2.2.0.7 false Litigation 00980 - Disclosure - Litigation true false false false 1 USD false false USD Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 0 eps Divide http://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217 USD iso4217 http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 shares Standard http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance shares xbrli 0 $ 2 Disclsoure Litigation 0 us-gaap_LossContingencyAbstract us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false true false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 false false false xbrli:stringItemType string No definition available. false 3 Litigation 1 us-gaap_ScheduleOfLossContingenciesByContingencyTextBlock us-gaap true na duration No definition available. false false false false false false false false false false false false 1 false false false false 0 0 7. Litigation On August 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc. (together with Georgia Cash America, Inc., "Cash America"), Daniel R. Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders" of Cash America. The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the most significant of which is that Cash America made illegal short-term loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Community State Bank ("CSB") for some time made loans to Georgia residents through Cash America's Georgia operating locations. The complaint in this lawsuit claims that Cash America was the true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia borrowers and that CSB's involvement in the process is "a mere subterfuge." Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America is the "de facto" lender and is illegally operating in Georgia. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages. A previous decision by the trial judge to strike Cash America's affirmative defenses based on arbitration (without ruling on Cash America's previously filed motion to compel arbitration) was upheld by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and on September 24, 2007, the Georgia Supreme Court declined to review the decision. The case was returned to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia, where Cash America filed a motion requesting that the trial court rule on Cash America's pending motion to compel arbitration and stay the State Court proceedings. The Court denied the motion to stay and ruled that the motion to compel arbitration was rendered moot after the Court struck Cash America's affirmative defenses based on arbitration. The Georgia Supreme Court declined to review these orders and remanded the case to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia. On November 2, 2009, the State Court granted class certification, and on November 18, 2009, Cash America filed its notice of appeal of the class certification order. The appellate court has informed the parties that the matter will be decided by submission without oral argument, and the appellate court has not rendered its decision. Cash America believes that the Plaintiffs' claims in this suit are without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.  Cash America and CSB also commenced a federal lawsuit on September 7, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia seeking to compel Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims against Cash America and CSB. The U.S. District Court dismissed the federal action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and Cash America and CSB appealed the dismissal of their complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The 11th Circuit issued a panel decision on April 27, 2007 reversing the district court's dismissal of the action and remanding the action to the district court for a determination of the issue of the enforceability of the parties' arbitration agreements. Plaintiff requested the 11th Circuit to review this decision en banc and this request was granted. The en banc rehearing took place on February 26, 2008. The 11th Circuit stayed consideration of this matter pending the resolution of the United States Supreme Court case, Vaden v. Discover Bank. In March 2009, the United States Supreme Court determined, in Vaden v. Discover Bank, that the federal courts were able to compel arbitration of a state court action if the underlying issues involved a federal question. Following the United States Supreme Court ruling in Vaden v. Discover Bank, the 11th Circuit en banc court, without ruling on the case, remanded the case to the 11th Circuit panel for further consideration in light of the decision in Vaden. The 11th Circuit panel requested the parties provide additional briefing following the decision in Vaden, which has been completed, and the parties are awaiting the court's decision. The Strong litigation is still at an early stage, and neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this litigation can be determined at this time.  On July 26, 2008, the Pennsylvania Department of Banking issued a notice announcing a "change in policy," effective February 1, 2009. The notice concluded that out-of-state lenders such as the Company were lending "in" Pennsylvania. Accordingly, the notice purported to subject such lenders to the licensing requirements of the CDCA, which sets the maximum permissible interest at a level well below the interest rate the Company charges on its online consumer loans. On January 8, 2009, the Company brought suit against the Pennsylvania Department of Banking in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, arguing that the notice was invalid because it was adopted in violation of applicable procedural requirements and because it conflicted with the plain language of the CDCA. As a part of these proceedings, the Pennsylvania Department of Banking filed a counterclaim against the Company seeking a declaratory judgment that the Company's internet lending activities to Pennsylvania consumers are not authorized by Pennsylvania law, however, the Pennsylvania Department of Banking represented that it had "no intent to pursue a retroactive financial remedy" against the Company or any similarly situated lender for loans made prior to the date of the decision by the Commonwealth Court. After a hearing on the Company's initial request for a preliminary injunction, the judge expressed the view that the matter should be heard by all the judges of the Commonwealth Court. A hearing on the merits of the Company's claim against the Pennsylvania Department of Banking was held before the entire Commonwealth Court on April 1, 2009. On July 10, 2009, the Commonwealth Court issued its decision in favor of the Pennsylvania Department of Banking, and in response thereto, the Company ceased originating new loans in Pennsylvania. On July 15, 2009, the Company filed an appeal of this decision with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and a hearing was held on May 11, 2010. The Company does not expect a decision on the appeal until late 2010.  On March 5, 2009, Peter Alfeche filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Cash America International, Inc., Cash America Net of Nevada, LLC ("CashNet Nevada"), Cash America Net of Pennsylvania, LLC and Cash America of PA, LLC, d/b/a CashNetUSA.com (collectively, "CashNetUSA"). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that CashNetUSA's online consumer loan lending activities in Pennsylvania were illegal and not in accordance with the Pennsylvania Loan Interest Protection Law or the licensing requirements of the CDCA. The lawsuit also seeks declaratory judgment that several of CashNetUSA's contractual provisions, including choice of law and arbitration provisions, are not authorized by Pennsylvania law. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees and the trebling of any compensatory damages. CashNetUSA filed a motion to enforce the arbitration provision located in the agreements governing the lending activities, and a hearing on the motion was held on July 1, 2009. The Court has not yet ruled on this motion. The Alfeche litigation is still at an early stage, and neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this litigation can be determined at this time. CashNetUSA believes that the Plaintiffs' claims in this suit are without merit and will vigorously defend this lawsuit. On April 21, 2009, Yulon Clerk filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, against CashNet Nevada and several other unrelated third-party lenders. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants' lending activities in Pennsylvania, including CashNet Nevada's online consumer loan lending activities in Pennsylvania, were illegal and in violation of various Pennsylvania laws, including the Loan Interest Protection Law, the CDCA and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Laws. The complaint seeks payment of potential fines, unspecified damages, attorney's fees and the trebling of certain damages. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania where the lawsuit now resides. The case was subsequently reassigned to the same judge presiding in the Alfeche litigation. On August 26, 2009, the Court severed the claims against the other defendants originally named in the litigation. CashNet Nevada filed a motion with the federal court to enforce the arbitration provision located in the agreements governing the lending activities on May 4, 2009, and the Court has not yet ruled on this motion. The Clerk litigation is still at an early stage, and neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this litigation can be determined at this time. CashNet Nevada believes that the Plaintiffs' claims in this suit are without merit and will vigorously defend this lawsuit. The Company is also a defendant in certain lawsuits encountered in the ordinary course of its business. Certain of these matters are covered to an extent by insurance. In the opinion of management, the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or liquidity.          7. Litigation On August 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against Georgia false false false us-types:textBlockItemType textblock Describes and quantifies the loss contingencies that were reported in the period or disclosed as of the balance sheet date. Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9-12, 22-40 false 1 2 false UnKnown UnKnown UnKnown false true