Litigation and Contingent Liabilities	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Contingent Liabilities	LITIGATION AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES In the normal course of business and as a result of the consumer-oriented nature of the industry in which we operate, industry participants are frequently subject to various consumer claims, litigation and regulatory investigations seeking damages, fines and statutory penalties. The claims allege, among other theories of liability, violations of state, federal and foreign truth-in-lending, credit availability, credit reporting, consumer protection, warranty, debt collection, insurance and other consumer-oriented laws and regulations, including claims seeking damages for physical and mental damages relating to our repossession and sale of the consumer’s vehicle and other debt collection activities. As the assignee of Consumer Loans originated by Dealers, we may also be named as a co-defendant in lawsuits filed by consumers principally against Dealers. We may also have disputes and litigation with Dealers. 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. 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. The following matters include current actions to which we are a party and updates to matters that were disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. On March 18, 2016, we received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of Maryland, relating to the Company’s repossession and sale policies and procedures in the state of Maryland. We are cooperating with the inquiry and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from this investigation. On February 19, 2016, we received a First Amended Complaint filed by Westlake Services d/b/a Westlake Financial Service and Nowcom Corporation, alleging that the Company has attempted to monopolize the indirect financing profit sharing program market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and seeking, among other things, injunctive relief and unspecified money damages, which, if awarded, would likely be trebled pursuant to the Sherman Act. The case was filed in the Unites States District Court, Central District of California, Western Division. On April 6, 2016, the Court dismissed the claims brought by Nowcom Corporation. We cannot predict the duration or outcome of this lawsuit at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from this lawsuit. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. On September 18, 2015, we received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of New York, Civil Rights Bureau relating to the Company’s origination and collection of Consumer Loans in the state of New York. We are cooperating with the inquiry and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from this investigation. On December 9, 2014, we received a civil investigative subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 directing us to produce certain information relating to subprime automotive finance and related securitization activities. We are cooperating with the inquiry and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from this investigation. On December 4, 2014, we received a civil investigative demand from the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts relating to the origination and collection of non-prime auto loans in Massachusetts. We are cooperating with the inquiry and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from this investigation. On February 1, 2013, six Dealers, who had previously commenced a putative consolidated arbitration proceeding against the Company before the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") that was deemed not properly filed by the AAA on October 9, 2012, filed individual arbitrations against the Company before the AAA in Southfield, Michigan. These arbitration demands seek unspecified money damages for claims relating to the Dealer servicing agreements of these Dealers. One of these matters was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on January 20, 2015. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the remaining five arbitrations. Based on information currently available, we believe that the eventual outcome will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.

LITIGATION AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

In the normal course of business and as a result of the consumer-oriented nature of the industry in which we operate, industry participants are frequently subject to various consumer claims, litigation and regulatory investigations seeking damages, fines and statutory penalties. The claims allege, among other theories of liability, violations of state, federal and foreign truth-in-lending, credit availability, credit reporting, consumer protection, warranty, debt collection, insurance and other consumer-oriented laws and regulations, including claims seeking damages for physical and mental damages relating to our repossession and sale of the consumer’s vehicle and other debt collection activities. As the assignee of Consumer Loans originated by Dealers, we may also be named as a co-defendant in lawsuits filed by consumers principally against Dealers. We may also have disputes and litigation with Dealers. 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. 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. The following matters include current actions to which we are a party and updates to matters that were disclosed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.

On March 18, 2016, we received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of Maryland, relating to the Company’s repossession and sale policies and procedures in the state of Maryland. We are cooperating with the inquiry and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from this investigation.

On February 19, 2016, we received a First Amended Complaint filed by Westlake Services d/b/a Westlake Financial Service and Nowcom Corporation, alleging that the Company has attempted to monopolize the indirect financing profit sharing program market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and seeking, among other things, injunctive relief and unspecified money damages, which, if awarded, would likely be trebled pursuant to the Sherman Act. The case was filed in the Unites States District Court, Central District of California, Western Division. On April 6, 2016, the Court dismissed the claims brought by Nowcom Corporation. We cannot predict the duration or outcome of this lawsuit at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from this lawsuit. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

On September 18, 2015, we received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of New York, Civil Rights Bureau relating to the Company’s origination and collection of Consumer Loans in the state of New York. We are cooperating with the inquiry and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from this investigation.

On December 9, 2014, we received a civil investigative subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 directing us to produce certain information relating to subprime automotive finance and related securitization activities. We are cooperating with the inquiry and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from this investigation.

On December 4, 2014, we received a civil investigative demand from the Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts relating to the origination and collection of non-prime auto loans in Massachusetts. We are cooperating with the inquiry and cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome at this time. As a result, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible loss arising from this investigation.

On February 1, 2013, six Dealers, who had previously commenced a putative consolidated arbitration proceeding against the Company before the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") that was deemed not properly filed by the AAA on October 9, 2012, filed individual arbitrations against the Company before the AAA in Southfield, Michigan. These arbitration demands seek unspecified money damages for claims relating to the Dealer servicing agreements of these Dealers. One of these matters was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on January 20, 2015. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the remaining five arbitrations. Based on information currently available, we believe that the eventual outcome will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.