Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Commitments

At March 31, 2015, we were obligated under nine non-cancelable operating leases with expiration dates through 2021 for $12 million. Operating lease expense was less than $1 million for both the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014.

The following table presents our future lease commitments at March 31, 2015.

Future Lease Commitments by Year



(In Thousands)	March 31, 2015
2015 (9 months)	$	2,123
2016	2,833
2017	2,879
2018	1,827
2019	1,189
2020 and thereafter	1,495
Total Lease Commitments	$	12,346

Loss Contingencies — Fannie Mae Risk Sharing

In the fourth quarter of 2014, we entered into a risk-sharing arrangement with Fannie Mae. Under this arrangement we committed to absorb the first one percent of losses realized on a reference pool of residential mortgage loans originated in 2014 that we acquired and then sold to Fannie Mae during the fourth quarter of 2014. During the 10 year term of the arrangement, we receive monthly cash payments from Fannie Mae based on the monthly outstanding unpaid principal balance of the reference pool of loans. Additionally, under this arrangement we are required to maintain collateral with a third party custodian sufficient to cover our maximum loss exposure throughout the term of the arrangement. To the extent approved losses are incurred, the custodian will transfer collateral to Fannie Mae. As a result of this transaction we recorded “pledged collateral” and a “guarantee asset” in the other assets line item, and a “guarantee obligation” in the other liabilities line item, on our consolidated balance sheets.

The guarantee obligation represents our commitment to absorb losses under the arrangement, which at inception was recorded at fair value based on the fair value of the guarantee asset. We are amortizing the guarantee obligation over the 10 year term of the arrangement based on changes in the outstanding unpaid principal balance of loans in the reference pool. In addition, each period we assess the need for a separate loss allowance related to this arrangement, based on our estimate of credit losses inherent in the reference pool of loans. To determine the loss allowance, we assess inherent losses in the reference pool of loans by determining loss factors (defaults, the timing of defaults, and loss severities upon defaults). As of March 31, 2015, we determined a loss allowance was not required.

See Note 11 for further discussion of the risk share arrangement.

Loss Contingencies — Residential Repurchase Reserve

We maintain a repurchase reserve for potential obligations arising from representation and warranty violations related to residential loans we have sold to securitization trusts or third parties and for conforming residential loans associated with MSRs that we have purchased from third parties. We do not originate residential loans and we believe the initial risk of loss due to loan repurchases (i.e., due to a breach of representations and warranties) would generally be a contingency to the companies from whom we acquired the loans. However, in some cases, for example, where loans were acquired from companies that have since become insolvent, repurchase claims may result in our being liable for a repurchase obligation.

At both March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, our repurchase reserve associated with our residential loans and MSRs was $4 million and was recorded in accrued expenses and other liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets. We received 25 repurchase requests during the three months ended March 31, 2015 and we repurchased one loan during that period, which we expect to be purchased by the loan originator with no resulting loss. During the three months ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 we recorded repurchase provisions of less than $1 million, that were recorded in mortgage banking activities and MSR income on our consolidated statements of income and did not charge-off any amounts to the reserve in either period.

Loss Contingencies — Litigation

On or about December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (the “FHLB-Seattle”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of Washington (case number 09-2-46348-4 SEA) against Redwood Trust, Inc., our subsidiary, Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc. (“SRF”), Morgan Stanley & Co., and Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. (collectively, the “FHLB-Seattle Defendants”) alleging that the FHLB-Seattle Defendants made false or misleading statements in offering materials for a mortgage pass-through certificate (the “Seattle Certificate”) issued in the Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2005-4 securitization transaction (the “2005-4 RMBS”) and purchased by the FHLB-Seattle. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the alleged misstatements concern the (1) loan-to-value ratio of mortgage loans and the appraisals of the properties that secured loans supporting the 2005-4 RMBS, (2) occupancy status of the properties, (3) standards used to underwrite the loans, and (4) ratings assigned to the Seattle Certificate. The FHLB-Seattle alleges claims under the Securities Act of Washington (Section 21.20.005, et seq.) and seeks to rescind the purchase of the Seattle Certificate and to collect interest on the original purchase price at the statutory interest rate of 8% per annum from the date of original purchase (net of interest received) as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The Seattle Certificate was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $133 million, and, as of March 31, 2015, the FHLB-Seattle has received approximately $116 million of principal and $11 million of interest payments in respect of the Seattle Certificate. The claims were subsequently dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction as to Redwood Trust and SRF. Redwood agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2005-4 RMBS for certain losses and expenses they might incur as a result of claims made against them relating to this RMBS, including, without limitation, certain legal expenses. The FHLB-Seattle’s claims against the underwriters of this RMBS were not dismissed and remain pending. Regardless of the outcome of this litigation, we could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

On or about July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corporation (“Schwab”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in San Francisco (case number CGC-10-501610) against SRF and 26 other defendants (collectively, the “Schwab Defendants”) alleging that the Schwab Defendants made false or misleading statements in offering materials for various residential mortgage-backed securities sold or issued by the Schwab Defendants. Schwab alleged only a claim for negligent misrepresentation under California state law against SRF and sought unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs from SRF. Schwab claims that SRF made false or misleading statements in offering materials for a mortgage pass-through certificate (the “Schwab Certificate”) issued in the 2005-4 RMBS and purchased by Schwab. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the misstatements for the 2005-4 RMBS concern the (1) loan-to-value ratio of mortgage loans and the appraisals of the properties that secured loans supporting the 2005-4 RMBS, (2) occupancy status of the properties, (3) standards used to underwrite the loans, and (4) ratings assigned to the Schwab Certificate. On November 14, 2014, Schwab voluntarily dismissed with prejudice its negligent misrepresentation claim, which resulted in the dismissal with prejudice of SRF from the action. The Schwab Certificate was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $15 million, and, as of March 31, 2015, approximately $13 million of principal and $1 million of interest payments have been made in respect of the Schwab Certificate. we agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2005-4 RMBS, which underwriters were also named and remain as defendants in the action, for certain losses and expenses they might incur as a result of claims made against them relating to this RMBS, including, without limitation, certain legal expenses. Regardless of the outcome of this litigation, Redwood could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

In accordance with GAAP, we review the need for any loss contingency reserves and establish reserves when, in the opinion of management, it is probable that a matter would result in a liability and the amount of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated. Additionally, we record receivables for insurance recoveries relating to litigation-related losses and expenses if and when such amounts are covered by insurance and recovery of such losses or expenses are due. At March 31, 2015, the aggregate amount of loss contingency reserves established in respect of the FHLB-Seattle and Schwab litigation matters described above was $2 million. We review our litigation matters each quarter to assess these loss contingency reserves and make adjustments in these reserves, upwards or downwards, as appropriate, in accordance with GAAP based on our review.

In the ordinary course of any litigation matter, including certain of the above-referenced matters, we have engaged and may continue to engage in formal or informal settlement communications with the plaintiffs. Settlement communications we have engaged in relating to certain of the above-referenced litigation matters are one of the factors that have resulted in our determination to establish the loss contingency reserves described above. We cannot be certain that any of these matters will be resolved through a settlement prior to trial and we cannot be certain that the resolution of these matters, whether through trial or settlement, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations in any future period.

Future developments (including resolution of substantive pre-trial motions relating to these matters, receipt of additional information and documents relating to these matters (such as through pre-trial discovery), new or additional settlement communications with plaintiffs relating to these matters, or resolutions of similar claims against other defendants in these matters) could result in our concluding in the future to establish additional loss contingency reserves or to disclose an estimate of reasonably possible losses in excess of our established reserves with respect to these matters. Our actual losses with respect to the above-referenced litigation matters may be materially higher than the aggregate amount of loss contingency reserves we have established in respect of these litigation matters, including in the event that any of these matters proceeds to trial and the plaintiff prevails. Other factors that could result in our concluding to establish additional loss contingency reserves or estimate additional reasonably possible losses, or could result in our actual losses with respect to the above-referenced litigation matters being materially higher than the aggregate amount of loss contingency reserves we have established in respect of these litigation matters include that: there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved; information obtained or rulings made during the lawsuits could affect the methodology for calculation of the available remedies; and we may have additional obligations pursuant to indemnity agreements, representations and warranties, and other contractual provisions with other parties relating to these litigation matters that could increase our potential losses.