XML 32 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] |
Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | Commitments and Contingencies Leases We lease space for all of our Core U.S. and Mexico stores, certain support facilities and the majority of our delivery vehicles under operating leases expiring at various times through 2024. Certain of the store leases contain escalation clauses for increased taxes and operating expenses. Rental expense was $206.3 million, $209.7 million and $231.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Future minimum rental payments under operating leases with remaining lease terms in excess of one year at December 31, 2018 are as follows:
(In thousands) | Operating Leases
2019 | $ | 145,345 |
2020 | 116,785 |
2021 | 80,362 |
2022 | 47,417 |
2023 | 16,460 |
Thereafter | 2,280 |
Total future minimum rental payments | $ | 408,649 |
Contingencies From time to time, the Company, along with our subsidiaries, is party to various legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. We reserve for loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable. We regularly monitor developments related to these legal proceedings, and review the adequacy of our legal reserves on a quarterly basis. We do not expect these losses to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements if and when such losses are incurred. We are subject to unclaimed property audits by states in the ordinary course of business. The property subject to review in this audit process included unclaimed wages, vendor payments and customer refunds. State escheat laws generally require entities to report and remit abandoned and unclaimed property to the state. Failure to timely report and remit the property can result in assessments that could include interest and penalties, in addition to the payment of the escheat liability itself. We routinely remit escheat payments to states in compliance with applicable escheat laws. The negotiated settlements did not have a material impact to our financial statements. Alan Hall, et. al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et. al.; James DePalma, et. al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et. al. On December 23, 2016, a putative class action was filed against us and certain of our former officers by Alan Hall in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman, Texas. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b) and/or Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing false and misleading statements and omitting material facts regarding our business, including implementation of our point-of-sale system, operations and prospects during the period covered by the complaint. A complaint filed by James DePalma also in Sherman, Texas alleging similar claims was consolidated by the court into the Hall matter. On October 8, 2018, the parties agreed to settle this matter for $11 million. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on December 13, 2018. Under the terms of the settlement our insurance carrier paid an aggregate of $11 million in cash, subsequent to December 31, 2018, which will be distributed to an agreed upon class of claimants who purchased our common stock from July 27, 2015 through October 10, 2016, as well as used to pay costs of notice and settlement administration, and plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses. A hearing to finally approve the settlement is scheduled for May 3, 2019. Blair v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. This matter is a state-wide class action complaint originally filed on March 13, 2017 in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges various claims, including that our cash sales and total rent to own prices exceed the pricing permitted under the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act. In addition, the plaintiffs allege that we fail to give customers a fully executed rental agreement and that all such rental agreements that were issued to customers unsigned are void under the law. The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages under the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act which range from $100 - $1,000 per violation, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. However, we cannot assure you that we will be found to have no liability in this matter. Vintage Rodeo Parent, LLC, Vintage Rodeo Acquisition, Inc. and Vintage Capital Management, LLC, and B. Riley Financial, Inc. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc. On December 18, 2018, after the Company did not receive an extension notice from Vintage Rodeo Parent, LLC (“Vintage”) that was required by December 17, 2018 to extend the Merger Agreement’s stated End Date, we terminated the Merger Agreement. Our Board of Directors determined that terminating the Merger Agreement was in the best interests of our stockholders, and instructed Rent-A-Center’s management to exercise the Company’s right to terminate the Merger Agreement and make a demand on Vintage for the $126.5 million reverse breakup fee owed to us following the termination of the Merger Agreement. On December 21, 2018, Vintage and its affiliates filed a lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery against Rent-A-Center, asserting that the Merger Agreement remained in effect, and that Vintage did not owe Rent-A-Center the $126.5 million reverse breakup fee associated with out termination of the Merger Agreement. B. Riley, a guarantor of the payment of the reverse breakup fee, later joined the lawsuit brought by Vintage in Delaware Court of Chancery. In addition, we brought a counterclaim against Vintage and B. Riley asserting our right to payment of the reverse breakup fee. On February 11th and 12th of 2019, a trial was held in Delaware Court of Chancery in the lawsuit arising from Rent-A-Center's termination of the Merger Agreement. While it is difficult to predict the outcome of litigation, we believe Rent-A-Center, under the express and unambiguous language of that agreement, had a clear right to terminate the Merger Agreement and that it is entitled to the $126.5 million reverse breakup fee. Oral argument on the parties' post-trial briefs is scheduled for Monday, March 11th. In the event that the Merger Agreement is reinstated by the court and the transaction is completed, we expect to pay estimated financial advisory fees of approximately $15 million.

X
- Definition Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | rcii_CommitmentsandContingenciesAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | rcii_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for loss and gain contingencies. Describes any existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as of the balance sheet date (or prior to issuance of the financial statements) as to a probable or reasonably possible loss incurred by an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur, and typically discloses the amount of loss recorded or a range of possible loss, or an assertion that no reasonable estimate can be made. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 30 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/subtopic&trid=2127197 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/subtopic&trid=2127163 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LossContingencyDisclosures
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration