CONSUMER PORTFOLIO SERVICES INC

Consumer Litigation. We are routinely involved in various legal proceedings resulting from our consumer finance activities and practices, both continuing and discontinued. Consumers can and do initiate lawsuits against us alleging violations of law applicable to collection of receivables, and such lawsuits sometimes allege that resolution as a class action is appropriate. For the most part, we have legal and factual defenses to consumer claims, which we routinely contest or settle (for immaterial amounts) depending on the particular circumstances of each case.

Following our filing of a complaint for a deficiency judgment in the Superior Court at Waterbury, Connecticut, the defendant filed a cross-claim on October 16, 2019 alleging that our deficiency notices were not compliant with Connecticut law, and seeking relief on behalf of a class of Connecticut obligors whose vehicles we had repossessed. The complaint seeks primarily damages, injunctive relief, waiver of contract deficiencies, and attorney fees and interest. The defendant’s contract provided for resolution of disputes exclusively by arbitration, and exclusively on an individual basis, not a class basis. Nevertheless, in August 2021, the court denied our motion to compel arbitration, without opinion. In April 2024 a motion for certification of a class was filed. Prior to the motion being ruled upon, summary judgment was granted in our favor, disposing of the claims against CPS. An appeal of the summary judgment ruling was filed on October 25, 2024 and a cross appeal of the denial of the motion to compel arbitration was filed on October 31, 2024.

Wage and Hour Claim. On September 24, 2018, a former employee filed a lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of Orange County, California, alleging that we incorrectly classified our sales representatives as outside salespersons exempt from overtime wages, mandatory break periods and certain other employee protective provisions of California and federal law. The complaint sought injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and attorney fees and interest. The plaintiff purported to act on behalf of a class of similarly situated employees and ex-employees. We believe that our compensation practices with respect to our sales representatives are compliant with applicable law. In August 2023, the parties settled by agreement the claims of the plaintiff and a California settlement class for $1.1 million. The settlement was approved by the court on October 9, 2024. Under the settlement, the Company paid, after September 30, 2024, $1.1 million to the settlement administrator.

In General. There can be no assurance as to the outcomes of the matters described or referenced above. We record at each measurement date, most recently as of December 31, 2024, our best estimate of probable incurred losses for legal contingencies, including the matters identified above. The amount of losses that may ultimately be incurred cannot be estimated with certainty. However, based on such information as is available to us, we believe that the range of reasonably possible losses for the legal proceedings and contingencies we face, including those described or identified above, as of December 31, 2024 does not exceed $3.2 million.

Accordingly, we believe that the ultimate resolution of such legal proceedings and contingencies should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition. We note, however, that in light of the uncertainties inherent in contested proceedings there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not be material to our operating results for a particular period, depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of our income for that period.