Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 12. Commitments and Contingencies On May 30, 2014, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) against the Company and certain of its current and former directors, executive officers, and stockholders (collectively, the “Defendants”). The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act Claims”) and sought unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s common stock in the September 2013 and December 2013 secondary public offerings. On August 25, 2014, Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System and City of Roseville Employees’ Retirement System were appointed as lead plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”). An amended complaint was filed on November 24, 2014. In addition to the 1933 Act Claims, the amended complaint also added claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act Claims”) seeking unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between May 2, 2013 and October 30, 2014, inclusive. On January 26, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. In response, the Plaintiffs sought and were granted leave to file an amended complaint. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. Like the prior amended complaint, the second amended complaint asserts 1933 Act Claims and 1934 Act Claims and seeks unspecified compensatory damages. The Defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was filed on April 28, 2015, the Plaintiffs’ opposition was filed on June 12, 2015, and the Defendants’ reply was filed on July 13, 2015. On March 30, 2016, the Court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety. On May 23, 2016, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third amended complaint. The Defendants’ opposition brief was filed on June 9, 2016, and the Plaintiffs’ reply was filed on June 20, 2016. The motion for leave to amend remains under consideration by the Court. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and will continue to defend against the litigation vigorously. The Company’s primary insurance carrier during the applicable time period has (i) denied coverage for the 1933 Act Claims and (ii) acknowledged coverage of the Company and other insureds for the 1934 Act Claims under a reservation of rights and subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable insurance policy. The parties plan to negotiate an allocation between denied and acknowledged claims, as appropriate. In addition, the Company is involved in a purchase price dispute stemming from the Company’s acquisition of certain consumer loan receivables. The dispute has been submitted to a large public accounting firm for resolution and determination of the final purchase price for such receivables pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement. The final purchase price will be between $27.9 million and $29.9 million, and the Company has already paid $28.1 million toward the purchase price. The Company is currently vigorously defending its position in the dispute. In the normal course of business, the Company has been named as a defendant in legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions, and other litigation arising in connection with its activities. Some of the actual or threatened legal actions include claims for compensatory and punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. While the Company will continue to identify legal actions where the Company believes a material loss to be reasonably possible and reasonably estimable, there can be no assurance that material losses will not be incurred from claims that the Company has not yet been notified of or are not yet determined to be probable, or reasonably possible and reasonable to estimate. The Company contests liability and the amount of damages, as appropriate, in each pending matter. Where available information indicates that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the Company can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss, the Company accrues the estimated loss by a charge to net income. As of June 30, 2016, the Company had accrued $0.5 million for these matters. In many actions, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even reasonably possible or to estimate the amount of loss. In addition, even where a loss is reasonably possible or an exposure to loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued, it is not always possible to reasonably estimate the size of the possible loss or range of loss. For certain legal actions, the Company cannot reasonably estimate such losses, particularly for actions that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek indeterminate damages. Numerous issues may need to be resolved, including through lengthy discovery and determination of important factual matters, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the actions in question, before a loss, additional loss, range of loss, or range of additional loss can be reasonably estimated for any given action. For certain other legal actions, the Company can estimate reasonably possible losses, additional losses, ranges of loss, or ranges of additional loss in excess of amounts accrued, but the Company does not believe, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that such losses will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements. The Company expenses legal costs as they are incurred.

Note 12. Commitments and Contingencies

On May 30, 2014, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) against the Company and certain of its current and former directors, executive officers, and stockholders (collectively, the “Defendants”). The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act Claims”) and sought unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s common stock in the September 2013 and December 2013 secondary public offerings. On August 25, 2014, Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement System and City of Roseville Employees’ Retirement System were appointed as lead plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”). An amended complaint was filed on November 24, 2014. In addition to the 1933 Act Claims, the amended complaint also added claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “1934 Act Claims”) seeking unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between May 2, 2013 and October 30, 2014, inclusive. On January 26, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. In response, the Plaintiffs sought and were granted leave to file an amended complaint. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. Like the prior amended complaint, the second amended complaint asserts 1933 Act Claims and 1934 Act Claims and seeks unspecified compensatory damages. The Defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was filed on April 28, 2015, the Plaintiffs’ opposition was filed on June 12, 2015, and the Defendants’ reply was filed on July 13, 2015.

On March 30, 2016, the Court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety. On May 23, 2016, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third amended complaint. The Defendants’ opposition brief was filed on June 9, 2016, and the Plaintiffs’ reply was filed on June 20, 2016. The motion for leave to amend remains under consideration by the Court. The Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and will continue to defend against the litigation vigorously.

The Company’s primary insurance carrier during the applicable time period has (i) denied coverage for the 1933 Act Claims and (ii) acknowledged coverage of the Company and other insureds for the 1934 Act Claims under a reservation of rights and subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable insurance policy. The parties plan to negotiate an allocation between denied and acknowledged claims, as appropriate.

In addition, the Company is involved in a purchase price dispute stemming from the Company’s acquisition of certain consumer loan receivables. The dispute has been submitted to a large public accounting firm for resolution and determination of the final purchase price for such receivables pursuant to the terms of the purchase agreement. The final purchase price will be between $27.9 million and $29.9 million, and the Company has already paid $28.1 million toward the purchase price. The Company is currently vigorously defending its position in the dispute.

In the normal course of business, the Company has been named as a defendant in legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions, and other litigation arising in connection with its activities. Some of the actual or threatened legal actions include claims for compensatory and punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. While the Company will continue to identify legal actions where the Company believes a material loss to be reasonably possible and reasonably estimable, there can be no assurance that material losses will not be incurred from claims that the Company has not yet been notified of or are not yet determined to be probable, or reasonably possible and reasonable to estimate.

The Company contests liability and the amount of damages, as appropriate, in each pending matter. Where available information indicates that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the Company can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss, the Company accrues the estimated loss by a charge to net income. As of June 30, 2016, the Company had accrued $0.5 million for these matters. In many actions, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even reasonably possible or to estimate the amount of loss. In addition, even where a loss is reasonably possible or an exposure to loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued, it is not always possible to reasonably estimate the size of the possible loss or range of loss.

For certain legal actions, the Company cannot reasonably estimate such losses, particularly for actions that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek indeterminate damages. Numerous issues may need to be resolved, including through lengthy discovery and determination of important factual matters, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the actions in question, before a loss, additional loss, range of loss, or range of additional loss can be reasonably estimated for any given action.

For certain other legal actions, the Company can estimate reasonably possible losses, additional losses, ranges of loss, or ranges of additional loss in excess of amounts accrued, but the Company does not believe, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that such losses will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial statements.

The Company expenses legal costs as they are incurred.