NOTE 10: COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Changes in deferred revenue balances related to our Peace of Mind® Extended Service Plan (POM) for both company-owned and franchise offices, which is included in deferred revenue and other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets, are as follows:



(in 000s)
Six months ended October 31,	2016			2015
Balance, beginning of the period	$	204,342		$	189,779
Amounts deferred for new extended service plans issued	2,561			2,608
Revenue recognized on previous deferrals	(58,921		)	(54,943		)
Balance, end of the period	$	147,982		$	137,444

We accrued $5.0 million, $6.8 million and $7.0 million as of October 31, 2016 and 2015 and April 30, 2016, respectively, related to estimated losses under the standard guarantee, which is included with assisted tax preparation services. The short-term and long-term portions of this liability are included in deferred revenue and other liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets.

We have accrued estimated contingent consideration totaling $7.8 million, $11.9 million and $8.7 million as of October 31, 2016 and 2015 and April 30, 2016, respectively, related to acquisitions, with amounts recorded in deferred revenue and other liabilities. Estimates of contingent payments are typically based on expected financial performance of the acquired business and economic conditions at the time of acquisition. Should actual results differ from our assumptions, future payments made will differ from the above estimate and any differences will be recorded in results from continuing operations.

We have contractual commitments to fund certain franchises with approved revolving lines of credit. Our total obligation under these lines of credit was $56.4 million at October 31, 2016, and net of amounts drawn and outstanding, our remaining commitment to fund totaled $25.0 million.

On October 25, 2016, we entered into a Refund Advance Program Agreement and certain ancillary agreements with certain third parties, pursuant to which they will originate and fund Refund Advance loans, and provide technology, software, and underwriting support services related to such loans. The Refund Advance loans will be offered to eligible assisted U.S. tax preparation clients, based on client eligibility as determined by the loan originator. We will pay loan origination fees based on volume and customer type. The loan origination fees are intended to cover expected loan losses and payments to capital providers, among other items. In addition, we have provided limited guarantees up to $73 million in the aggregate, subject to specified thresholds, which would cover certain incremental loan losses. We expect that only an immaterial amount of the guarantees will be called upon under anticipated loss scenarios.

NOTE 12: LOSS CONTINGENCIES ARISING FROM REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF OUR DISCONTINUED MORTGAGE OPERATIONS

SCC ceased originating mortgage loans in December 2007 and, in April 2008, sold its servicing assets and discontinued its remaining operations.

Mortgage loans originated by SCC were sold either as whole loans to single third-party buyers, who generally securitized such loans, or in the form of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBSs). In connection with the sale of loans and/or RMBSs, SCC made certain representations and warranties. Claims under these representations and warranties together with any settlement arrangements related to these losses are collectively referred to as "representation and warranty claims." These representations and warranties varied based on the nature of the transaction and the buyer's or insurer's requirements, but generally pertained to the ownership of the loan, the validity of the lien securing the loan, borrower fraud, the loan's compliance with the criteria for inclusion in the transaction, including compliance with SCC's underwriting standards or loan criteria established by the buyer, ability to deliver required documentation, and compliance with applicable laws. Representations and warranties related to borrower fraud in whole loan sale transactions to institutional investors, which were generally securitized by such investors and represented approximately 68% of the disposal of loans originated in calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007, included a "knowledge qualifier" limiting SCC's liability to those instances where SCC had knowledge of the fraud at the time the loans were sold. Representations and warranties made in other sale transactions effectively did not include a knowledge qualifier as to borrower fraud. SCC believes it would have an obligation to repurchase a loan only if it breached a representation and warranty and such breach materially and adversely affects the value of the mortgage loan or certificate holder's interest in the mortgage loan.

Representation and warranty claims received by SCC have primarily related to alleged breaches of representations and warranties related to a loan's compliance with the underwriting standards established by SCC at origination and borrower fraud for loans originated in calendar years 2006 and 2007. SCC has received claims representing an original principal amount of $2.6 billion since May 1, 2008, of which $1.9 billion were received prior to fiscal year 2013.

SETTLEMENT ACTIONS – SCC has entered into tolling agreements with counterparties that have made a significant portion of previously denied representation and warranty claims. While tolling agreements remain in effect, they toll the running of any applicable statute of limitations related to potential lawsuits regarding representation and warranty claims and other claims against SCC.

SCC has engaged in discussions with counterparties since fiscal year 2013 regarding the bulk settlement of previously denied and potential future representation and warranty and other claims against SCC. Based on settlement discussions with counterparties, SCC believes a bulk settlement approach, rather than the loan-by-loan resolution process, will be needed to resolve all of the claims that are the subject of these discussions. SCC has utilized that approach to resolve certain of these claims. On July 13, 2016, SCC entered into a settlement agreement with an additional counterparty to resolve certain additional claims. The amount paid under this settlement agreement was fully covered by prior accruals. In the event that the ongoing efforts to settle are not successful, SCC believes claim volumes may increase or litigation may result.

SCC will continue to vigorously contest any request for repurchase when it has concluded that a valid basis for repurchase does not exist. SCC's decision whether to engage in bulk settlement discussions is based on factors that vary by counterparty or type of counterparty and include the considerations used by SCC in determining its loss estimate, described below under "Liability for Estimated Contingent Losses."

LIABILITY FOR ESTIMATED CONTINGENT LOSSES – SCC accrues a liability for losses related to representation and warranty claims when those losses are believed to be both probable and reasonably estimable. Development of loss estimates is subject to a high degree of management judgment and estimates may vary significantly period to period. SCC's loss estimate as of October 31, 2016 is based on the best information currently available, significant management judgment, and a number of factors that are subject to change, including developments in case law and the factors mentioned below. These factors include the terms of prior bulk settlements, the terms expected to result from ongoing bulk settlement discussions, and an assessment of, among other things, historical claim results, threatened claims, terms and provisions of related agreements, counterparty willingness to pursue a settlement, legal standing of counterparties to provide a comprehensive settlement, bulk settlement methodologies used and publicly disclosed by other market participants, the potential pro-rata realization of the claims as compared to all claims and other relevant facts and circumstances when developing its estimate of probable loss. SCC believes that the most significant of these factors are the terms expected to result from ongoing bulk settlement discussions, which have been primarily influenced by the bulk settlement methodologies used and publicly disclosed by other market participants and the anticipated pro-rata realization of the claims of particular counterparties as compared to the anticipated realization if all claims and litigation were resolved together with payment of SCC's related administration and legal expense. Changes in any one of the factors mentioned above could significantly impact the estimate.

The liability is included in deferred revenue and other current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets. A rollforward of SCC's accrued liability for these loss contingencies is as follows:



(in 000s)
Six months ended October 31,	2016			2015
Balance, beginning of the period	$	65,265		$	149,765
Provisions	235			4,000
Payments	(40,000		)	—
Balance, end of the period	$	25,500		$	153,765

On June 11, 2015, the New York Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, held in ACE Securities Corp. v. DB Structured Products, Inc., that the six-year statute of limitations under New York law starts to run at the time the representations and warranties are made, not the date when the repurchase demand was denied. This decision applies to claims and lawsuits brought against SCC where New York law governs. New York law governs many, though not all, of the RMBS transactions into which SCC entered. However this decision would not affect representation and warranty claims and lawsuits SCC has received or may receive, for example, where the statute of limitations has been tolled by agreement or a suit was timely filed. In response to the statute of limitations rulings in the ACE case and similar rulings in other state and federal courts, parties seeking to pursue representation and warranty claims or lawsuits with respect to trusts where the statute of limitations for representation and warranty claims against the originator has run, have sought, and may in the future seek, to distinguish certain aspects of the ACE decision, pursue alternate legal theories of recovery, or assert claims against other contractual parties such as securitization trustees. For example, a recent ruling by a New York intermediate appellate court allowed a counterparty to pursue litigation on additional loans in the same trust even though only some of the loans complied with the condition precedent of timely pre-suit notice and opportunity to cure or repurchase. The trial court in the second Homeward lawsuit against SCC, discussed above in Note 11, followed that ruling and permitted the plaintiff to amend its complaint to include breach of contract claims with respect to 649 additional loans in the trust and to allow such claims with respect to other loans in the trust proven to be in material breach of SCC’s representations and warranties. The trial court held that claims with respect to the additional loans sufficiently relate back to the timely-asserted claims and therefore are not barred by the statute of limitations. SCC is seeking reconsideration of, and leave to appeal, that ruling. The impact on SCC from alternative legal theories seeking to avoid or distinguish the ACE decision, or judicial limitations on the ACE decision, is unclear. SCC has not accrued liabilities for claims not subject to a tolling arrangement or not asserted prior to the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations.

SCC believes it is reasonably possible that future losses related to representation and warranty claims may vary from amounts accrued for these exposures. SCC currently believes the aggregate range of reasonably estimable possible losses in excess of amounts accrued is not material. This estimated range is based on the best information currently available, significant management judgment and a number of factors that are subject to change, including developments in case law and the factors mentioned above. The actual loss that may be incurred could differ materially from our accrual or the estimate of reasonably possible losses.

As described more fully in note 11, losses may also be incurred with respect to various indemnification claims or reserved contribution rights by underwriters, depositors, and securitization trustees in securitization transactions in which SCC participated. These indemnification claims or reserved contribution rights are frequently not subject to a stated term or limit. We have not concluded that a loss related to any of these indemnification claims or reserved contribution rights is probable, have not accrued a liability for these claims or rights, and are not able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss for these claims or rights. Accordingly, neither the accrued liability described above totaling $25.5 million, nor the estimated range of reasonably possible losses in excess of the amount accrued described above, includes any possible losses which may arise from these indemnification claims or reserved contribution rights. There can be no assurances as to the outcome or impact of these indemnification claims or reserved contribution rights. In the event of unfavorable outcomes on these claims or rights, the amount required to discharge or settle them could be substantial and could have a material adverse impact on our business and our consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

If the amount that SCC is ultimately required to pay with respect to claims and litigation related to its past sales and securitizations of mortgage loans, together with payment of SCC's related administration and legal expense, exceeds SCC's net assets, the creditors of SCC, other potential claimants, or a bankruptcy trustee if SCC were to file or be forced into bankruptcy, may attempt to assert claims against us for payment of SCC's obligations. Claimants may also attempt to assert claims against or seek payment directly from the Company even if SCC's assets exceed its liabilities. SCC's principal assets, as of October 31, 2016, total approximately $346 million and consist primarily of an intercompany note receivable. We believe our legal position is strong on any potential corporate veil-piercing arguments; however, if this position is challenged and not upheld, it could have a material adverse effect on our business and our consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.