This excerpt taken from the QCCO 10-Q filed Aug 8, 2008.
There have been no material developments in the second quarter 2008 in any cases material to the Company as reported in our 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities. The following table sets forth certain information about the shares of common stock we repurchased during the second quarter 2008.
This excerpt taken from the QCCO 10-Q filed Aug 8, 2007.
The Company and a former customer in New Mexico, who has sued the Company in a purported class action lawsuit, have reached an oral agreement to settle the case for an immaterial amount. The Company expects this case to be dismissed with prejudice in the third quarter. Except for the favorable resolution of the New Mexico case described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, under Item 3, Legal Proceedings, there have been no material developments in the second quarter 2007 in any cases material to the Company as reported in our 2006 Annual Report.
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities. The following table sets forth certain information about the shares of common stock we repurchased during the second quarter 2007.
On July 31, 2007, our board of directors increased our $30 million common stock repurchase program by $10 million, subject to amendment of our credit facility. The repurchase program authorizes us to purchase $40 million. As of June 30, 2007, we have repurchased 2.1 million shares at a total cost of approximately $27.5 million.
Our annual meeting of stockholders was held in Overland Park, Kansas, on June 7, 2007. At that meeting, the stockholders elected the following individuals to serve as directors for a term of one year and until their respective successors are duly elected and qualified:
No other matters were submitted to a vote of the stockholders at the annual meeting.
This excerpt taken from the QCCO 10-Q filed May 9, 2007.
Arizona. In 2005, one of our Arizona customers filed a lawsuit against us in Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona, seeking class certification and challenging the validity of our lending practices in Arizona on a variety of theories, alleging that the loan violated the Arizona Deferred Presentment Companies Statute and asserting various other claims based in tort, contract and violations of state law. We removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to compel arbitration. The Magistrate Judge granted our motion to compel arbitration, but found our class action waiver in the arbitration agreement signed by the customer to be unconscionable. The result of this decision is that he compelled the parties to consider the issue of class action standing in arbitration. We appealed this ruling to the District Court judge, and, in March 2007, the District Court affirmed the ruling of the Magistrate Judge. We are appealing the District Court ruling.
New Mexico. In September 2005, the New Mexico Attorney General issued proposed regulations that have the practical effect of limiting the fees and interest on payday loans to 54% per annum, thus effectively prohibiting payday loans in New Mexico. In January 2006, the Attorney General purported to adopt the regulations in final form. We filed a Civil Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Judgment against the New Mexico Attorney General in District Court in Bernalillo County, New Mexico.
The Attorney General and the parties to the lawsuits against the Attorney General (including us) agreed to stay those proceedings while the New Mexico Financial Institutions Division (FID) had an opportunity to promulgate new regulations for the payday loan industry.
In June 2006, the FID promulgated new regulations, which were scheduled to go into effect on August 31, 2006. On August 30, 2006, we, joined by other parties, received a permanent injunction of the FID regulations in state court in New Mexico. As a result of this ruling, the FID is restrained from enforcing its regulations. The FID never perfected its appeal of the permanent injunction (after expressing its intent to do so), and in April 2007, the court entered an order dismissing the FIDs appeal and making the injunction permanent.
In March 2007, New Mexico adopted legislation (effective November 2007) that will, among other matters, reduce the maximum fee that may be charged to a customer from $20.00 per $100.00 borrowed to $15.50 per $100 borrowed. We anticipate that this new legislation will effectively end all pending matters with the New Mexico Attorney General and the FID, and we intend to dismiss all pending litigation that we have filed against the New Mexico Attorney General.
Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities. In August 2006, our board of directors increased the authorization limit of our common stock repurchase program to $30 million and extended the program through June 30, 2007. The program would have otherwise expired on December 31, 2006, or earlier if we had repurchased common stock with an aggregate cost of $10 million. As of March 31, 2007, we have repurchased 1.7 million shares at a total cost of approximately $21.7 million.
The following table sets forth certain information about the shares of common stock we repurchased during the first quarter 2007.
This excerpt taken from the QCCO 10-Q filed Aug 12, 2005.
North Carolina. On February 8, 2005, we, two of our subsidiaries, including the subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Mr. Don Early, our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, were sued in Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina in a putative class action by customers of County Bank. The lawsuit alleges that we violated various North Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina Loan Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and the state usury statute, in connection with loans made by the bank to the two plaintiffs through our retail locations in North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that we made the loans to the plaintiffs in violations of various state statutes, and that even if we are not viewed as the actual lenders or makers of the loans, our services to the bank that made the loans violated various North Carolina statutes.
Plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified monetary damages, and treble damages and attorneys fees under specified North Carolina statutes. Plaintiffs have not sued County Bank in this matter and have specifically stated in the complaint that plaintiffs do not challenge the right of out-of-state banks to enter into loans with North Carolina residents at such rates as the banks home state may permit, all as authorized by North Carolina and federal law. Because this case is in the preliminary stages, we are not able to assess the likelihood of any outcomes in this action.
Although we are not a party to the proceeding, the North Carolina Commissioner of Banks issued a Notice of Hearing to Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of North Carolina, Inc. (Advance America) on February 1, 2005. A ruling with respect to that hearing, which is expected for the third quarter of 2005, is to determine whether Advance America, which markets, originates, services and collects payday loans on behalf of a state-chartered bank located in Kentucky, is violating the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act or the North Carolina Check Cashers Act and if so, to order Advance America to cease and desist such violations and to assess civil monetary penalties as appropriate. An adverse determination in the Advance America hearing would likely have an adverse impact on our operations in North Carolina and could adversely affect the purported class action lawsuit against the Company.
Arizona. In 2004, we filed a small claims case in Pima County, Arizona to collect a past due loan. The customer/defendant removed the case to Pima County Justice Courts (in accordance with established small claims court procedures), and filed counterclaims against us alleging that the loan violated the Arizona Deferred Presentment Companies Statute and asserting various other counterclaims based in tort, contract and violations of state law. The defendant also sought removal to the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona, and class certification for all customers of the Company in Arizona on these counterclaims. The defendant sought unspecified damages on the counterclaims, an award of attorneys fees, treble damages under the Arizona RICO statute, and punitive damages. We moved to compel dismissal of the counterclaims and enforcement of the mandatory arbitration provisions in our agreements with this customer. A hearing on our motion to compel arbitration and the defendants motion to remove to Superior Court was held on May 4, 2005, and the judge granted our motion to compel arbitration and denied defendants motion to remove the matter to Superior Court. The defendant has appealed this ruling.
Wisconsin. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin found our subsidiary violated the automatic stay provisions of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §362(a), in an action titled Brewer v. QC Financial Services, Inc. The Court determined that the actions by our subsidiary in retaining lawfully-obtained funds that were part of the plaintiffs bankruptcy estate was a violation of the automatic stay, that our subsidiarys conduct was willful and that the our subsidiary must pay actual damages, including attorneys fees pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §362(h). The Court also determined that our subsidiarys conduct was sufficiently egregious to warrant imposing punitive damages. The Court held a hearing to determine the amount of damages on July 20 and 22, 2005. We cannot predict the amount of any judgment.