Commitments And Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2012

Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments And Contingencies

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 the plaintiff's claims, denying the remainder of Cash America's motion and granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Cash America filed a notice of appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals in December 2011 on the grant of plaintiff's partial summary judgment, and on November 6, 2012, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment to plaintiffs and affirmed the trial court's denial of Cash America's motion for summary judgment. Cash America filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court of Georgia to appeal the decision of the Georgia Court of Appeals regarding Cash America's motion for summary judgment on November 26, 2012, whichwas denied on February 18, 2013. The Company is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, as defined by ASC 450-20-20, Contingencies—Loss Contingencies—Glossary, for this litigation. Cash America believes that the Plaintiffs' claims in this suit are without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

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.

15. Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

The Company leases certain of its facilities under operating leases with terms ranging from one to 23 years and certain rights to extend for additional periods. Future minimum rentals due under non-cancelable leases are as follows for each of the years ending December 31 (dollars in thousands):

Year	Amount
2013	$	52,531
2014		43,774
2015		33,584
2016		26,332
2017		16,913
Thereafter		34,288
Total	$	207,422

Rent expense was $55.4 million, $52.2 million and $46.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Guarantees

The Company guarantees consumer loan payment obligations to unrelated third-party lenders through its CSO program and is required to purchase the loan in the event that a customer defaults on the loan. The guarantee represents an obligation to purchase specific loans that go into default. Short-term loans that are guaranteed generally have terms of less than 90 days. Secured auto equity loans that are guaranteed generally have terms up to 42 months.As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, the amount of consumer loans guaranteed by the Company was $64.7 million and $59.4 million, respectively, representing amounts due under consumer loans originated by third-party lenders under the CSO programs. The estimated fair value of the liability related to these guarantees of $3.5million and $3.1million as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, is included in “Accounts payable and accrued expenses” in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

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 the plaintiff's claims, denying the remainder of Cash America's motion and granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Cash America filed a notice of appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals in December 2011 on the grant of plaintiff's partial summary judgment, and on November 6, 2012, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment to plaintiffs and affirmed the trial court's denial of Cash America's motion for summary judgment. Cash America filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court of Georgia to appeal the decision of the Georgia Court of Appeals regarding Cash America's motion for summary judgment on November 26, 2012, whichwas denied on February 18, 2013. The Company is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, as defined by ASC 450-20-20, Contingencies—Loss Contingencies—Glossary, for this litigation. Cash America believes that the Plaintiffs' claims in this suit are without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

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.

Voluntary Reimbursements to Ohio Customers

On December 4, 2012, the Company announced a voluntary program to fully reimburse approximately 14,000 Ohio customers for all funds collected, plus interest accrued from the date collected, in connection with legal collections proceedings initiated by the Company in Ohio from January 1, 2008 through December 4, 2012 (the “Ohio Reimbursements”). In 2012, the Company determined that a small number of employees did not prepare certain court documents in many of its Ohio legal collections proceedings in accordance with court rules. In connection with the reimbursement program, for all trial court collections proceedings filed by the Company in Ohio from January 1, 2008 through December 4, 2012, with the exception of one appellate matter, the Company is in the process of filing dismissals, terminating all existing post-judgment collections activities, and requesting to vacate each judgment entered and/or notifying credit reporting bureaus of the vacated judgments, as necessary, for each case.

The Company estimates the cost of the reimbursement program and related expenses will be approximately $13.4 million before taxes and has recorded this amount in “Accounts payable and accrued expenses” in the consolidated balance sheets and in “Operations and administration expense” in the consolidated statements of income for the year ended December 31, 2012.