Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Litigation and Contingent Liabilities

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Litigation and Other Legal Matters

In the normal course of business and as a result of the consumer-oriented nature of the industry in which we operate, we and other 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 alleged physical and mental harm relating to the repossession and sale of consumers' vehicles 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. We may also have disputes and litigation with vendors and other third parties. The claims may allege, among other theories of liability, that we breached a license agreement or contract. The damages, fines and penalties that may be claimed by consumers, regulatory agencies, Dealers, vendors or other third parties in these types of matters can be substantial. The relief requested by plaintiffs varies but may include requests for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and injunctive relief, and plaintiffs may seek treatment as purported class actions. 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, 2018.

On May 7, 2019, we received a subpoena from the Office of the New York State Attorney General, relating to the Company’s origination and collection policies and procedures 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 April 22, 2019, we received a civil investigative demand from the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (the “Bureau”) seeking, among other things, certain information relating to the Company’s origination and collection of Consumer Loans, TPPs and credit reporting. We cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of this investigation 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 April 10, 2018, we were informed by the New York Department of Financial Services, Financial Frauds & Consumer Protection Division (“DFS”) that it believed that the Company may have violated the law relating to fair lending; may have misrepresented to consumers information related to GPS Starter Interrupt Devices; and may have provided inaccurate information in the course of a DFS supervisory examination. We cooperated with the DFS to address its concerns, and on April 24, 2019, we learned that the DFS has closed its current examinations of the Company.

On August 14, 2017, we received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, relating to the origination and collection of non-prime auto loans in the state of Mississippi. The Company cooperated with the inquiry. On April 23, 2019, the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, on behalf of the State of Mississippi, filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, alleging that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in subprime auto lending, loan servicing, vehicle repossession and debt collection in the State of Mississippi in violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, including civil penalties and disgorgement, and payment of the State’s attorney’s fees and costs. 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 June 14, 2017, we were informed that the Bureau’s Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity is investigating whether the Company may have violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B. 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 inquiry.

On November 7, 2016, we received a civil investigative demand from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) seeking information on the Company’s policies, practices and procedures in allowing car dealers to use GPS Starter Interrupters on consumer vehicles. We cooperated with the FTC, and on May 9, 2019, we learned that the FTC had closed this matter.

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 United States District Court, Central District of California, Western Division. On April 6, 2016, the Court dismissed the claims brought by Nowcom Corporation. On January 5, 2018, the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company, dismissing the case with prejudice on the merits and ordering that the Company be awarded its costs of suit from Westlake Services, LLC. On February 2, 2018, Westlake Services, LLC filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court. On July 13, 2018, Westlake Services, LLC filed its appellate brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On September 14, 2018, we filed our response to Westlake Services, LLC’s appellate brief. On October 19, 2018, Westlake Services, LLC filed its reply brief. 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 have cooperated with the inquiry and have been informed that it is inactive.

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 have cooperated with the inquiry, but 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. On November 20, 2017 we received a second civil investigation demand from the Office of the Attorney General seeking updated information on its original civil investigation demand, additional information related to the Company's origination and collection of Consumer Loans, and information regarding securitization activities. In connection with this inquiry, we were informed by representatives of the Office of the Attorney General that it believes that the Company may have engaged in unfair and deceptive acts or practices related to the origination and collection of auto loans, which may have caused some of the Company’s representations and warranties contained in securitization documents to be inaccurate.  The investigation relating to the origination, collection and securitization of non-prime auto loans and securities transactions by the Office of the Attorney General remains ongoing. 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.

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.