9.	Litigation

On August 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc. (together with Georgia Cash America, Inc., "Cash America"), Daniel R. Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders" of Cash America. The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the most significant of which is that Cash America made illegal short-term loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). First National Bank of Brookings, South Dakota ("FNB") and Community State Bank of Milbank, South Dakota ("CSB") for some time made loans to Georgia residents through Cash America's Georgia operating locations. The complaint in this lawsuit claims that Cash America was the true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and that FNB and CSB's involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge." Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America was the "de facto" lender and was illegally operating in Georgia. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages. In November 2009 the case was certified as a class action lawsuit. In August 2011, Cash America filed a motion for summary judgment, and in October 2011, the plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Hearings on the motions were held in October and November 2011, and the trial court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Cash America on one of plaintiff's claims, denying the remainder of Cash America's motion and granting plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Cash America filed a notice of appeal in December 2011 on the grant of plaintiff's partial summary judgment, which is pending before the Georgia Court of Appeals. The Company is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, as defined by ASC 450-20-20, Contingencies – Loss Contingencies – Glossary ("ASC 450-20-20"), for this litigation. Cash America believes that the Plaintiffs' claims in this suit are without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

On March 5, 2009, Peter Alfeche and Kim Saunders, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Cash America International, Inc., Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC ("CashNet Nevada"), Cash America Net of Pennsylvania, LLC and Cash America of PA, LLC, d/b/a CashNetUSA.com (collectively, "CashNetUSA"). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that CashNetUSA's online consumer loan activities in Pennsylvania were illegal and in violation of various Pennsylvania laws, including the Loan Interest Protection Law, the Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act (the "CDCA") and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Laws. The lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment that several of CashNetUSA's contractual provisions, including the class action waiver and the choice of law and arbitration provisions, are not enforceable under Pennsylvania law and that CashNetUSA's loan contracts are void and unenforceable. The complaint seeks compensatory damages (including the trebling of certain damages), punitive damages and attorney's fees. CashNetUSA filed a motion to enforce the arbitration provision, including its class action waiver, located in the agreements governing the lending activities. In August 2011, the U.S. District Court ruled that the arbitration provision, which includes the class action waiver, was valid and enforceable and granted the motion to compel arbitration and stayed the litigation. In August 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which the court denied, and in September 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification for interlocutory appeal, which was denied in November 2011. On February 24, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's decision, and the court has not yet ruled on this motion. Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this matter can be determined at this time, and the Company is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, as defined by ASC 450-20-20, for this litigation. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims in this suit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

On December 4, 2009, Krystle Wilson filed a lawsuit against Cash America Net of Illinois d/b/a CashNetUSA alleging violation of the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act, violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and invasion of privacy. In April 2011, the plaintiff amended her petition to include a purported class action claim and named Cash America International, Inc., Cash America Net Holdings, LLC, Cash America Net of Texas, LLC and Enova Financial Holdings, LLC as additional defendants (and corrected the name of the previously-named defendant to Cash America Net of Illinois, LLC) (collectively, "CashNet"). The amended petition alleges, among other things, that CashNet's consumer loan activities violated the Texas Credit Services Organization Act ("CSOA") and that in its efforts to collect on loans issued through the CSOA loan program, CashNet violated the Texas and Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts. The plaintiff was seeking unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees and punitive damages. In June 2011, CashNet removed this action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth Division) and filed a motion to enforce the arbitration provision, including the class action waiver, located in the agreements governing the lending activities. On February 1, 2012, the court ruled that the arbitration provision, which includes the class action waiver, was valid and enforceable and granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the litigation.

The Company is also a defendant in certain routine litigation matters encountered in the ordinary course of its business. Certain of these matters are covered to an extent by insurance. In the opinion of management, the resolution of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or liquidity.