Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Letters of Credit — At December 31, 2020, the Company had no borrowings and nominal outstanding letters of credit under the First Lien Revolving Credit Facility.

Legal Proceedings — The matters set forth below are subject to uncertainties and outcomes that are not predictable. The Company accrues for these matters as any resulting losses become probable and can be reasonably estimated. Further, the Company maintains insurance coverage for many claims and litigation matters. In relation to various legal matters, including those described below, the Company had $57.0 million and $57.5 million of estimated liability recorded within "Accounts payable and other liabilities" in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively. For the years 2020 and 2019, a nominal charge was recorded for legal proceedings and $42.0 million during 2018 within "Transaction and operations support" in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Litigation Commenced Against the Company:

Class Action Securities Litigation — On November 14, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against MoneyGram and certain of its executive officers. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that MoneyGram made material misrepresentations regarding its compliance with the stipulated order for permanent injunction and final judgment that MoneyGram entered into with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") in October 2009 and with the deferred prosecution agreement (the "DPA") that MoneyGram entered into with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Department of Justice in November 2012. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest and costs and attorneys' fees. The Company believes the case is without merit and is vigorously defending this matter. We are unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, related to this matter.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation — On February 19 and 20, 2019, two virtually identical shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The suits, which were consolidated, purport to assert claims derivatively on behalf of MoneyGram against MoneyGram’s directors and certain of its executive officers for violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and for common-law breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The complaints asserted that the individual defendants caused MoneyGram to make material misstatements regarding MoneyGram's compliance with the stipulated order and DPA described below and breached their fiduciary duties in connection with MoneyGram's compliance programs. The lawsuit sought unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest and costs and attorneys' fees. On February 24, 2020, the United States District for the Northern District of Texas entered an agreed final judgment dismissing the consolidated case. On December 28, 2019, another MoneyGram shareholder filed a putative derivative action suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, against certain of MoneyGram's officers and directors. The Delaware suit asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty and other common law theories and

sought unspecified damages on behalf of MoneyGram based on allegations that the individual defendants failed to take appropriate actions to prevent or remedy noncompliance with the stipulated order and DPA described below. On December 31, 2020, the Court of Chancery granted the motion to dismiss filed by MoneyGram and the individual defendants, holding that the complaint failed to plead particularized facts showing a substantial likelihood that MoneyGram’s directors acted in bad faith. The Company believes the Delaware case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend any appeal or further motion that the plaintiff may file. We are unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, related to this matter.

Books and Records Requests — The Company has received multiple requests from various putative shareholders for inspection of books and records pursuant to Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law relating to the subject matter of the putative class and derivative lawsuits described in the preceding paragraphs. On February 26, 2019, two of these shareholders filed a petition in the Delaware Court of Chancery to compel MoneyGram to produce books and records in accordance with their request but have since dismissed their action. We are unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, related to these matters.

It is possible that additional shareholder lawsuits could be filed relating to the subject matter of the class action, derivative actions and Section 220 requests.

Other Matters — The Company is involved in various other claims and litigation that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of the Company's business. Management does not believe that after final disposition any of these matters is likely to have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Government Investigations:

OFAC — In 2015, we initiated an internal investigation to identify any payments processed by the Company that were violations of the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") sanctions regulations. We notified OFAC of the internal investigation, which was conducted in conjunction with the Company's outside counsel. On March 28, 2017, we filed a Voluntary Self-Disclosure with OFAC regarding the findings of our internal investigation. OFAC is currently reviewing the results of the Company's investigation. At this time, it is not possible to determine the outcome of this matter, or the significance, if any, to our business, financial condition or operations, and we cannot predict when OFAC will conclude its review of our Voluntary Self-Disclosure.

Deferred Prosecution Agreement — In November 2012, we announced that a settlement was reached with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "MDPA") and the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section (the "U.S. DOJ") relating to the previously disclosed investigation of transactions involving certain of our U.S. and Canadian agents, as well as fraud complaint data and the consumer anti-fraud program, during the period from 2003 to early 2009. In connection with this settlement, we entered into the Amended DPA with the MDPA and U.S. DOJ (collectively, the "Government") dated November 9, 2012.

On November 1, 2017, the Company agreed to a stipulation with the Government that the five-year term of the Company's DPA be extended for 90 days to February 6, 2018. Between January 31, 2018 and September 14, 2018, the Company agreed to enter into various extensions of the DPA with the Government, with the last extension ending on November 6, 2018. Each extension of the DPA extended all terms of the DPA, including the term of the monitorship for an equivalent period. The purpose of the extensions was to provide the Company and the Government additional time to discuss whether the Company was in compliance with the DPA.

On November 8, 2018, the Company announced that it entered into (1) an Amendment to and Extension of Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the "Amended DPA") with the Government and (2) a Stipulated Order for Compensatory Relief and Modified Order for Permanent Injunction (the "Consent Order") with the FTC. The motions underlying the Amended DPA and Consent Order focus primarily on the Company's anti-fraud and anti-money laundering programs, including whether the Company had adequate controls to prevent third parties from using its systems to commit fraud. The Amended DPA amended and extended the original DPA entered into on November 9, 2012 by and between the Company and the Government. The DPA, Amended DPA and Consent Order are collectively referred to herein as the "Agreements." On February 25, 2020, the Company entered into an Amendment to and Extension of the DPA Agreement which extended the due date to November 8, 2020 for the final $55.0 million payment due to the Government pursuant to the Amended DPA. On July 24, 2020, the Company entered into the Second Amendment to the Amendment to and Extension of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement which further extended the due date of the $55.0 million payment to May 9, 2021 and also reduced the frequency of the reporting requirements under the Amended DPA from monthly to quarterly. The Company continues to engage in discussions with the Government regarding a potential reduction of the $55.0 million payment. The Company intends to fulfill its obligation regarding the final payment and the other terms of the Amended DPA.

Under the Agreements, as amended, the Company will, among other things, (1) pay an aggregate amount of $125.0 million to the Government, of which $70.0 million was paid in November 2018 and the remaining $55.0 million must be paid by May 9, 2021, and is to be made available by the Government to reimburse consumers who were the victims of third-party fraud conducted through the Company's money transfer services and (2) continue to retain an independent compliance monitor until

May 10, 2021 to review and assess actions taken by the Company under the Agreements to further enhance its compliance program. No separate payment to the FTC is required under the Agreements. If the Company fails to comply with the Agreements, it could face criminal prosecution, civil litigation, significant fines, damage awards or regulatory consequences which could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

NYDFS — On June 22, 2018, the Company received a request for production of documents from the New York Department of Financial Services (the "NYDFS") related to the subject of the DPA and FTC matters described above. This request followed previous inquiries by the NYDFS regarding certain of our New York based agents. Following the June 22, 2018 request for production, the Company received and responded to several inquiries from the NYDFS related to this matter and has met with the NYDFS to discuss the matter. The NYDFS did not indicate what, if any, action it intended to take in connection with this matter, although it is possible that it could seek additional information, initiate civil litigation and/or seek to impose fines, damages or other regulatory consequences, any or all of which could have an adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. The Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that could be associated with this matter.

CFPB — On February 12, 2020, the Company received a Report of Examination ("ROE") from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") stating that previous findings from a 2019 exam were not remediated, and the matter would be referred to its Enforcement Unit. On March 18, 2020, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") from the CFPB's Enforcement Unit. On June 11, 2020, the Company provided a timely response to the ROE describing the remedial actions taken and that the findings have been substantially remediated. On August 21, 2020, the Company completed its production in response to the CID. At this time, it is not possible to determine the outcome of this matter, or the significance, if any, to our business, financial condition or results of operations, and we cannot predict when the CFPB will conclude its review of the CID.

Other Matters — The Company is involved in various other government inquiries and other matters that arise from time to time. Management does not believe that after final disposition any of these other matters is likely to have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Actions Commenced by the Company:

Tax Litigation — The IRS completed its examination of the Company's consolidated income tax returns through 2013 and issued Notices of Deficiency for 2005-2007 and 2009, and an Examination Report for 2008. The Notices of Deficiency and Examination Report disallow, among other items, approximately $900.0 million of ordinary deductions on securities losses in the 2007, 2008 and 2009 tax returns. In May 2012 and December 2012, the Company filed petitions in the U.S. Tax Court ("Tax Court") challenging the 2005-2007 and 2009 Notices of Deficiency, respectively. In 2013, the Company reached a partial settlement with the IRS allowing ordinary loss treatment on $186.9 million of deductions in dispute. In January 2015, the Tax Court granted the IRS's motion for summary judgment upholding the remaining adjustments in the Notices of Deficiency. The Company filed a notice of appeal with the Tax Court on July 27, 2015 for an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ("Fifth Circuit"). Oral arguments were held before the Fifth Circuit on June 7, 2016, and on November 15, 2016, the Fifth Circuit vacated the Tax Court’s decision and remanded the case to the Tax Court for further proceedings. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment in the Tax Court on May 31, 2017. On August 23, 2017, the IRS filed a motion for summary judgment and its response to the Company’s motion for summary judgment. The Tax Court directed the parties to agree to a joint stipulation of facts, which the parties filed with the court. Each party filed updated memorandums in support of its motions for summary judgment in the Tax Court. The Tax Court held oral arguments on this matter on September 9, 2019 and the Tax Court issued an opinion on December 3, 2019 denying the Company’s motion for summary judgment. MoneyGram disagrees with many of the U.S. Tax Court's findings and filed a Notice of Appeal to the Fifth Circuit on February 21, 2020. The matter is currently pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The January 2015 Tax Court decision was a change in facts which warranted reassessment of the Company's uncertain tax position. Although the Company believes that it has substantive tax law arguments in favor of its position and has appealed the ruling, the reassessment resulted in the Company determining that it is no longer more likely than not that its existing position will be sustained. Accordingly, the Company re-characterized certain deductions relating to securities losses to be capital in nature, rather than ordinary. The Company recorded a full valuation allowance against these losses in the quarter ended March 31, 2015. This change increased "Income tax expense" in the Consolidated Statements of Operations in the quarter ended March 31, 2015 by $63.7 million. During 2015, the Company made payments to the IRS of $61.0 million for federal tax payments and associated interest related to the matter. The November 2016 Fifth Circuit decision to remand the case back to the Tax Court did not change the Company’s assessment regarding the likelihood of whether these deductions would ultimately be sustained. Accordingly, no change in the valuation allowance was made for this matter as of December 31, 2020.

Pending the ultimate outcome of the Tax Court proceeding, the Company may be required to file amended state returns and make additional cash payments up to $21.2 million on amounts that have previously been accrued. The Company recently filed a Notice of Appeal to the Fifth Circuit on February 21, 2020, and therefore expects that any potential payment would not be due before 2021.