XML 32 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.2

Commitments and Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2020
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, 2019. On October 2, 2020, a shareholder filed a putative class action complaint against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and/or misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company and its business, and seeking class certification, unspecified damages plus interest and attorney and expert witness fees and other costs on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons and entities (subject to specified exceptions) that purchased or otherwise acquired Credit Acceptance common stock from November 1, 2019 through August 28, 2020. 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 May 7, 2019, we received a subpoena from the Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau of 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. On July 30, 2020, we received two additional subpoenas from the Office of the New York State Attorney General, both from the Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau and the Investor Protection Bureau, relating to the Company’s origination and collection policies and procedures in the state of New York and its securitizations. On August 28, 2020, we were informed that one of the two additional subpoenas was being withdrawn. 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. On May 7, 2020, we received another civil investigative demand from the Bureau seeking additional information relating to its investigation. The Company raised various objections to the May 7, 2020 civil investigative demand, and on May 26, 2020, we were notified that it was withdrawn. On June 1, 2020, we received another civil investigative demand that was similar to the May 7, 2020 demand, and which raised many of the same objections. We formally petitioned the Bureau to modify the June 1, 2020 civil investigative demand. On September 3, 2020, the Director of the Bureau denied our petition to modify the June 1, 2020 civil investigative demand. We continue to cooperate with the investigation, 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 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 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. On April 3, 2020, we received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of Maryland relating to the Company’s origination and collection policies and procedures in the state of Maryland. On August 11, 2020, we received a subpoena from the Attorney General of the State of Maryland restating most of the requests contained in the March 18, 2016 and April 3, 2020 subpoenas, making additional requests, and expanding the inquiry to include 39 other states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia. Also on August 11, 2020, we received from the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey a subpoena that is essentially identical to the August 11, 2020 Maryland subpoena, both as to substance and as to the jurisdictions identified. We are cooperating with these inquiries 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 these investigations. 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 investigative demand from the Office of the Attorney General seeking updated information on its original civil investigative 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. On July 22, 2020, we received a third civil investigative demand from the Office of the Attorney General seeking updates on previously produced data and additional information related to the Company's origination of Consumer Loans. On August 30, 2020, we were served with a complaint, filed by the Attorney General in Massachusetts Superior Court in Suffolk County, alleging that the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in subprime auto lending, debt collection and asset-backed securitizations in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Law, M.G.L. c. 93A. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties and payment of the Commonwealth’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. 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.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=121559207&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration