CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENT LIABILITIES	CONTINGENT LIABILITIES Harrison, et al v. Principal Investments, Inc. et al During the period relevant to this class action litigation, we pursued in excess of 16,000 claims in the limited actions and jurisdiction court in Clark County, Nevada, seeking payment of loans on which customers had defaulted. We utilized outside counsel to file these debt collection lawsuits. On Scene Mediations, a process serving company, was employed to serve the summons and petitions in the majority of these cases. In an unrelated matter, the principal of On Scene Mediations was convicted of multiple accounts of perjury and filing false affidavits to obtain judgments on behalf of a Las Vegas collection agency. In September 2010, we were sued by four former customers in a proposed class action suit filed in the District Court in Clark County, Nevada. The plaintiffs in this case claimed that they, and others in the proposed class, were not properly served notice of the debt collection lawsuits by the Company. On June 7, 2017, the parties reached a settlement in this matter and we accrued approximately $2.3 million as a result of this settlement. At a July 24, 2017 hearing before the District Court in Clark County, Nevada, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and on October 30, 2017, the court issued final approval of the class settlement. We paid the approved settlement amount and released the related liability. Reimbursement Offer; Possible Changes in Payment Practices During 2017, it was determined that a limited universe of borrowers may have incurred bank overdraft or non-sufficient funds fees because of possible confusion about certain electronic payments we initiated on their loans. As a result, we decided to reimburse such fees through payments or credits against outstanding loan balances, subject to per-customer dollar limitations, upon receipt of (1) claims from potentially affected borrowers stating that they were in fact confused by our practices and (2) bank statements from such borrowers showing that fees for which reimbursement is sought were incurred at a time that such borrowers might reasonably have been confused about our practices. We recorded a $2.0 million liability for this matter. Additionally, we also decided that, in June 2018, we will discontinue the use of secondary payment cards for affected borrowers who do not explicitly reauthorize the use of secondary payment cards. For these borrowers, in the event we cannot obtain payment through the bank account or payment card listed on the borrower’s application, we will need to rely exclusively on other collection methods such as delinquency notices and/or collection calls. The discontinuation for affected borrowers of our current use of secondary cards will increase collections costs and reduce collections effectiveness. City of Austin We were cited on July 5, 2016 by the City of Austin, Texas for alleged violations of the Austin ordinance addressing products offered by CSOs. The Austin ordinance regulates aspects of products offered under our Credit Access Business programs, including loan sizes and repayment terms. We believe that: (i) the Austin ordinance (like its counterparts elsewhere in the state) conflicts with Texas state law and (ii) our product in any event complies with the ordinance, when the ordinance is properly construed. The Austin Municipal Court agreed with our position that the ordinance conflicts with Texas law and, accordingly, did not address our second argument. In September 2017, the Travis County Court reversed the Municipal Court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Subsequent to the denial of our appeal of the County Court's decision in October 2017, we were notified during the quarter ended March 31, 2018 that the case could potentially go to trial in the summer of 2018. We do not anticipate having a final determination of the lawfulness of our CAB program under the Austin ordinance (and similar ordinances in other Texas cities) in the near future. A final adverse decision could potentially result in material monetary liability in Austin and elsewhere in Texas, and would force us to restructure the loans we originate in Austin and elsewhere in Texas. Other Legal Matters We are also a defendant in certain routine litigation matters encountered in the ordinary course of our business. Certain of these matters may be covered to an extent by insurance. In the opinion of management, based upon the advice of legal counsel, the likelihood is remote that the impact of any pending legal proceedings and claims, either individually or in the aggregate, would have a material adverse effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements.

CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

Harrison, et al v. Principal Investments, Inc. et al

During the period relevant to this class action litigation, we pursued in excess of 16,000 claims in the limited actions and jurisdiction court in Clark County, Nevada, seeking payment of loans on which customers had defaulted. We utilized outside counsel to file these debt collection lawsuits. On Scene Mediations, a process serving company, was employed to serve the summons and petitions in the majority of these cases. In an unrelated matter, the principal of On Scene Mediations was convicted of multiple accounts of perjury and filing false affidavits to obtain judgments on behalf of a Las Vegas collection agency. In September 2010, we were sued by four former customers in a proposed class action suit filed in the District Court in Clark County, Nevada. The plaintiffs in this case claimed that they, and others in the proposed class, were not properly served notice of the debt collection lawsuits by the Company.

On June 7, 2017, the parties reached a settlement in this matter and we accrued approximately $2.3 million as a result of this settlement. At a July 24, 2017 hearing before the District Court in Clark County, Nevada, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, and on October 30, 2017, the court issued final approval of the class settlement. We paid the approved settlement amount and released the related liability.

Reimbursement Offer; Possible Changes in Payment Practices

During 2017, it was determined that a limited universe of borrowers may have incurred bank overdraft or non-sufficient funds fees because of possible confusion about certain electronic payments we initiated on their loans. As a result, we decided to reimburse such fees through payments or credits against outstanding loan balances, subject to per-customer dollar limitations, upon receipt of (1) claims from potentially affected borrowers stating that they were in fact confused by our practices and (2) bank statements from such borrowers showing that fees for which reimbursement is sought were incurred at a time that such borrowers might reasonably have been confused about our practices. We recorded a $2.0 million liability for this matter.

Additionally, we also decided that, in June 2018, we will discontinue the use of secondary payment cards for affected borrowers who do not explicitly reauthorize the use of secondary payment cards. For these borrowers, in the event we cannot obtain payment through the bank account or payment card listed on the borrower’s application, we will need to rely exclusively on other collection methods such as delinquency notices and/or collection calls. The discontinuation for affected borrowers of our current use of secondary cards will increase collections costs and reduce collections effectiveness.

City of Austin

We were cited on July 5, 2016 by the City of Austin, Texas for alleged violations of the Austin ordinance addressing products offered by CSOs. The Austin ordinance regulates aspects of products offered under our Credit Access Business programs, including loan sizes and repayment terms. We believe that: (i) the Austin ordinance (like its counterparts elsewhere in the state) conflicts with Texas state law and (ii) our product in any event complies with the ordinance, when the ordinance is properly construed. The Austin Municipal Court agreed with our position that the ordinance conflicts with Texas law and, accordingly, did not address our second argument. In September 2017, the Travis County Court reversed the Municipal Court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Subsequent to the denial of our appeal of the County Court's decision in October 2017, we were notified during the quarter ended March 31, 2018 that the case could potentially go to trial in the summer of 2018. We do not anticipate having a final determination of the lawfulness of our CAB program under the Austin ordinance (and similar ordinances in other Texas cities) in the near future. A final adverse decision could potentially result in material monetary liability in Austin and elsewhere in Texas, and would force us to restructure the loans we originate in Austin and elsewhere in Texas.

Other Legal Matters

We are also a defendant in certain routine litigation matters encountered in the ordinary course of our business. Certain of these matters may be covered to an extent by insurance. In the opinion of management, based upon the advice of legal counsel, the likelihood is remote that the impact of any pending legal proceedings and claims, either individually or in the aggregate, would have a material adverse effect on our Consolidated Financial Statements.