Cash America 2012 Annual Report Download - page 64

39
United Kingdom - Y
Australia - Y
Canada - Y
Mexico 47 Y
Total Foreign 47 -
Number of Foreign Countries 1 4
Total Company 878 36

The Company considers its equipment, furniture and fixtures and owned buildings to be in good condition. The
Company has its own construction supervisors who engage local contractors to selectively remodel and upgrade its retail
services locations throughout the year.
The Company’s leases typically require the Company to pay all maintenance costs, insurance costs and property
taxes. For additional information concerning the Company’s leases, see “Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data—Note 15.”

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
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 (“RICO”). First National Bank of Brookings, South
Dakota (“FNB”) and Community State Bank of Milbank, South Dakota (“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 FNB and CSB’s involvement in the
process is “a mere subterfuge.” Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America was the “de facto” lender and
was illegally operating in Georgia. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, punitive
damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages. In November 2009 the case was certified as a class action
lawsuit. In August 2011, Cash America filed a motion for summary judgment, and in October 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Hearings on the motions were held in October and November 2011, and the
trial court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Cash America on one of the plaintiff’s claims,
denying the remainder of Cash America’s motion and granting the plaintiff’s cross-motion for partial summary
judgment. Cash America filed a notice of appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals in December 2011 on the grant of
plaintiff’s partial summary judgment, and on November 6, 2012, the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s
grant of partial summary judgment to plaintiffs and affirmed the trial court’s denial of Cash America’s motion for
summary judgment. Cash America filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court of Georgia to appeal the
decision of the Georgia Court of Appeals regarding Cash America’s motion for summary judgment on November 26,
2012, which was denied on February 18, 2013. The Company is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably
possible losses, as defined by ASC 450-20-20, Contingencies—Loss Contingencies—Glossary, for this litigation. Cash
America believes that the Plaintiffs’ claims in this suit are without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.
The Company is also a defendant in certain routine litigation matters 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 is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations
or liquidity.