Litigation And Contingent Liabilities	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Litigation And Contingent Liabilities [Abstract]
Litigation And Contingent Liabilities	13. LITIGATION AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES In the normal course of business and as a result of the customer-oriented nature of the industry in which we operate, industry participants are frequently subject to various customer claims and litigation seeking damages and statutory penalties. The claims allege, among other theories of liability, violations of state, federal and foreign truth-in-lending, credit availability, credit reporting, customer protection, warranty, debt collection, insurance and other customer-oriented laws and regulations, including claims seeking damages for physical and mental damages relating to our repossession and sale of the customer’s vehicle and other debt collection activities. As the assignee of Consumer Loans originated by Dealer-Partners, we may also be named as a co-defendant in lawsuits filed by customers principally against Dealer-Partners. We may also have disputes and litigation with Dealer-Partners. The claims may allege, among other theories of liability, that we breached our dealer servicing agreement. Many of these cases are filed as purported class actions and seek damages in large dollar amounts. Current actions to which we are a party include the following matters. On December 3, 2010, we received a civil investigative demand from the Missouri Attorney General Office relating to our practices regarding collections from Missouri consumers who claim to have not received title from the Dealer-Partner at the time of their purchase. On January 24, 2011, we provided an initial response and on May 16, 2011, we filed a supplemental response. We are in continued discussions with the Attorney General with respect to the demand for information. We are cooperating with the inquiry. On November 22, 2011, an arbitration proceeding against us was commenced before the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") in Southfield, Michigan. The arbitration demand was brought by a Dealer-Partner and seeks unspecified money damages for alleged breach of the dealer servicing agreement. The claimant purports to proceed on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated Dealer-Partners. On or about January 3, 2012, we filed an answer, denying the allegations in the demand and opposing claimant’s attempt to proceed on a class-wide basis based on the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement, which does not authorize classwide arbitration, and recent controlling Supreme Court authority. The arbitration panel has not yet been appointed and various procedural matters relating to the arbitration, including whether the matter will proceed as a class action, have not yet been adjudicated. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations made in this proceeding. An adverse ultimate disposition in any action to which we are a party or otherwise subject could have a material adverse impact on our financial position, liquidity and results of operations.

13. LITIGATION AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

In the normal course of business and as a result of the customer-oriented nature of the industry in which we operate, industry participants are frequently subject to various customer claims and litigation seeking damages and statutory penalties. The claims allege, among other theories of liability, violations of state, federal and foreign truth-in-lending, credit availability, credit reporting, customer protection, warranty, debt collection, insurance and other customer-oriented laws and regulations, including claims seeking damages for physical and mental damages relating to our repossession and sale of the customer’s vehicle and other debt collection activities. As the assignee of Consumer Loans originated by Dealer-Partners, we may also be named as a co-defendant in lawsuits filed by customers principally against Dealer-Partners. We may also have disputes and litigation with Dealer-Partners. The claims may allege, among other theories of liability, that we breached our dealer servicing agreement. Many of these cases are filed as purported class actions and seek damages in large dollar amounts. Current actions to which we are a party include the following matters.

On December 3, 2010, we received a civil investigative demand from the Missouri Attorney General Office relating to our practices regarding collections from Missouri consumers who claim to have not received title from the Dealer-Partner at the time of their purchase. On January 24, 2011, we provided an initial response and on May 16, 2011, we filed a supplemental response. We are in continued discussions with the Attorney General with respect to the demand for information. We are cooperating with the inquiry.

On November 22, 2011, an arbitration proceeding against us was commenced before the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") in Southfield, Michigan. The arbitration demand was brought by a Dealer-Partner and seeks unspecified money damages for alleged breach of the dealer servicing agreement. The claimant purports to proceed on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated Dealer-Partners. On or about January 3, 2012, we filed an answer, denying the allegations in the demand and opposing claimant’s attempt to proceed on a class-wide basis based on the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement, which does not authorize classwide arbitration, and recent controlling Supreme Court authority. The arbitration panel has not yet been appointed and various procedural matters relating to the arbitration, including whether the matter will proceed as a class action, have not yet been adjudicated. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations made in this proceeding.

An adverse ultimate disposition in any action to which we are a party or otherwise subject could have a material adverse impact on our financial position, liquidity and results of operations.