9. Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Legal Proceedings
Legal Proceedings	Stanwich Litigation. We were for several years a defendant in a class action (the “Stanwich Case”) brought in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. The original plaintiffs in that case were persons entitled to receive regular payments (the “Settlement Payments”) pursuant to earlier settlements of claims, generally personal injury claims, against unrelated defendants. Stanwich Financial Services Corp. (“Stanwich”), an affiliate of the former chairman of our board of directors, is the entity that was obligated to pay the Settlement Payments. Stanwich defaulted on its payment obligations to the plaintiffs and in June 2001 filed for reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code, in the federal bankruptcy court in Connecticut. By February 2005, we had settled all claims brought against us in the Stanwich Case. In November 2001, one of the defendants in the Stanwich Case, Jonathan Pardee, asserted claims for indemnity against us in a separate action, which was removed from state court to federal district court in Rhode Island. We filed counterclaims in the Rhode Island federal court against Mr. Pardee, and have filed a separate action, in the same court, against the Rhode Island law firm that represented Mr. Pardee. The litigation between Mr. Pardee and us was stayed for several years through September 2011, awaiting resolution of an adversary action brought against Mr. Pardee in the bankruptcy court, which is hearing the bankruptcy of Stanwich. Pursuant to an agreement with the representative of creditors in the Stanwich bankruptcy, that adversary action was dismissed. Under that agreement, we paid the bankruptcy estate $800,000 and abandoned our claims against the estate, while the estate has abandoned its adversary action against Mr. Pardee. With the dismissal of the adversary action, all known claims asserted against Mr. Pardee were resolved without his incurring any liability. Accordingly, we believe that this resolution of the adversary action resulted in limitation of our exposure to Mr. Pardee to no more than some portion of his attorneys fees incurred. The stay in the action against us in Rhode Island was subsequently lifted, and the matter was set for trial, to commence September 12, 2014. The issues remaining for trial were the extent of our obligation to indemnify Mr. Pardee. Shortly before trial was to commence we reached a settlement, pursuant to which we paid $5.99 million to Mr. Pardee, and all of his claims against us were fully and finally discharged. The separate lawsuit between us and Mr. Pardee's Rhode Island law firm has not been resolved. There can be no assurance that we will recover anything against that firm, and it is possible that the counterclaim of that firm against us could result in our incurring liability, in an amount not expected to be material. Consumer Litigation. We are routinely involved in various legal proceedings resulting from our consumer finance activities and practices, both continuing and discontinued. Consumers can and do initiate lawsuits against us alleging violations of law applicable to collection of receivables, and such lawsuits sometimes allege that resolution as a class action is appropriate. We are currently defending two such purported class actions, one of which has been settled by agreement with the plaintiffs (such settlement remains subject to approval by the court). For the most part, we have legal and factual defenses to such claims, which we routinely contest or settle (for immaterial amounts) depending on the particular circumstances of each case. We have recorded a liability as of September 30, 2014 with respect to such matters, in the aggregate. FTC Action. In July 2013, the staff of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) advised us that they were prepared to recommend that the FTC initiate a lawsuit against us relating to allegedly unfair trade practices, and simultaneously advised that settlement of such issues by consent decree might be achieved. On May 29, 2014, the FTC announced its agreement to settle the matter by filing a lawsuit against us, and requesting, with our consent, that the court enter an agreed judgment against us. The lawsuit arose out of the FTC’s inquiry into our business practices. Under the agreed settlement, we made approximately $1.9 million of restitutionary payments and $1.6 million of account adjustments to our customers in September 2014, paid a $2 million penalty to the federal government in June 2014, and implemented procedural changes, all pursuant to a consent decree that was entered by the court in June 2014. In General. There can be no assurance as to the outcomes of the matters referenced above. We have recorded a liability as of September 30, 2014, which represents our best estimate of probable incurred losses for legal contingencies, including all of the matters described or referenced above. The amount of losses that may ultimately be incurred cannot be estimated with certainty. However, based on such information as is available to us, we believe that the range of reasonably possible losses for the legal proceedings and contingencies we face, including those described or referenced above, as of September 30, 2014, and in excess of the liability we have recorded, is from $0 to $1.3 million. Accordingly, we believe that the ultimate resolution of such legal proceedings and contingencies, after taking into account our current litigation reserves, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition. We note, however, that in light of the uncertainties inherent in contested proceedings, there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not significantly exceed the reserves we have accrued; as a result, the outcome of a particular matter may be material to our operating results for a particular period, depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of our income for that period.

9. Legal Proceedings

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2014

Stanwich Litigation. We were for several years a defendant in a class action (the “Stanwich Case”) brought in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County. The original plaintiffs in that case were persons entitled to receive regular payments (the “Settlement Payments”) pursuant to earlier settlements of claims, generally personal injury claims, against unrelated defendants. Stanwich Financial Services Corp. (“Stanwich”), an affiliate of the former chairman of our board of directors, is the entity that was obligated to pay the Settlement Payments. Stanwich defaulted on its payment obligations to the plaintiffs and in June 2001 filed for reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code, in the federal bankruptcy court in Connecticut. By February 2005, we had settled all claims brought against us in the Stanwich Case.

In November 2001, one of the defendants in the Stanwich Case, Jonathan Pardee, asserted claims for indemnity against us in a separate action, which was removed from state court to federal district court in Rhode Island. We filed counterclaims in the Rhode Island federal court against Mr. Pardee, and have filed a separate action, in the same court, against the Rhode Island law firm that represented Mr. Pardee. The litigation between Mr. Pardee and us was stayed for several years through September 2011, awaiting resolution of an adversary action brought against Mr. Pardee in the bankruptcy court, which is hearing the bankruptcy of Stanwich.

Pursuant to an agreement with the representative of creditors in the Stanwich bankruptcy, that adversary action was dismissed. Under that agreement, we paid the bankruptcy estate $800,000 and abandoned our claims against the estate, while the estate has abandoned its adversary action against Mr. Pardee. With the dismissal of the adversary action, all known claims asserted against Mr. Pardee were resolved without his incurring any liability. Accordingly, we believe that this resolution of the adversary action resulted in limitation of our exposure to Mr. Pardee to no more than some portion of his attorneys fees incurred. The stay in the action against us in Rhode Island was subsequently lifted, and the matter was set for trial, to commence September 12, 2014. The issues remaining for trial were the extent of our obligation to indemnify Mr. Pardee. Shortly before trial was to commence we reached a settlement, pursuant to which we paid $5.99 million to Mr. Pardee, and all of his claims against us were fully and finally discharged.

The separate lawsuit between us and Mr. Pardee's Rhode Island law firm has not been resolved. There can be no assurance that we will recover anything against that firm, and it is possible that the counterclaim of that firm against us could result in our incurring liability, in an amount not expected to be material.

Consumer Litigation. We are routinely involved in various legal proceedings resulting from our consumer finance activities and practices, both continuing and discontinued. Consumers can and do initiate lawsuits against us alleging violations of law applicable to collection of receivables, and such lawsuits sometimes allege that resolution as a class action is appropriate. We are currently defending two such purported class actions, one of which has been settled by agreement with the plaintiffs (such settlement remains subject to approval by the court). For the most part, we have legal and factual defenses to such claims, which we routinely contest or settle (for immaterial amounts) depending on the particular circumstances of each case. We have recorded a liability as of September 30, 2014 with respect to such matters, in the aggregate.

FTC Action. In July 2013, the staff of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) advised us that they were prepared to recommend that the FTC initiate a lawsuit against us relating to allegedly unfair trade practices, and simultaneously advised that settlement of such issues by consent decree might be achieved. On May 29, 2014, the FTC announced its agreement to settle the matter by filing a lawsuit against us, and requesting, with our consent, that the court enter an agreed judgment against us. The lawsuit arose out of the FTC’s inquiry into our business practices. Under the agreed settlement, we made approximately $1.9 million of restitutionary payments and $1.6 million of account adjustments to our customers in September 2014, paid a $2 million penalty to the federal government in June 2014, and implemented procedural changes, all pursuant to a consent decree that was entered by the court in June 2014.

In General. There can be no assurance as to the outcomes of the matters referenced above. We have recorded a liability as of September 30, 2014, which represents our best estimate of probable incurred losses for legal contingencies, including all of the matters described or referenced above. The amount of losses that may ultimately be incurred cannot be estimated with certainty. However, based on such information as is available to us, we believe that the range of reasonably possible losses for the legal proceedings and contingencies we face, including those described or referenced above, as of September 30, 2014, and in excess of the liability we have recorded, is from $0 to $1.3 million.

Accordingly, we believe that the ultimate resolution of such legal proceedings and contingencies, after taking into account our current litigation reserves, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition. We note, however, that in light of the uncertainties inherent in contested proceedings, there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not significantly exceed the reserves we have accrued; as a result, the outcome of a particular matter may be material to our operating results for a particular period, depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of our income for that period.