LITIGATION AND OTHER RELATED CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LITIGATION AND OTHER RELATED CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 10: LITIGATION AND OTHER RELATED CONTINGENCIES 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, including indemnification and contribution claims, and other related 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. 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 October 31, 2020. 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 business and our consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. As of October 31, 2020 and 2019 and April 30, 2020, our total accrued liabilities were $5.5 million, $1.6 million and $1.6 million, respectively. Our estimate of the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses includes (1) matters where a liability has been accrued and there is a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued for that liability, and (2) matters where a liability has not been accrued but we believe a loss is reasonably possible. This aggregate range only represents those losses as to which we are currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss. It does not represent our maximum loss exposure. Matters for which we are not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss are not included in this range. 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 precise information about the amount of damages or other remedies being asserted, the defenses to the claims being asserted, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by courts on motions or appeals, analysis by experts, or the status or terms of any settlement negotiations. The 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. As of October 31, 2020, we believe the estimate of the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued, where the range of loss can be estimated, is not material. 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. 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 business and our consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. LITIGATION, CLAIMS OR OTHER LOSS CONTINGENCIES PERTAINING TO CONTINUING OPERATIONS – Free File Litigation. On May 6, 2019, the Los Angeles City Attorney filed a lawsuit on behalf of the People of the State of California in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 19STCV15742). The case is styled The People of the State of California v. HRB Digital LLC, et al. The complaint alleges that H&R Block, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC engaged in unfair, fraudulent and deceptive business practices and acts in connection with the IRS Free File Program in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, restitution of monies paid to H&R Block by persons in the State of California who were eligible to file under the IRS Free File Program for the time period starting 4 years prior to the date of the filing of the complaint, pre-judgment interest, civil penalties and costs. The City Attorney subsequently dismissed H&R Block, Inc. from the case and amended its complaint to add HRB Tax Group, Inc. We filed a motion to stay the case based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine, which was denied. A trial date has been set for August 9, 2022. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this matter. On May 17, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed against H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco (Case No. CGC-19576093). The case is styled Snarr v. HRB Tax Group, Inc., et al. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 21, 2019 (Case No. 3:19-cv-03610-SK). The plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on August 9, 2019, dropping H&R Block, Inc. from the case. In the amended complaint, the plaintiff seeks to represent classes of all persons, between May 17, 2015 and the present, who (1) paid to file one or more federal tax returns through H&R Block’s internet-based filing system, (2) were eligible to file those tax returns for free through the H&R Block Free File offer of the IRS Free File Program, and (3) resided in and were citizens of California at the time of the payments. The plaintiff generally alleges unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive business practices and acts in connection with the IRS Free File Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code §§1750, et seq., California False Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code §§17500, et seq., and California Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq. The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. We filed a motion to stay the proceedings based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine and a motion to compel arbitration, both of which were denied. An appeal of the denial of the motion to compel arbitration is pending. We filed a motion to stay the claims pending the outcome of the appeal, as well as a motion to dismiss the claims, which also were denied. We filed an answer to the amended complaint on April 7, 2020. A trial date has been set for October 18, 2022. 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 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed against H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc., HRB Digital LLC and Free File, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Case No. 4:19-cv-00788-GAF) styled Swanson v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. The plaintiff seeks to represent both a nationwide class and a California subclass of all persons eligible for the IRS Free File Program who paid to use an H&R Block product to file an online tax return for the 2002 through 2018 tax filing years. The plaintiff generally alleges unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive business practices and acts in connection with the IRS Free File Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code §§1750, et seq., California False Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code §§17500, et seq., California Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code §§17200, et seq., in addition to breach of contract and fraud. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. The court granted a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Free File, Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted our motion to compel arbitration on July 27, 2020 and stayed the case pending the outcome of arbitration. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this matter. We have also received and are responding to certain governmental inquiries relating to the IRS Free File Program. LITIGATION, CLAIMS, INCLUDING INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION 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 lawsuits, claims, and other loss contingencies include actions by regulators, third parties seeking indemnification or contribution, 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 lawsuits, claims, and contingencies 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 or contribution, breach of contract, violations of securities laws, and violations of 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. It is difficult to predict either the likelihood of new matters being initiated or the outcome of existing matters. In many of these matters 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. 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." The statute of limitations for a contractual claim to enforce a representation and warranty obligation is generally six years or such shorter limitations period that may apply under the law of a state where the economic injury occurred. 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 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 2016 ruling by a New York intermediate appellate court, followed by the federal district court in the second Homeward case described below, 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. Additionally, plaintiffs in litigation to which SCC is not party have alleged breaches of an independent contractual duty to provide notice of material breaches of representations and warranties and pursued separate claims to which, they argue, the statute of limitations ruling in the ACE case does not apply. 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 relating back to timely filed litigation. 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 trust was originally collateralized with approximately 7,500 loans. 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 proceeded on the remaining claims. Representatives of a holder of certificates in the trust filed a motion to intervene to add H&R Block, Inc. to the lawsuit and assert claims against H&R Block, Inc. based on alter ego, corporate veil-piercing, and agency law. On February 12, 2018, the court denied the motion to intervene. Discovery in the case closed on September 30, 2019, with motions for summary judgment filed on December 6, 2019. On November 9, 2020, the court granted SCC's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Homeward's claims in their entirety as untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. Homeward appealed that ruling on December 4, 2020, and the appeal remains pending. 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 trust was originally collateralized with approximately 7,500 loans. 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. On September 30, 2016, the court granted a motion allowing the plaintiff to file a second amended 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. SCC filed a motion for reconsideration, followed by a motion for leave to appeal the ruling, both of which were denied. On October 6, 2016, the plaintiff filed its second amended complaint. In response to a motion filed by SCC, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for breach of one of the representations. The case proceeded on the remaining claims. Representatives of a holder of certificates in the trust filed a motion to intervene to add H&R Block, Inc. to the lawsuit and assert claims against H&R Block, Inc. based on alter ego, corporate veil-piercing, and agency law. On February 12, 2018, the court denied the motion to intervene. The settlement payments that were made in fiscal year 2018 for representation and warranty claims related to some of the loans in this case. Discovery in the case closed on September 30, 2019, with motions for summary judgment filed on December 6, 2019. On November 9, 2020, the court granted SCC's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Homeward's claims in their entirety as untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. Homeward appealed that ruling on December 4, 2020, and the appeal remains pending. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this matter. Parties, including underwriters, depositors, and securitization trustees, are, or have been, involved in multiple lawsuits, threatened lawsuits, and settlements related to securitization transactions in which SCC participated. A variety of claims are alleged in these matters, including violations of federal and state securities laws and common law fraud, based on alleged materially inaccurate or misleading disclosures, that originators, depositors, securitization trustees, or servicers breached their representations and warranties or otherwise failed to fulfill their obligations, or that securitization trustees violated statutory requirements by failing to properly protect the certificate holders’ interests. SCC has received notices of claims for indemnification or potential indemnification obligations relating to such matters, including lawsuits or settlements to which underwriters, depositors, or securitization trustees are party. Additional lawsuits against the parties to the securitization transactions may be filed in the future, and SCC may receive additional notices of claims for indemnification, contribution or similar obligations with respect to existing or new lawsuits or settlements of such lawsuits or other claims. Certain of the notices received included, and future notices may include, a reservation of rights to assert claims for contribution, which are referred to herein as "contribution claims." Contribution claims 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 or contribution claims is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to any of these claims. 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, 2020, total approximately $274 million and consist 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. 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 others who may be 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 and our consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

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.

We accrue liabilities for litigation, claims, including indemnification and contribution claims, and other related 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. 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 October 31, 2020. 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 business and our consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. As of October 31, 2020 and 2019 and April 30, 2020, our total accrued liabilities were $5.5 million, $1.6 million and $1.6 million, respectively.

Matters for which we are not currently able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss are not included in this range. 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 precise information about the amount of damages or other remedies being asserted, the defenses to the claims being asserted, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by courts on motions or appeals, analysis by experts, or the status or terms of any settlement negotiations.

The 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. As of October 31, 2020, we believe the estimate of the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of amounts accrued, where the range of loss can be estimated, is not material.

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. 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 business and our consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.

Free File Litigation. On May 6, 2019, the Los Angeles City Attorney filed a lawsuit on behalf of the People of the State of California in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 19STCV15742). The case is styled The People of the State of California v. HRB Digital LLC, et al. The complaint alleges that H&R Block, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC engaged in unfair, fraudulent and deceptive business practices and acts in connection with the IRS Free File Program in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, restitution of monies paid to H&R Block by persons in the State of California who were eligible to file under the IRS Free File Program for the time period starting 4 years prior to the date of the filing of the complaint, pre-judgment interest, civil penalties and costs. The City Attorney subsequently dismissed H&R Block, Inc. from the case and amended its complaint to add HRB Tax Group, Inc. We filed a motion to stay the case based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine, which was denied. A trial date has been set for August 9, 2022. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this matter.

On May 17, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed against H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco (Case No. CGC-19576093). The case is styled Snarr v. HRB Tax Group, Inc., et al. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 21, 2019 (Case No. 3:19-cv-03610-SK). The plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on August 9, 2019, dropping H&R Block, Inc. from the case. In the amended complaint, the plaintiff seeks to represent classes of all persons, between May 17, 2015 and the present, who (1) paid to file one or more federal tax returns through H&R Block’s internet-based filing system, (2) were eligible to file those tax returns for free through the H&R Block Free File offer of the IRS Free File Program, and (3) resided in and were citizens of California at the time of the payments. The plaintiff generally alleges unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive business practices and acts in connection with the IRS Free File Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code §§1750, et seq., California False Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code §§17500, et seq., and California Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq. The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, compensatory damages,

punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. We filed a motion to stay the proceedings based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine and a motion to compel arbitration, both of which were denied. An appeal of the denial of the motion to compel arbitration is pending. We filed a motion to stay the claims pending the outcome of the appeal, as well as a motion to dismiss the claims, which also were denied. We filed an answer to the amended complaint on April 7, 2020. A trial date has been set for October 18, 2022. 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 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed against H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc., HRB Digital LLC and Free File, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Case No. 4:19-cv-00788-GAF) styled Swanson v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. The plaintiff seeks to represent both a nationwide class and a California subclass of all persons eligible for the IRS Free File Program who paid to use an H&R Block product to file an online tax return for the 2002 through 2018 tax filing years. The plaintiff generally alleges unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive business practices and acts in connection with the IRS Free File Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code §§1750, et seq., California False Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code §§17500, et seq., California Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code §§17200, et seq., in addition to breach of contract and fraud. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. The court granted a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Free File, Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted our motion to compel arbitration on July 27, 2020 and stayed the case pending the outcome of arbitration. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this matter.

LITIGATION, CLAIMS, INCLUDING INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION 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 lawsuits, claims, and other loss contingencies include actions by regulators, third parties seeking indemnification or contribution, 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 lawsuits, claims, and contingencies 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 or contribution, breach of contract, violations of securities laws, and violations of 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. It is difficult to predict either the likelihood of new matters being initiated or the outcome of existing matters. In many of these matters 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.

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." The statute of limitations for a contractual claim to enforce a representation and warranty obligation is generally six years or such shorter limitations period that may apply under the law of a state where the economic injury occurred. 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

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 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 2016 ruling by a New York intermediate appellate court, followed by the federal district court in the second Homeward case described below, 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. Additionally, plaintiffs in litigation to which SCC is not party have alleged breaches of an independent contractual duty to provide notice of material breaches of representations and warranties and pursued separate claims to which, they argue, the statute of limitations ruling in the ACE case does not apply. 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 relating back to timely filed litigation.

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 trust was originally collateralized with approximately 7,500 loans. 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 proceeded on the remaining claims. Representatives of a holder of certificates in the trust filed a motion to intervene to add H&R Block, Inc. to the lawsuit and assert claims against H&R Block, Inc. based on alter ego, corporate veil-piercing, and agency law. On February 12, 2018, the court denied the motion to intervene. Discovery in the case closed on September 30, 2019, with motions for summary judgment filed on December 6, 2019. On November 9, 2020, the court granted SCC's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Homeward's claims in their entirety as untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. Homeward appealed that ruling on December 4, 2020, and the appeal remains pending. 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 trust was originally collateralized with approximately 7,500 loans. 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. On September 30, 2016, the court granted a motion allowing the plaintiff to file a second amended 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. SCC filed a motion for reconsideration, followed by a motion for leave to appeal the ruling, both of which were denied. On October 6, 2016, the plaintiff filed its second amended complaint. In response to a motion filed by SCC, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for breach of one of the representations. The case proceeded on the remaining claims. Representatives of a holder of certificates in the

trust filed a motion to intervene to add H&R Block, Inc. to the lawsuit and assert claims against H&R Block, Inc. based on alter ego, corporate veil-piercing, and agency law. On February 12, 2018, the court denied the motion to intervene. The settlement payments that were made in fiscal year 2018 for representation and warranty claims related to some of the loans in this case. Discovery in the case closed on September 30, 2019, with motions for summary judgment filed on December 6, 2019. On November 9, 2020, the court granted SCC's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Homeward's claims in their entirety as untimely under the applicable statute of limitations. Homeward appealed that ruling on December 4, 2020, and the appeal remains pending. We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this matter.

Parties, including underwriters, depositors, and securitization trustees, are, or have been, involved in multiple lawsuits, threatened lawsuits, and settlements related to securitization transactions in which SCC participated. A variety of claims are alleged in these matters, including violations of federal and state securities laws and common law fraud, based on alleged materially inaccurate or misleading disclosures, that originators, depositors, securitization trustees, or servicers breached their representations and warranties or otherwise failed to fulfill their obligations, or that securitization trustees violated statutory requirements by failing to properly protect the certificate holders’ interests. SCC has received notices of claims for indemnification or potential indemnification obligations relating to such matters, including lawsuits or settlements to which underwriters, depositors, or securitization trustees are party. Additional lawsuits against the parties to the securitization transactions may be filed in the future, and SCC may receive additional notices of claims for indemnification, contribution or similar obligations with respect to existing or new lawsuits or settlements of such lawsuits or other claims. Certain of the notices received included, and future notices may include, a reservation of rights to assert claims for contribution, which are referred to herein as "contribution claims." Contribution claims 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 or contribution claims is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to any of these claims.

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, 2020, total approximately $274 million and consist 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.