XML 36 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.7.0.1

Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 7: CONTINGENCIES We are involved in various claims, suits, investigations and legal proceedings, including those described below. We are unable to determine the ultimate outcome of any current litigation or regulatory actions. An unfavorable outcome could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Except as noted below, we have not recorded a liability for any of these matters as of June 30, 2017 because we do not believe at this time that any loss is probable or that the amount of any probable loss can be reasonably estimated. The following is a description of significant proceedings. Shareholder derivative litigation — On July 28, 2014, Lawrence Treppel, a purported holder of Class A Common Stock, filed a derivative action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware styled Treppel v. Cohen, et al. (C.A. No. 9962-VCP). The complaint, as originally filed and as amended on September 23, 2014, names as defendants Phillip E. Cohen, the beneficial owner of all of our outstanding Class B Voting Common Stock; several current and former members of our Board of Directors (Joseph J. Beal, Sterling B. Brinkley, John Farrell, Pablo Lagos Espinosa, William C. Love, Thomas C. Roberts and Paul E. Rothamel); three entities controlled by Mr. Cohen (MS Pawn Limited Partnership, the record holder of our Class B Voting Common Stock; MS Pawn Corporation, the general partner of MS Pawn Limited Partnership; and Madison Park LLC); and EZCORP, Inc., as nominal defendant. The amended complaint asserts the following claims:
• | Claims against the current and former Board members for breach of fiduciary duties and waste of corporate assets in connection with the Board’s decision to enter into advisory services agreements with Madison Park from October 2004 to June 2014 (Counts I and II, respectively);
• | Claims against Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership for aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duties relating to the advisory services agreements with Madison Park (Count III); and
• | Claims against Mr. Cohen and Madison Park for unjust enrichment for payments under the advisory services agreements (Count IV).
The plaintiff seeks (a) recovery for the Company in the amount of the damages the Company has sustained as a result of the alleged breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and aiding and abetting, (b) disgorgement by Mr. Cohen and Madison Park of the benefits they received as a result of the related party transactions and (c) reimbursement of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees. On November 13, 2014, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court dismissed the action as to Mr. Brinkley, Mr. Rothamel and Mr. Lagos. The remaining defendants filed motions to dismiss, and a hearing on those motions was held before the Court on September 8, 2015. Prior to that hearing, the plaintiff proposed a dismissal without prejudice for the claims against Mr. Beal, Mr. Love and Mr. Farrell. Those defendants continued to seek a dismissal with prejudice that would bind all potential plaintiffs. On January 15, 2016, the Court issued an opinion dismissing the action as to Mr. Beal, Mr. Love and Mr. Farrell with prejudice only as to the plaintiff. On January 25, 2016, the Court issued a separate opinion granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss filed by the remaining defendants. Specifically, the Court granted the motion to dismiss Count IV (unjust enrichment) for failure to state a claim. The Court also dismissed Count III (aiding and abetting) as to Mr. Cohen, but interpreted Count I (breach of fiduciary duty) to state a claim against Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn, as well as Mr. Roberts. The Court otherwise denied the motions to dismiss, including the motion to dismiss Count III (aiding and abetting) against MS Pawn. On February 4, 2016, the remaining defendants filed an Application for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal, which the plaintiff opposed on February 15, 2016, and the Court set a hearing on the application. On February 22, 2016, the Court denied the Application for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal and provided the plaintiff the opportunity to amend its complaint to add a fiduciary-duty claim as to Mr. Cohen and Madison Park, staying proceedings pending a ruling from the Delaware Supreme Court. After the Application for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal was denied, Mr. Roberts, MS Pawn Corporation and MS Pawn Limited Partnership filed notices of appeal from the interlocutory opinion and order denying the motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court denied those petitions for an interlocutory appeal. On March 4, 2016, the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Derivative Complaint against Mr. Roberts, Mr. Cohen, Madison Park, MS Pawn Corporation and MS Pawn Limited Partnership with EZCORP, Inc., as nominal defendant. The case is now in the discovery stage. We intend to continue to defend vigorously against the claims asserted in the lawsuit. Although the lawsuit does not seek relief against the Company, we have certain indemnification obligations to the other defendants (including Madison Park and Mr. Cohen), which obligations include the payment of attorney's fees in advance of the outcome. We cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit, or the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve it. Federal securities litigation (SDNY) — On August 22, 2014, Jason Close, a purported holder of Class A Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York styled Close v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC). That lawsuit named as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Paul. E. Rothamel (the Company's former Chief Executive Officer) and Mark Kuchenrither (the Company's former Chief Financial Officer). That lawsuit was consolidated with a similar lawsuit filed in the same court on October 17, 2014 by the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan and styled Automotive Machinists Pension Plan v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-8349-ALC). On November 18, 2014, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the caption In Re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC). The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint asserted certain violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On March 31, 2016, the Court, in response to the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissed certain of the claims, but other claims survived the motions to dismiss. On November 23, 2016, the parties agreed to a mediated settlement of all remaining claims. The settlement provides for the payment of $5.9 million by the defendants, which was covered by applicable directors’ and officers’ liability insurance. Following a Settlement Hearing on April 25, 2017, the Court entered an order to approve the settlement and dismiss the case. Federal Securities Litigation (WDT) — On July 20, 2015, Wu Winfred Huang, a purported holder of Class A Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas styled Huang v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS). The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Stuart I. Grimshaw (our chief executive officer) and Mark E. Kuchenrither (our former chief financial officer) and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The original complaint related to the Company’s announcement on July 17, 2015 that it will restate the financial statements for fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of fiscal 2015, and alleged generally that the Company issued materially false or misleading statements concerning the Company, its finances, business operations and prospects and that the Company misrepresented the financial performance of the Grupo Finmart business. On August 14, 2015, a substantially identical lawsuit, styled Rooney v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00700-SS) was also filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On September 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in these two lawsuits filed an agreed stipulation to be appointed co-lead plaintiffs and agreed that their two actions should be consolidated. On November 3, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the two actions under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), and appointed the two plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs, with their respective counsel appointed as co-lead counsel. On January 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of our Class A Common Stock between November 6, 2012 and October 20, 2015. The Amended Complaint asserts that the Company and Mr. Kuchenrither violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, issued materially false or misleading statements throughout the proposed class period concerning the Company and its internal controls, specifically regarding the financial performance of Grupo Finmart. The plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Kuchenrither, as a controlling person of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint does not assert any claims against Mr. Grimshaw. On February 25, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 11, 2016, and the defendants filed their reply on May 11, 2016. The Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on June 22, 2016. On October 18, 2016, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice. The Court gave the plaintiffs 20 days (until November 7, 2016) to file a further amended complaint. On November 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (“Second Amended Complaint”). The Second Amended Complaint raises the same claims dismissed by the Court on October 18, 2016, except plaintiffs now seek to represent a class of purchasers of EZCORP’s Class A Common Stock between November 7, 2013 and October 20, 2015 (instead of between November 6, 2012 and October 20, 2015). On December 5, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Compliant. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 6, 2017, and the defendants filed their reply brief on January 20, 2017. On May 8, 2017, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with regard to claims related to accounting errors relating to Grupo Finmart’s bad debt reserve calculations for “nonperforming” loans, but denied the motion to dismiss with regard to claims relating to accounting errors related to certain sales of loan portfolios to third parties. The case is now in the discovery stage. We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to defend vigorously against all allegations and claims. SEC Investigation — On October 23, 2014, we received a notice from the Fort Worth Regional Office of the SEC that it was conducting an investigation into certain matters involving EZCORP, Inc. The notice was accompanied by a subpoena, directing us to produce a variety of documents, including all minutes and materials related to Board of Directors and Board committee meetings since January 1, 2009 and all documents and communications relating to our historical advisory services relationship with Madison Park (the business advisory firm owned by Mr. Cohen) and LPG Limited (a business advisory firm owned by Lachlan P. Given, our current Executive Chairman of the Board). The SEC has also issued subpoenas to current and former members of our Board of Directors requesting production of similar documents, as well as to certain third parties, and has conducted interviews with certain individuals. We continue to cooperate fully with the SEC in its investigation.

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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration