Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies The Company is obligated to make purchase price holdback payments to a third-party originator of auto loans that the Company has purchased, when losses are lower than originally expected. The Company also is obligated to make total return settlement payments to this third-party originator in 2016 and 2017 if returns on the purchased loans are greater than originally expected. As of September 30, 2016, all purchase price holdback payments, and all total return settlement payments due in 2016, have been made. These obligations are accounted for as derivatives (Note 7). The Company has extended revolving lines of credit to certain auto dealers. Under this arrangement, the Company is committed to lend up to each dealer's established credit limit. At September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, there was an outstanding balance under these lines of credit of $2,966 and $2,482, respectively, and a committed amount under these lines of credit of $2,966 and $2,920, respectively. Under terms of agreements with LendingClub, the Company was committed to purchase, at a minimum, through September 30, 2016, the lesser of $30,000 per month or 50% of LendingClub’s aggregate "near-prime" (as that term is defined in the agreements) originations and, thereafter through July 2017, the lesser of $30,000 per month or 50% of LendingClub’s aggregate near-prime originations. This commitment could be reduced or canceled with 90 days' notice. On October 9, 2015, the Company sent a notice of termination to LendingClub, and, accordingly, ceased originations on this platform on January 7, 2016. The Company is committed to purchase certain new advances on personal revolving financings originated by a third party retailer, along with existing balances on accounts with new advances, for an initial term ending in April 2020 and renewing through April 2022 at the retailer's option. Each customer account generated under the agreements generally is approved with a credit limit higher than the amount of the initial purchase, with each subsequent purchase automatically approved as long as it does not cause the account to exceed its limit and the customer is in good standing. As these credit lines do not have a specified maturity, but rather can be terminated at any time in the event of adverse credit changes or lack of use, the Company has not recorded an allowance for unfunded commitments. As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the Company was obligated to purchase $15,165 and $12,486, respectively, in receivables that had been originated by the retailer but not yet purchased by the Company. The Company also is required to make a profit-sharing payment to the retailer each month if performance exceeds a specified return threshold. The retailer also has the right to repurchase up to 9.99% of the existing portfolio at any time during the term of the agreement, and, provided that repurchase right is exercised, has the right to retain up to 20% of new accounts subsequently originated. Under terms of an application transfer agreement with an OEM other than FCA, the Company has the first opportunity to review for its own portfolio any credit applications turned down by the OEM's captive finance company. The agreement does not require the Company to originate any loans, but for each loan originated the Company pays the OEM a referral fee, comprised of a volume bonus fee and a loss betterment bonus fee. The loss betterment bonus fee is calculated annually and is based on the amount by which losses on loans originated under the agreement are lower than an established percentage threshold. The Company has agreements with SBNA to service recreational and marine vehicle portfolios. These agreements call for a periodic retroactive adjustment, based on cumulative return performance, of the servicing fee rate to inception of the contract. There were downward adjustments of zero and $836 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, respectively. There were downward adjustments of $904 and $1,051 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, respectively. In connection with the sale of retail installment contracts through securitizations and other sales, the Company has made standard representations and warranties customary to the consumer finance industry. Violations of these representations and warranties may require the Company to repurchase loans previously sold to on- or off-balance sheet trusts or other third parties. As of September 30, 2016, there were no loans that were the subject of a demand to repurchase or replace for breach of representations and warranties for the Company's asset-backed securities or other sales. In the opinion of management, the potential exposure of other recourse obligations related to the Company’s retail installment contract sales agreements will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Santander has provided guarantees on the covenants, agreements, and obligations of the Company under the governing documents of its warehouse facilities and privately issued amortizing notes. These guarantees are limited to the obligations of the Company as servicer. Under terms of the Chrysler Agreement, the Company must make revenue sharing payments to FCA and also must make gain-sharing payments when residual gains on leased vehicles exceed a specified threshold. The Company had accrued $14,009 and $12,054 at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, related to these obligations. The Company has a flow agreement with Bank of America whereby the Company is committed to sell up to a specified amount of eligible loans to the bank each month through May 2018. Prior to October 1, 2015, the amount of this monthly commitment was $300,000. On October 1, 2015, the Company and Bank of America amended the flow agreement to increase the maximum commitment to sell to $350,000 of eligible loans each month, and to change the required written notice period from either party, in the event of termination of the agreement, from 120 days to 90 days. On July 27, 2016, the Company and Bank of America further amended the flow agreement to reduce the maximum commitment to sell eligible loans each month to the original contractual amount of $300,000 from $350,000. On October 27, 2016, Bank of America notified the Company that it is terminating the flow agreement effective January 31, 2017. The Company retains servicing on all sold loans and may receive or pay a servicer performance payment based on an agreed-upon formula if performance on the sold loans is better or worse, respectively, than expected performance at time of sale. The Company had accrued $8,702 and $6,331 at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, related to this obligation. The Company has sold loans to CBP under terms of a flow agreement and predecessor sale agreements. On June 25, 2015, the Company and CBP amended the flow agreement to reduce, effective from and after August 1, 2015, CBP's committed purchases of Chrysler Capital prime loans from a maximum of $600,000 and a minimum of $250,000 per quarter to a maximum of $200,000 and a minimum of $50,000 per quarter, as may be adjusted according to the agreement. The Company retains servicing on the sold loans and will owe CBP a loss-sharing payment capped at 0.5% of the original pool balance if losses exceed a specified threshold, established on a pool-by-pool basis. The Company had accrued $3,250 and $3,375 at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, related to the loss-sharing obligation. The Company provided SBNA with the first right to review and approve consumer vehicle lease applications, subject to volume constraints, under terms of a flow agreement that was terminated on May 9, 2015. The Company has indemnified SBNA for potential credit and residual losses on $48,226 of leases that had been originated by SBNA under this program but were subsequently determined not to meet SBNA’s underwriting requirements. This indemnification agreement is supported by an equal amount of cash collateral posted by the Company in an SBNA bank account. The collateral account balance is included in restricted cash in the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheets (Note 11). The Company additionally has agreed to indemnify SBNA for residual losses, up to a cap, on certain leases originated under the flow agreement between September 24, 2014 and May 9, 2015 for which SBNA and the Company had differing residual value expectations at lease inception. The Company is party to a forward flow asset sale agreement with a third party under terms of which the Company is committed to sell charged off loan receivables in bankruptcy status on a quarterly basis until sales total at least $350,000 in proceeds. Any sale after the total sales have reached $275,000 is subject to a market price check. As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the remaining aggregate commitment was $166,167 and $200,707, respectively. In connection with the bulk sales of Chrysler Capital leases (including the sales described in Note 3), the Company is obligated to make quarterly payments to the purchaser sharing residual losses for lease terminations with losses over a specific percentage threshold. The estimated guarantee liability, net, was zero and $2,893, net, as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. Pursuant to the terms of a Separation Agreement among former CEO Thomas G. Dundon, the Company, DDFS LLC, SHUSA and Santander, upon satisfaction of applicable conditions, including receipt of required regulatory approvals, the Company will owe Mr. Dundon a cash payment of up to $115,139 (Note 11). Legal Proceedings Periodically, the Company is party to, or otherwise involved in, various lawsuits and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-06942 (the Deka Lawsuit). On October 6, 2014, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, State of Texas, captioned Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. DC-14-11783, which was subsequently removed to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, and re-captioned Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. 3:14-CV-3746 (the Kumar Lawsuit). Both the Deka Lawsuit and the Kumar Lawsuit were brought against the Company, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers and certain institutions that served as underwriters in the Company's IPO on behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. In February 2015, the Kumar Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. In June 2015, the venue of the Deka Lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. In September 2015, the court granted a motion to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and the Deka Lawsuit is now captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K. The amended class action complaint in the Deka Lawsuit alleges that our Registration Statement and Prospectus and certain subsequent public disclosures contained misleading statements concerning the Company’s ability to pay dividends and the adequacy of the Company’s compliance systems and oversight. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages and other relief. On December 18, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint and on June 13, 2016, the motion to dismiss was denied. On October 15, 2015, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Feldman v. Jason A. Kulas, et al., C.A. No. 11614 (the Feldman Lawsuit). The Feldman Lawsuit names as defendants current and former members of the Company’s Board, and names the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the current and former director defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with overseeing the Company’s subprime auto lending practices, resulting in harm to the Company. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and equitable relief. On December 29, 2015, the Feldman Lawsuit was stayed pending the resolution of the Deka Lawsuit. On March 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783 (the Parmelee Lawsuit). On April 4, 2016, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Benson v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-919 (the Benson Lawsuit). Both the Parmelee Lawsuit and the Benson Lawsuit were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and executive officers on behalf of a class consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016. The complaints in the Parmelee Lawsuit and Benson Lawsuit allege that the Company made false or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, in prior Annual and Quarterly Reports filed under the Exchange Act and certain other public disclosures, in connection with the Company’s change in its methodology for estimating its allowance for credit losses and correction of such allowance for prior periods in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seek damages and other relief. On May 25, 2016, the Benson Lawsuit was consolidated into the Parmelee Lawsuit, with the consolidated case captioned as Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783. On September 27, 2016, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Jackie888, Inc. v. Jason Kulas, et al., C.A. # 12775 (the Jackie888 Lawsuit). The Jackie888 Lawsuit names as defendants current and former members of the Company’s Board, and names the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Company’s accounting practices and controls. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and equitable relief. Further, the Company is party to, or is periodically otherwise involved in, reviews, investigations, and proceedings (both formal and informal), and information-gathering requests, by government and self-regulatory agencies, including the Federal Reserve, the CFPB, the DOJ, the SEC, the FTC and various state regulatory agencies. Currently, such proceedings include a civil subpoena from the DOJ, under FIRREA, requesting the production of documents and communications that, among other things, relate to the underwriting and securitization of nonprime auto loans since 2007, and from the SEC requesting the production of documents and communications that, among other things, relate to the underwriting and securitization of nonprime auto loans since 2013. The Company also has received civil subpoenas from various state Attorneys General requesting similar documents and communications. The Company is complying with the requests for information and document preservation and continues to discuss these matters with the relevant government authorities. On November 4, 2015, the Company entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance (AOD) with the Office of Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the Massachusetts AG). The Massachusetts AG alleged that the Company violated the maximum permissible interest rates allowed under Massachusetts law due to the inclusion of GAP charges in the calculation of finance charges. Among other things, the AOD requires the Company, with respect to any loan that exceeded the maximum rates, to issue refunds of all finance charges paid to date and to waive all future finance charges. The AOD also requires the Company to undertake certain remedial measures, including ensuring that interest rates on its loans do not exceed maximum rates (when GAP charges are included) in the future, and provides that the Company pay $150 to the Massachusetts AG to reimburse its costs of implementing the AOD. On February 25, 2015, the Company entered into a consent order with the DOJ, approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that resolves the DOJ’s claims against the Company that certain of its repossession and collection activities during the period of time between January 2008 and February 2013 violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The consent order requires the Company to pay a civil fine in the amount of $55, as well as at least $9,360 to affected servicemembers consisting of $10 per servicemember plus compensation for any lost equity (with interest) for each repossession by us, and $5 per servicemember for each instance where the Company sought to collect repossession-related fees on accounts where a repossession was conducted by a prior account holder, as well as requires the Company to undertake certain additional remedial measures. On July 31, 2015, the CFPB notified the Company that it had referred to the DOJ certain alleged violations by the Company of the ECOA regarding statistical disparities in markups charged by automobile dealers to protected groups on loans originated by those dealers and purchased by the Company and the treatment of certain types of income in the Company’s underwriting process. On September 25, 2015, the DOJ notified us that it has initiated, based on the referral from the CFPB, an investigation under the ECOA of our pricing of automobile loans. The Company does not believe that there are any proceedings, threatened or pending, that, if determined adversely, would have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations, or liquidity of the Company.

Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is obligated to make purchase price holdback payments to a third-party originator of auto loans that the Company has purchased, when losses are lower than originally expected. The Company also is obligated to make total return settlement payments to this third-party originator in 2016 and 2017 if returns on the purchased loans are greater than originally expected. As of September 30, 2016, all purchase price holdback payments, and all total return settlement payments due in 2016, have been made. These obligations are accounted for as derivatives (Note 7).

The Company has extended revolving lines of credit to certain auto dealers. Under this arrangement, the Company is committed to lend up to each dealer's established credit limit. At September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, there was an outstanding balance under these lines of credit of $2,966 and $2,482, respectively, and a committed amount under these lines of credit of $2,966 and $2,920, respectively.

Under terms of agreements with LendingClub, the Company was committed to purchase, at a minimum, through September 30, 2016, the lesser of $30,000 per month or 50% of LendingClub’s aggregate "near-prime" (as that term is defined in the agreements) originations and, thereafter through July 2017, the lesser of $30,000 per month or 50% of LendingClub’s aggregate near-prime originations. This commitment could be reduced or canceled with 90 days' notice. On October 9, 2015, the Company sent a notice of termination to LendingClub, and, accordingly, ceased originations on this platform on January 7, 2016.

The Company is committed to purchase certain new advances on personal revolving financings originated by a third party retailer, along with existing balances on accounts with new advances, for an initial term ending in April 2020 and renewing through April 2022 at the retailer's option. Each customer account generated under the agreements generally is approved with a credit limit higher than the amount of the initial purchase, with each subsequent purchase automatically approved as long as it does not cause the account to exceed its limit and the customer is in good standing. As these credit lines do not have a specified maturity, but rather can be terminated at any time in the event of adverse credit changes or lack of use, the Company has not recorded an allowance for unfunded commitments. As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the Company was obligated to purchase $15,165 and $12,486, respectively, in receivables that had been originated by the retailer but not yet purchased by the Company. The Company also is required to make a profit-sharing payment to the retailer each month if performance exceeds a specified return threshold. The retailer also has the right to repurchase up to 9.99% of the existing portfolio at any time during the term of the agreement, and, provided that repurchase right is exercised, has the right to retain up to 20% of new accounts subsequently originated.

Under terms of an application transfer agreement with an OEM other than FCA, the Company has the first opportunity to review for its own portfolio any credit applications turned down by the OEM's captive finance company. The agreement does not require the Company to originate any loans, but for each loan originated the Company pays the OEM a referral fee, comprised of a volume bonus fee and a loss betterment bonus fee. The loss betterment bonus fee is calculated annually and is based on the amount by which losses on loans originated under the agreement are lower than an established percentage threshold.

The Company has agreements with SBNA to service recreational and marine vehicle portfolios. These agreements call for a periodic retroactive adjustment, based on cumulative return performance, of the servicing fee rate to inception of the contract. There were downward adjustments of zero and $836 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, respectively. There were downward adjustments of $904 and $1,051 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, respectively.

In connection with the sale of retail installment contracts through securitizations and other sales, the Company has made standard representations and warranties customary to the consumer finance industry. Violations of these representations and warranties may require the Company to repurchase loans previously sold to on- or off-balance sheet trusts or other third parties. As of September 30, 2016, there were no loans that were the subject of a demand to repurchase or replace for breach of representations and warranties for the Company's asset-backed securities or other sales. In the opinion of management, the potential exposure of other recourse obligations related to the Company’s retail installment contract sales agreements will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

Santander has provided guarantees on the covenants, agreements, and obligations of the Company under the governing documents of its warehouse facilities and privately issued amortizing notes. These guarantees are limited to the obligations of the Company as servicer.

Under terms of the Chrysler Agreement, the Company must make revenue sharing payments to FCA and also must make gain-sharing payments when residual gains on leased vehicles exceed a specified threshold. The Company had accrued $14,009 and $12,054 at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, related to these obligations.

The Company has a flow agreement with Bank of America whereby the Company is committed to sell up to a specified amount of eligible loans to the bank each month through May 2018. Prior to October 1, 2015, the amount of this monthly commitment was $300,000. On October 1, 2015, the Company and Bank of America amended the flow agreement to increase the maximum commitment to sell to $350,000 of eligible loans each month, and to change the required written notice period from either party, in the event of termination of the agreement, from 120 days to 90 days. On July 27, 2016, the Company and Bank of America further amended the flow agreement to reduce the maximum commitment to sell eligible loans each month to the original contractual amount of $300,000 from $350,000. On October 27, 2016, Bank of America notified the Company that it is terminating the flow agreement effective January 31, 2017. The Company retains servicing on all sold loans and may receive or pay a servicer performance payment based on an agreed-upon formula if performance on the sold loans is better or worse, respectively, than expected performance at time of sale. The Company had accrued $8,702 and $6,331 at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, related to this obligation.

The Company has sold loans to CBP under terms of a flow agreement and predecessor sale agreements. On June 25, 2015, the Company and CBP amended the flow agreement to reduce, effective from and after August 1, 2015, CBP's committed purchases of Chrysler Capital prime loans from a maximum of $600,000 and a minimum of $250,000 per quarter to a maximum of $200,000 and a minimum of $50,000 per quarter, as may be adjusted according to the agreement. The Company retains servicing on the sold loans and will owe CBP a loss-sharing payment capped at 0.5% of the original pool balance if losses exceed a specified threshold, established on a pool-by-pool basis. The Company had accrued $3,250 and $3,375 at September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, related to the loss-sharing obligation.

The Company provided SBNA with the first right to review and approve consumer vehicle lease applications, subject to volume constraints, under terms of a flow agreement that was terminated on May 9, 2015. The Company has indemnified SBNA for potential credit and residual losses on $48,226 of leases that had been originated by SBNA under this program but were subsequently determined not to meet SBNA’s underwriting requirements. This indemnification agreement is supported by an equal amount of cash collateral posted by the Company in an SBNA bank account. The collateral account balance is included in restricted cash in the Company's condensed consolidated balance sheets (Note 11). The Company additionally has agreed to indemnify SBNA for residual losses, up to a cap, on certain leases originated under the flow agreement between September 24, 2014 and May 9, 2015 for which SBNA and the Company had differing residual value expectations at lease inception.

The Company is party to a forward flow asset sale agreement with a third party under terms of which the Company is committed to sell charged off loan receivables in bankruptcy status on a quarterly basis until sales total at least $350,000 in proceeds. Any sale after the total sales have reached $275,000 is subject to a market price check. As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the remaining aggregate commitment was $166,167 and $200,707, respectively.

In connection with the bulk sales of Chrysler Capital leases (including the sales described in Note 3), the Company is obligated to make quarterly payments to the purchaser sharing residual losses for lease terminations with losses over a specific percentage threshold. The estimated guarantee liability, net, was zero and $2,893, net, as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively.

Pursuant to the terms of a Separation Agreement among former CEO Thomas G. Dundon, the Company, DDFS LLC, SHUSA and Santander, upon satisfaction of applicable conditions, including receipt of required regulatory approvals, the Company will owe Mr. Dundon a cash payment of up to $115,139 (Note 11).

Legal Proceedings

Periodically, the Company is party to, or otherwise involved in, various lawsuits and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, captioned Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-06942 (the Deka Lawsuit). On October 6, 2014, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Dallas County, State of Texas, captioned Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. DC-14-11783, which was subsequently removed to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, and re-captioned Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. 3:14-CV-3746 (the Kumar Lawsuit).

Both the Deka Lawsuit and the Kumar Lawsuit were brought against the Company, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers and certain institutions that served as underwriters in the Company's IPO on behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. In February 2015, the Kumar Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. In June 2015, the venue of the Deka Lawsuit was transferred to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas. In September 2015, the court granted a motion to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and the Deka Lawsuit is now captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The amended class action complaint in the Deka Lawsuit alleges that our Registration Statement and Prospectus and certain subsequent public disclosures contained misleading statements concerning the Company’s ability to pay dividends and the adequacy of the Company’s compliance systems and oversight. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages and other relief. On December 18, 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint and on June 13, 2016, the motion to dismiss was denied.

On October 15, 2015, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Feldman v. Jason A. Kulas, et al., C.A. No. 11614 (the Feldman Lawsuit). The Feldman Lawsuit names as defendants current and former members of the Company’s Board, and names the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the current and former director defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with overseeing the Company’s subprime auto lending practices, resulting in harm to the Company. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and equitable relief. On December 29, 2015, the Feldman Lawsuit was stayed pending the resolution of the Deka Lawsuit.

On March 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783 (the Parmelee Lawsuit). On April 4, 2016, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Benson v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-919 (the Benson Lawsuit). Both the Parmelee Lawsuit and the Benson Lawsuit were filed against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and executive officers on behalf of a class consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between February 3, 2015 and March 15, 2016. The complaints in the Parmelee Lawsuit and Benson Lawsuit allege that the Company made false or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, in prior Annual and Quarterly Reports filed under the Exchange Act and certain other public disclosures, in connection with the Company’s change in its methodology for estimating its allowance for credit losses and correction of such allowance for prior periods in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seek damages and other relief. On May 25, 2016, the Benson Lawsuit was consolidated into the Parmelee Lawsuit, with the consolidated case captioned as Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-783.

On September 27, 2016, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Jackie888, Inc. v. Jason Kulas, et al., C.A. # 12775 (the Jackie888 Lawsuit). The Jackie888 Lawsuit names as defendants current and former members of the Company’s Board, and names the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Company’s accounting practices and controls. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and equitable relief.

Further, the Company is party to, or is periodically otherwise involved in, reviews, investigations, and proceedings (both formal and informal), and information-gathering requests, by government and self-regulatory agencies, including the Federal Reserve, the CFPB, the DOJ, the SEC, the FTC and various state regulatory agencies. Currently, such proceedings include a civil subpoena from the DOJ, under FIRREA, requesting the production of documents and communications that, among other things, relate to the underwriting and securitization of nonprime auto loans since 2007, and from the SEC requesting the production of documents and communications that, among other things, relate to the underwriting and securitization of nonprime auto loans since 2013. The Company also has received civil subpoenas from various state Attorneys General requesting similar documents and communications. The Company is complying with the requests for information and document preservation and continues to discuss these matters with the relevant government authorities.

On November 4, 2015, the Company entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance (AOD) with the Office of Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the Massachusetts AG). The Massachusetts AG alleged that the Company violated the maximum permissible interest rates allowed under Massachusetts law due to the inclusion of GAP charges in the calculation of finance charges. Among other things, the AOD requires the Company, with respect to any loan that exceeded the maximum rates, to issue refunds of all finance charges paid to date and to waive all future finance charges. The AOD also requires the Company to undertake certain remedial measures, including ensuring that interest rates on its loans do not exceed maximum rates (when GAP charges are included) in the future, and provides that the Company pay $150 to the Massachusetts AG to reimburse its costs of implementing the AOD.

On February 25, 2015, the Company entered into a consent order with the DOJ, approved by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that resolves the DOJ’s claims against the Company that certain of its repossession and collection activities during the period of time between January 2008 and February 2013 violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The consent order requires the Company to pay a civil fine in the amount of $55, as well as at least $9,360 to affected servicemembers consisting of $10 per servicemember plus compensation for any lost equity (with interest) for each repossession by us, and $5 per servicemember for each instance where the Company sought to collect repossession-related fees on accounts where a repossession was conducted by a prior account holder, as well as requires the Company to undertake certain additional remedial measures.

On July 31, 2015, the CFPB notified the Company that it had referred to the DOJ certain alleged violations by the Company of the ECOA regarding statistical disparities in markups charged by automobile dealers to protected groups on loans originated by those dealers and purchased by the Company and the treatment of certain types of income in the Company’s underwriting process. On September 25, 2015, the DOJ notified us that it has initiated, based on the referral from the CFPB, an investigation under the ECOA of our pricing of automobile loans.

The Company does not believe that there are any proceedings, threatened or pending, that, if determined adversely, would have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations, or liquidity of the Company.