(9) Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	(9) Legal Proceedings Griffith Litigation. We are named as defendant in a putative class action brought in federal district court in Chicago, Illinois. In March 2012 the court gave preliminary approval to a settlement agreed to between us and the plaintiffs, pursuant to which (i) a class will be certified for settlement purposes only, and (ii) we will pay a fixed amount of plaintiff attorney fees and also make payments against claims made by members of the class, the amount of which will be based on class members’ responses to our notice of the settlement. Final approval and effectiveness of the settlement will occur only following notice to the class members, a hearing on the fairness of the settlement, and ultimate approval of the settlement following such a hearing. Our legal contingency accrual at March 31, 2012 includes our estimate for the amount that is probable. There can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the case. Stanwich Litigation. We were for some time 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”) under out-of-court settlements reached with third party defendants. Stanwich Financial Services Corp. (“Stanwich”), then an affiliate of our former chairman of the board of directors, is the entity that was obligated to pay the Settlement Payments. Stanwich had defaulted on its payment obligations to the plaintiffs and in September 2001 filed for reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code, in the federal Bankruptcy Court of 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 is now pending in federal district court in Rhode Island. We have filed counterclaims in the Rhode Island federal court against Mr. Pardee, and have filed a separate action against Mr. Pardee's Rhode Island attorneys, in the same court. As of December 31, 2010, these actions in the court in Rhode Island had been stayed, awaiting resolution of an adversary action brought against Mr. Pardee in the bankruptcy court, which is hearing the bankruptcy of Stanwich. On April 6, 2011, that adversary action was dismissed, pursuant to an agreement between us and the representative of creditors in the Stanwich bankruptcy. Under that agreement, CPS has paid the bankruptcy estate $800,000 and abandoned its claims against the estate, and the estate has abandoned its adversary action against Mr. Pardee. The entire payment in this matter was included in our legal contingency liability as of December 31, 2010. With the dismissal of the adversary action, all known claims asserted against Mr. Pardee have been resolved, without his incurring any liability. Accordingly, we believe that this resolution of the adversary action will result 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 has been lifted, and a trial is scheduled for November 2012. The reader should consider that any adverse judgment against us in this case for indemnification, in an amount materially in excess of any liability already recorded in respect thereof, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position. There can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this matter. Other Litigation. We are routinely involved in various legal proceedings resulting from our consumer finance activities and practices, both continuing and discontinued. We believe that there are substantive legal defenses to such claims, and intend to defend them vigorously. There can be no assurance, however, as to the outcome. We have recorded a liability as of March 31, 2012 that we believe represents an appropriate allowance for legal contingencies, including those described above. Any adverse judgment against us, if in an amount materially in excess of the recorded liability, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position.

(9) Legal Proceedings

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

(9) Legal Proceedings

Griffith Litigation. We are named as defendant in a putative class action brought in federal district court in Chicago, Illinois. In March 2012 the court gave preliminary approval to a settlement agreed to between us and the plaintiffs, pursuant to which (i) a class will be certified for settlement purposes only, and (ii) we will pay a fixed amount of plaintiff attorney fees and also make payments against claims made by members of the class, the amount of which will be based on class members’ responses to our notice of the settlement. Final approval and effectiveness of the settlement will occur only following notice to the class members, a hearing on the fairness of the settlement, and ultimate approval of the settlement following such a hearing. Our legal contingency accrual at March 31, 2012 includes our estimate for the amount that is probable. There can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of the case.

Stanwich Litigation. We were for some time 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”) under out-of-court settlements reached with third party defendants. Stanwich Financial Services Corp. (“Stanwich”), then an affiliate of our former chairman of the board of directors, is the entity that was obligated to pay the Settlement Payments. Stanwich had defaulted on its payment obligations to the plaintiffs and in September 2001 filed for reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code, in the federal Bankruptcy Court of 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 is now pending in federal district court in Rhode Island. We have filed counterclaims in the Rhode Island federal court against Mr. Pardee, and have filed a separate action against Mr. Pardee's Rhode Island attorneys, in the same court. As of December 31, 2010, these actions in the court in Rhode Island had been stayed, awaiting resolution of an adversary action brought against Mr. Pardee in the bankruptcy court, which is hearing the bankruptcy of Stanwich.

On April 6, 2011, that adversary action was dismissed, pursuant to an agreement between us and the representative of creditors in the Stanwich bankruptcy. Under that agreement, CPS has paid the bankruptcy estate $800,000 and abandoned its claims against the estate, and the estate has abandoned its adversary action against Mr. Pardee. The entire payment in this matter was included in our legal contingency liability as of December 31, 2010. With the dismissal of the adversary action, all known claims asserted against Mr. Pardee have been resolved, without his incurring any liability. Accordingly, we believe that this resolution of the adversary action will result 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 has been lifted, and a trial is scheduled for November 2012.

The reader should consider that any adverse judgment against us in this case for indemnification, in an amount materially in excess of any liability already recorded in respect thereof, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position. There can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome of this matter.

Other Litigation.

We are routinely involved in various legal proceedings resulting from our consumer finance activities and practices, both continuing and discontinued. We believe that there are substantive legal defenses to such claims, and intend to defend them vigorously. There can be no assurance, however, as to the outcome.

We have recorded a liability as of March 31, 2012 that we believe represents an appropriate allowance for legal contingencies, including those described above. Any adverse judgment against us, if in an amount materially in excess of the recorded liability, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position.