Commitments and Contingencies

The following table summarizes liabilities recorded for commitments and contingencies as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, all of which are included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets:



Agreement or Legal Matter	Commitment or Contingency	March 31, 2017		December 31, 2016
Chrysler Agreement	Revenue-sharing and gain-sharing payments	$	9,234	$	10,134
Agreement with Bank of America	Servicer performance fee	10,814		9,797
Agreement with CBP	Loss-sharing payments	4,612		4,563
Legal and regulatory proceedings	Aggregate legal and regulatory liabilities	43,170		39,200

Following is a description of the agreements and legal matters pursuant to which the liabilities in the preceding table were recorded.

Chrysler Agreement

Under terms of the Chrysler Agreement, the Company must make revenue sharing payments to FCA and gain-sharing payments when residual gains on leased vehicles exceed a specified threshold. The Company had accrued $9,234 and $10,134 at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, related to these obligations.

The Chrysler Agreement requires, among other things, that the Company bear the risk of loss on loans originated pursuant to the agreement, but also that FCA shares in any residual gains and losses from consumer leases. The agreement also requires that the Company maintain at least $5.0 billion in funding available for dealer inventory financing and $4.5 billion of financing dedicated to FCA retail financing. In turn, FCA must provide designated minimum threshold percentages of its subvention business to the Company. The Chrysler Agreement is subject to early termination in certain circumstances, including the failure by either party to comply with certain of their ongoing obligations under the Chrysler Agreement. These obligations include the Company's meeting specified escalating penetration rates for the first five years of the agreement. The Company has not met these penetration rates at March 31, 2017. If the Chrysler Agreement were to terminate, there could be a materially adverse impact to the Company's financial condition and results of operations.

Agreement with Bank of America

Until January 31, 2017, the Company had a flow agreement with Bank of America whereby the Company was committed to sell up to $300,000 of eligible loans to the bank each month. On October 27, 2016, Bank of America notified the Company that it was terminating the flow agreement effective January 31, 2017, and accordingly, the flow agreement is terminated. The Company retains servicing on all sold loans and may receive or pay a servicer performance payment based on an agreed-upon formula if performance on the sold loans is better or worse, respectively, than expected performance at time of sale. Servicer performance payments are due six years from the cut-off date of each loan sale. The Company had accrued $10,814 and $9,797 at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, related to this obligation.

Agreement with CBP

The Company has sold loans to CBP under terms of a flow agreement and predecessor sale agreements. The Company retains servicing on the sold loans and will owe CBP a loss-sharing payment capped at 0.5% of the original pool balance if losses exceed a specified threshold, established on a pool-by-pool basis. Loss-sharing payments are due the month in which net losses exceed the established threshold of each loan sale. On June 25, 2015, the Company and CBP amended the flow agreement to reduce, effective from and after August 1, 2015, CBP's committed purchases of Chrysler Capital prime loans from a maximum of $600,000 and a minimum of $250,000 per quarter to a maximum of $200,000 and a minimum of $50,000 per quarter, as may be adjusted according to the agreement. In January 2016, the Company executed an amendment to the servicing agreement with CBP which decreased the servicing fee the Company receives on loans sold to CBP by the Company under the flow agreement. On February 13, 2017, the Company and CBP entered into a mutual agreement to terminate the flow agreement effective May 1, 2017. The Company had accrued $4,612 and $4,563 at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, related to the loss-sharing obligation.

Legal and regulatory proceedings

Periodically, the Company is party to, or otherwise involved in, various lawsuits and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of any such lawsuit, regulatory matter and legal proceeding, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages or where the matters present novel legal theories or involve a large number of parties, the Company generally cannot predict the eventual outcome of the pending matters, the timing of the ultimate resolution of the matters, or the eventual loss, fines or penalties related to the matter. Accordingly, except as provided below, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate its potential exposure, if any, to these lawsuits, regulatory matters and other legal proceedings at this time. However, it is reasonably possible that actual outcomes or losses may differ materially from the Company's current assessments and estimates and any adverse resolution of any of these matters against it could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, liquidity, and results of operation.

In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company establishes an accrued liability for litigation, regulatory matters and other legal proceedings when those matters present material loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. When a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability. As a litigation, regulatory matter or other legal proceeding develops, the Company, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, evaluates on an ongoing basis whether the matter presents a material loss contingency that is probable and estimable. If a determination is made during a given quarter that a material loss contingency is probable and estimable, an accrued liability is established during such quarter with respect to such loss contingency. The Company continues to monitor the matter for further developments that could affect the amount of the accrued liability previously established.

As of March 31, 2017, the Company has accrued aggregate legal and regulatory liabilities of $43,170. Set forth below are descriptions of the material lawsuits, regulatory matters and other legal proceedings to which the Company is subject.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-06942 (the Deka Lawsuit). On October 6, 2014, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, State of Texas, captioned Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. DC-14-11783, which was subsequently removed to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, and re-captioned Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. 3:14-CV-3746 (the Kumar Lawsuit).

Both the Deka Lawsuit and the Kumar Lawsuit were brought against the Company, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers and certain institutions that served as underwriters in the Company's IPO on behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. In February 2015, the Kumar Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. In June 2015, the venue of the Deka Lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. In September 2015, the court granted a motion to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and the Deka Lawsuit is now captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The amended class action complaint in the Deka Lawsuit alleges that our Registration Statement and Prospectus and certain subsequent public disclosures contained misleading statements concerning the Company’s ability to pay dividends and the adequacy of the Company’s compliance systems and oversight. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages and other relief. On December 18, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint, and on June 13, 2016, the motion to dismiss was denied. On December 2, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed classes, on February 17, 2017, the Company filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to certify the proposed classes, and on March 31, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their reply brief.

On October 15, 2015, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Feldman v. Jason A. Kulas, et al., C.A. No. 11614 (the Feldman Lawsuit). The Feldman Lawsuit names as defendants current and former members of the Board, and names the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the current and former director defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with overseeing the Company’s subprime auto lending practices, resulting in harm to the Company. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and equitable relief. On December 29, 2015, the Feldman Lawsuit was stayed pending the resolution of the Deka Lawsuit.

On March 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783 (the Parmelee Lawsuit). On April 4, 2016, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Benson v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-919 (the Benson Lawsuit). Both the Parmelee Lawsuit and the Benson Lawsuit were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and executive officers on behalf of a class consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016. On May 25, 2016, the Benson Lawsuit was consolidated into the Parmelee Lawsuit, with the consolidated case captioned as Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783. On December 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint.

The amended class action complaint in the Parmelee Lawsuit alleges that the Company made false or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, in prior Annual and Quarterly Reports filed under the Exchange Act and certain other public disclosures, in connection with, among other things, the Company’s change in its methodology for estimating its allowance for credit losses and correction of such allowance for prior periods in, among other public disclosures, the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016, and the Company’s amended filings for prior reporting periods. The amended class action complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages and other relief. On March 14, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Parmelee Lawsuit.

On September 27, 2016, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Jackie888, Inc. v. Jason Kulas, et al., C.A. # 12775 (the Jackie888 Lawsuit). The Jackie888 Lawsuit names as defendants current and former members of the Board, and names the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Company’s accounting practices and controls. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and equitable relief.

The Company is also party to various lawsuits pending in federal and state courts alleging violations of state and federal consumer lending laws, including, without limitation, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Truth in Lending Act, wrongful repossession laws, usury laws and laws related to unfair and deceptive acts or practices. In general, these cases seek damages and equitable and/or other relief.

The Company is party to, or is periodically otherwise involved in, reviews, investigations, examinations and proceedings (both formal and informal), and information-gathering requests, by government and self-regulatory agencies, including the FRBB, the CFPB, the DOJ, the SEC, the FTC and various state regulatory and enforcement agencies. Currently, such proceedings include, but are not limited to, a civil subpoena from the DOJ, under FIRREA, requesting the production of documents and communications that, among other things, relate to the underwriting and securitization of nonprime auto loans since 2007, and from the SEC requesting the production of documents and communications that, among other things, relate to the underwriting and securitization of nonprime auto loans since 2013.

On March 21, 2017, the Company and SHUSA entered into a written agreement (the “2017 Written Agreement”) with the FRBB. Under the terms of the 2017 Written Agreement, the Company is required to enhance its compliance risk management program, board oversight of risk management and senior management oversight of risk management, and SHUSA is required to enhance its oversight of SC’s management and operations.

In October 2014, May 2015, and July 2015 the Company received subpoenas and/or Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) from the Attorneys General of California, Illinois, Oregon, New Jersey, Maryland and Washington under the authority of each state's consumer protection statutes. The Company has been informed that these states will serve as an executive committee on behalf of a group of 28 state Attorneys General. The subpoenas and/or CIDs from the executive committee states contain broad requests for information and the production of documents related to the Company's underwriting and securitization of nonprime auto loans. The Company believes that several other companies in the auto finance sector have received similar subpoenas and CIDs. The Company is cooperating with the Attorneys General of the states involved. The Company believes that it is reasonably possible that it will suffer a loss related to the Attorneys General, however, any such loss is not currently estimable.

In August and September 2014, the Company also received civil subpoenas and/or CIDs from the Attorney General of Massachusetts (the Massachusetts AG) and Delaware Department of Justice (the Delaware DOJ) under the authority of each state’s consumer protection statutes requesting information and the production of documents related to our underwriting and securitizations of nonprime auto loans. On March 29, 2017, the Company entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance (AOD) with the Massachusetts AG and a Cease and Desist by Agreement (C&D) with the Delaware DOJ to settle allegations that it facilitated the origination of certain Massachusetts and Delaware loans that it knew - or should have known - were in violation of applicable state consumer protection laws. In the AOD, filed in the Superior Court of Suffolk County, State of Massachusetts, captioned In the Matter of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., C.A. # 17-946E, the Company agreed to pay $16,300 to an independent trust for the benefit of eligible customers and $5,800 to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In the C&D, filed before the Consumer Protection Director of the Delaware Department of Justice, captioned In the Matter of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., C.P.U. # 17-17-17001637, the Company agreed to pay $2,875 to an independent trust for the benefit of eligible customers and $1,025 to the State of Delaware. The Company also agreed to make certain changes to its business practices. Among other things, it agreed to enhance certain aspects of its dealer oversight and monitoring processes.

On January 10, 2017, the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi (the Mississippi AG) filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, State of Mississippi, captioned State of Mississippi ex rel. Jim Hood, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., C.A. # G-2017-28. The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices to induce Mississippi consumers to apply for loans that they could not afford. The complaint asserts claims under the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act and seeks unspecified civil penalties, equitable relief and other relief. On March 31, 2017, the Company filed motions to dismiss the Mississippi AG’s lawsuit.

On November 4, 2015, the Company entered into an AOD with the Massachusetts AG. The Massachusetts AG alleged that the Company violated the maximum permissible interest rates allowed under Massachusetts law due to the inclusion of GAP charges in the calculation of finance charges. Among other things, the AOD requires the Company, with respect to any loan that exceeded the maximum rates, to issue refunds of all finance charges paid to date and to waive all future finance charges. The AOD also requires the Company to undertake certain remedial measures, including ensuring that interest rates on its loans do not exceed maximum rates (when GAP charges are included) in the future, and provides that the Company pay $150 to the Massachusetts AG to reimburse its costs of implementing the AOD.

On February 25, 2015, the Company entered into a consent order with the DOJ, approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that resolves the DOJ's claims against the Company that certain of its repossession and collection activities during the period of time between January 2008 and February 2013 violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The consent order requires the Company to pay a civil fine in the amount of $55, as well as at least $9,360 to affected servicemembers consisting of $10 per servicemember plus compensation for any lost equity (with interest) for each repossession by the Company, and $5 per servicemember for each instance where the Company sought to collect repossession-related fees on accounts where a repossession was conducted by a prior account holder. The consent order also provides for monitoring by the DOJ for the Company’s SCRA compliance for a period of five years and requires the Company to undertake certain additional remedial measures.

On July 31, 2015, the CFPB notified the Company that it had referred to the DOJ certain alleged violations by the Company of the ECOA regarding statistical disparities in markups charged by automobile dealers to protected groups on loans originated by those dealers and purchased by the Company and the treatment of certain types of income in the Company’s underwriting process. On September 25, 2015, the DOJ notified the Company that it has initiated, based on the referral from the CFPB, an investigation under the ECOA of the Company's pricing of automobile loans.

Other commitments and contingencies

Agreements

The Company is obligated to make purchase price holdback payments to a third party originator of auto loans that the Company has purchased, when losses are lower than originally expected. The Company also is obligated to make total return settlement payments to this third-party originator in 2017 if returns on the purchased loans are greater than originally expected. These obligations are accounted for as derivatives (Note 7).

The Company has extended revolving lines of credit to certain auto dealers. Under this arrangement, the Company is committed to lend up to each dealer's established credit limit. At March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, there was an outstanding balance under these lines of credit of $3,656 and $2,529, respectively, and a committed amount under these lines of credit of $3,656 and $2,920, respectively.

The Company committed to purchase certain new advances on personal revolving financings originated by a third party retailer, along with existing balances on accounts with new advances, for an initial term ending in April 2020 and renewing through April 2022 at the retailer's option. Each customer account generated under the agreements generally is approved with a credit limit higher than the amount of the initial purchase, with each subsequent purchase automatically approved as long as it does not cause the account to exceed its limit and the customer is in good standing. As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company was obligated to purchase $11,281 and $12,634, respectively, in receivables that had been originated by the retailer but not yet purchased by the Company. The Company also is required to make a profit-sharing payment to the retailer each month if performance exceeds a specified return threshold. During the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company and the third-party retailer executed an amendment that, among other provisions, increases the profit-sharing percentage retained by the Company, gives the retailer the right to repurchase up to 9.99% of the existing portfolio at any time during the term of the agreement, and, provided that repurchase right is exercised, gives the retailer the right to retain up to 20% of new accounts subsequently originated.

Under terms of an application transfer agreement with another original equipment manufacturer (OEM), the Company has the first opportunity to review for its own portfolio any credit applications turned down by the OEM's captive finance company. The agreement does not require the Company to originate any loans, but for each loan originated the Company will pay the OEM a referral fee, comprised of a volume bonus fee and a loss betterment bonus fee. The loss betterment bonus fee will be calculated annually and is based on the amount by which losses on loans originated under the agreement are lower than an established percentage threshold.

The Company also has agreements with SBNA to service recreational and marine vehicle portfolios. These agreements call for a periodic retroactive adjustment, based on cumulative return performance, of the servicing fee rate to inception of the contract. There were upward adjustments of zero and $836 for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively.

In connection with the sale of retail installment contracts through securitizations and other sales, the Company has made standard representations and warranties customary to the consumer finance industry. Violations of these representations and warranties may require the Company to repurchase loans previously sold to on- or off-balance sheet Trusts or other third parties. As of March 31, 2017, there were no loans that were the subject of a demand to repurchase or replace for breach of representations and warranties for the Company's asset-backed securities or other sales. In the opinion of management, the potential exposure of other recourse obligations related to the Company’s retail installment contract sales agreements will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Santander has provided guarantees on the covenants, agreements, and obligations of the Company under the governing documents of its warehouse lines and privately issued amortizing notes. These guarantees are limited to the obligations of the Company as servicer.

The Company provided SBNA with the first right to review and approve consumer vehicle lease applications, subject to volume constraints, under terms of a flow agreement that was terminated on May 9, 2015. The Company has indemnified SBNA for potential credit and residual losses on $48,226 of leases that had been originated by SBNA under this program but were subsequently determined not to meet SBNA’s underwriting requirements. This indemnification agreement is supported by an equal amount of cash collateral posted by the Company in an SBNA bank account. The collateral account balance is included in restricted cash in the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheets. In January 2015, the Company additionally agreed to indemnify SBNA for residual losses, up to a cap, on certain leases originated under the flow agreement between September 24, 2014 and May 9, 2015 for which SBNA and the Company had differing residual value expectations at lease inception.

On March 31, 2015, the Company executed a forward flow asset sale agreement with a third party under terms of which the Company committed to sell charged off loan receivables in bankruptcy status on a quarterly basis until sales total at least $200,000 in proceeds. On June 29, 2015, the Company and the third party executed an amendment to the forward flow asset sale agreement, which increased the committed sales of charged off loan receivables in bankruptcy status to $275,000. On September 30, 2015, the Company and the third party executed a second amendment to the forward flow asset sale agreement, which required sales to occur quarterly. On November 13, 2015, the Company and the third party executed a third amendment to the forward flow asset sale agreement, which increased the committed sales of charged off loan receivables in bankruptcy status to $350,000. However, any sale more than $275,000 is subject to a market price check. As of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the remaining aggregate commitment was $152,054 and $166,167, respectively.

Employment Agreements

Pursuant to the terms of a Separation Agreement among former CEO Thomas G. Dundon, the Company, DDFS LLC, SHUSA and Santander, upon satisfaction of applicable conditions, including receipt of required regulatory approvals, the Company will owe Mr. Dundon a cash payment of up to $115,139 (Note 11).

Leases

The Company has entered into various operating leases, primarily for office space and computer equipment. Lease expense incurred totaled $2,739 and $2,950 for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The remaining obligations under lease commitments at March 31, 2017 are as follows:




2017	$	11,858
2018	12,781
2019	12,866
2020	13,074
2021	12,691
Thereafter	53,690
Total	$	116,960