsuits. Certain of the notices received included, and future notices may include, a reservation of rights, which are referred to as "reserved contribution rights," that encompasses a right of contribution which may become operative if indemnification is unavailable or insufficient to cover all of the losses and expenses involved. We have not concluded that a loss related to any of these indemnification claims or reserved contribution rights is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to any of these claims or rights.

Securitization trustees also are, or have been, involved in lawsuits related to securitization transactions in which SCC participated. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things, that originators, depositors, servicers or other parties breached their representations and warranties or otherwise failed to fulfill their obligations, including that securitization trustees breached their contractual obligations, breached their fiduciary duties, or violated statutory requirements by failing to properly protect the certificate holders’ interests. SCC may receive notices for indemnification with respect to existing or new lawsuits or settlements of such lawsuits in its capacity as originator, depositor, or servicer. We have not concluded that a loss related to any indemnification claims by securitization trustees is probable, nor have we accrued a liability for such claims.

LITIGATION, CLAIMS OR OTHER LOSS CONTINGENCIES PERTAINING TO CONTINUING OPERATIONS –

Compliance Fee Litigation. On April 16, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. (Case # 1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff seeks to represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. We filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011 claims. The court denied the motion. We filed an appeal. On May 6, 2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for further consideration of the motion. On March 12, 2015, the trial court denied the motion on remand. We filed an additional appeal. On March 8, 2016, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial court. We filed an application for transfer of the appeal in the Supreme Court of Missouri, 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.

On April 19, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff originally sought to represent all persons nationwide (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance fee, and asserted claims of violation of various state consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment. In November 2013, the court compelled arbitration of the 2011 claims and stayed all proceedings with respect to those claims. In June 2014, the court denied class certification of the remaining 2012 claims. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was denied on June 18, 2015. In January 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting claims of violation of Missouri and California state consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment, along with a motion to certify a class of all persons (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance fee in the state of California. We subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims. On April 29, 2016, the court granted our motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, 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.

Form 8863 Litigation. A series of putative class action lawsuits were filed against us in various federal courts and one state court beginning on March 13, 2013. Taken together, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits purport to represent certain clients nationwide who filed Form 8863 during tax season 2013 through an H&R Block office or using H&R Block At Home® online tax services or desktop tax preparation software, and allege breach of contract, negligence and violation of state consumer laws in connection with transmission of the form. The plaintiffs seek damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2013, the plaintiff in the state court action voluntarily dismissed her case without prejudice. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation subsequently granted our petition to consolidate the remaining federal lawsuits for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri in a proceeding styled IN RE: H&R BLOCK IRS FORM 8863 LITIGATION (MDL No. 2474/Case No. 4:13-MD-02474-FJG). On July 11, 2014, the MDL court granted our motion to compel arbitration for those named plaintiffs who agreed to arbitrate their claims. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in October 2014. We filed a motion to strike the class allegations relating to those clients who agreed to arbitration, which the court granted on January 7, 2015. The parties subsequently reached an agreement to settle the remaining claims, subject to court approval. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January 12, 2016 and final approval on May 23, 2016. A portion of our loss contingency accrual is related to this matter for the amount of loss that we consider probable and reasonably estimable.

LITIGATION, CLAIMS AND OTHER LOSS CONTINGENCIES PERTAINING TO OTHER DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS –

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 have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this matter.

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 through an indemnification agreement.

OTHER – We are from time to time a party to litigation, claims and other loss contingencies not discussed herein arising out of our business operations. These matters 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.

While we cannot provide assurance that we will ultimately prevail in each instance, we believe the amount, if any, we are required to pay to discharge or settle these other matters will not have a material adverse impact on our business or our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the various matters described in this note, and we intend to defend them vigorously. The amounts claimed in the matters are substantial, however, and there can be no assurances as to their outcomes. In the event of unfavorable outcomes, it could require modifications to our operations; in addition, the amounts that may be required to be paid to discharge or settle the matters could be substantial and could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.