Commitments And Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2013

Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments And Contingencies

13. Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

The Company leases certain of its facilities under operating leases with terms ranging from one to 22 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
2014	$	61,350
2015		50,052
2016		41,195
2017		29,933
2018		21,103
Thereafter		60,379
Total	$	264,012

Rent expense was $60.7 million, $55.4 million and $52.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Guarantees

In connection with its CSO programs, the Company guarantees consumer loan payment obligations to unrelated third-party lenders and is required to purchase any defaulted loans it has guaranteed. 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, which are included in the Company's installment loan portfolio, typically have an average term of less than 24 months, with available terms of up to 42 months. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the amount of consumer loans guaranteed by the Company was $59.0 million and $64.7 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 $3.1 million and $3.5million as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, is included in “Accounts payable and accrued expenses” in the consolidated balance sheets.

Voluntary Reimbursements to Ohio Customers

Litigation

2013 Litigation Settlement

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 (the Company's chief executive officer), and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and “stakeholders” of Cash America. In August 2006, James H. Greene and Mennie Johnson were permitted to join the lawsuit as named plaintiffs, and in June 2009, the court agreed to the removal of James E. Strong as a named plaintiff. 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. 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.

This case was scheduled to go to trial in November 2013, but on October 9, 2013, the parties agreed to a memorandum of understanding (the “Settlement Memorandum”). Pursuant to the Settlement Memorandum, the parties filed a joint motion containing the full terms of the settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the trial court for approval on October 24, 2013, and the trial court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement on November 4, 2013. On January 16, 2014, the trial court issued its final approval of the settlement and entered the Final Order and Judgment. The Settlement Agreement requires a minimum payment by the Company of $18.0 million and a maximum payment of $36.0 million to cover class claims (including honorarium payments to the named plaintiffs) and the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs (including the costs of claims administration) (the “Class Claims and Costs”), all of which will count towards the aggregate payment for purposes of determining whether the minimum payment has been made or the maximum payment has been reached. The actual payout will depend on the number of claimants who submit claims for payment. The Company denies all of the material allegations of the lawsuit and denies any and all liability or wrongdoing in connection with the conduct described in the lawsuit, but the Company agreed to the settlement to eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden and expense of further litigation.

In accordance with ASC 450, Contingencies, the Company recognized a liability in 2013 in the amount of $18.0 million. The liability was recorded in “Accounts payable and accrued liabilities” in the consolidated balance sheets and “Operations and administration expense” in the consolidated statements of income for the year ended December 31, 2013. In February 2014, the amount to be paid in connection with the Class Claims and Costs was substantially finalized, and the amount is not materially different than the liability accrued by the Company at December 31, 2013. The Class Claims and Costs will be paid during the first quarter of 2014.

Ohio Litigation

On May 28, 2009, one of the Company's subsidiaries, Ohio Neighborhood Finance, Inc., doing business as Cashland (“Cashland”), filed a standard collections suit in an Elyria Municipal Court in Ohio against Rodney Scott seeking judgment against Mr. Scott in the amount of $570.16, which was the amount due under his loan agreement. Cashland's loan was offered under the Ohio Mortgage Loan Act (“OMLA”), which allows for interest at a rate of 25% per annum plus certain loan fees allowed by the statute. The Municipal Court, in Ohio Neighborhood Finance, Inc. v. Rodney Scott, held that short-term, single-payment consumer loans made by Cashland are not authorized under the OMLA, and instead should have been offered under the Ohio Short-Term Lender Law, which was passed by the Ohio legislature in 2008 for consumer loans with similar terms. Due to a cap on interest and loan fees at an amount that is less than permitted under the OMLA, the Company does not offer loans under the Ohio Short-Term Lender Law.

On December 3, 2012, the Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Municipal Court's ruling in a 2-1 decision. Although this court decision is only legally binding in the Ninth District of Ohio, which includes four counties in northern Ohio where Cashland operates seven stores and where the Company has modified its short-term loan product in response to this decision, other Ohio courts may consider this decision.

The Supreme Court of Ohio heard the Company's appeal of the Ninth District Court's decision in December 2013, and a decision is expected during the first half of 2014. If the Ninth District Court's decision is upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court on appeal, the Company's Ohio operations may be adversely affected. The Company relies on the OMLA to make short-term loans in its retail services locations in Ohio, and if the Company is unable to continue making short-term loans under this law, it will alter its short-term loan product in Ohio. In addition, following the ruling by the Ninth District Court, four lawsuits were filed against the Company by customers in Ohio, three of which are purported class action complaints, alleging that the Company improperly made loans under the OMLA, and the Company may in the future receive other claims. Each of these four lawsuits has been stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court of Ohio's decision. The Company is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses in connection with these lawsuits, as defined by ASC 450-20-20, Contingencies—Loss Contingencies—Glossary, for these litigation matters. The Company believes that the Plaintiffs' claims in these suits are without merit and will vigorously defend these lawsuits.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

On November 20, 2013, the Company consented to the issuance of a Consent Order by the CFPB pursuant to which it agreed, without admitting or denying any of the facts or conclusions made by the CFPB from its 2012 review of the Company, to pay a civil money penalty of $5.0 million (the “Regulatory Penalty”), which is non-deductible for tax purposes. The Company also agreed to set aside $8.0 million of cash for a period of 180 days to fund any further payments to eligible Ohio customers who make valid claims in connection with the Company's voluntary program that was announced in December 2012 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 Reimbursement Program”). The decision to make voluntary reimbursements in connection with the Ohio Reimbursement Program was made by the Company in 2012 because 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. As of December 31, 2013, the Company had refunded approximately $6.4 million in connection with this program.

Voluntary Reimbursements to Ohio Customers

On December 4, 2012, the Company announced the Ohio Reimbursement Program (as described above). As of December 31, 2012, the Company estimated the cost of the Ohio Reimbursement Program and related expenses to be approximately $13.4 million before taxes and 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. During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company reimbursed approximately $6.4 million to customers and incurred $1.7 million of related expenses in connection with this program. In addition, the Company decreased its remaining liability related to the Ohio Reimbursement Program during the year ended December 31, 2013 by $5.0 million after the assessment of claims made to date and related matters. As of December 31, 2013, the Company's remaining accrual for the Ohio Reimbursement Program was $0.3 million.