Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Commitments

At September 30, 2017, we were obligated under four non-cancelable operating leases with expiration dates through 2028 for $18 million of cumulative lease payments. Our operating lease expense was $2 million for both nine-month periods ended September 30, 2017 and 2016.

The following table presents our future lease commitments at September 30, 2017.

Table 14.1 – Future Lease Commitments by Year



(In Thousands)	September 30, 2017
2017 (3 months)	$	387
2018	1,948
2019	1,987
2020	1,965
2021 and thereafter	11,691
Total Lease Commitments	$	17,978

Loss Contingencies — Risk Sharing

At September 30, 2017, we had sold conforming loans to the Agencies with an original unpaid principal balance of $3.19 billion, subject to our risk sharing arrangements with the Agencies. At September 30, 2017, the maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these arrangements was $44 million and this amount was fully collateralized by assets we transferred to pledged accounts and is presented as pledged collateral in Other assets on our consolidated balance sheets. We have no recourse to any third parties that would allow us to recover any amounts related to our obligations under the arrangements. At September 30, 2017, we had not incurred any losses under these arrangements. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, other income related to these arrangements was $1 million and $2 million, respectively. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, other income related to these arrangements was $1 million and $3 million, respectively. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, net market valuation losses related to these investments were $0.3 million and $1 million, respectively. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, net market valuation losses related to these investments were zero and $1 million, respectively.

All of the loans in the reference pools subject to these risk sharing arrangements were originated in 2014 and 2015, and at September 30, 2017, the loans had an unpaid principal balance of $2.19 billion and a weighted average FICO score of 758 (at origination) and LTV of 77% (at origination). At September 30, 2017, $3 million of the loans were 90 days or more delinquent, and $1 million were in foreclosure. At September 30, 2017, the carrying value of our guarantee obligation was $20 million and included $10 million designated as a non-amortizing credit reserve, which we believe is sufficient to cover current expected losses under these obligations.

Our consolidated balance sheets include assets of special purpose entities ("SPEs") associated with these risk sharing arrangements (i.e., the "pledged collateral" referred to above) that can only be used to settle obligations of these SPEs for which the creditors of these SPEs (the Agencies) do not have recourse to Redwood Trust, Inc. or its affiliates. At September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, assets of such SPEs totaled $47 million and $49 million, respectively, and liabilities of such SPEs totaled $20 million and $22 million, respectively.

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 September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, our repurchase reserve associated with our residential loans and MSRs was $5 million and was recorded in Accrued expenses and other liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets. We received 13 repurchase requests during the nine months ended September 30, 2017, and repurchased one loan during this period. During the nine months ended September 30, 2017 and 2016, we recorded $0.5 million of reversal of provision for repurchases and $0.3 million of provision for repurchases, respectively, that were recorded in Mortgage banking activities, net and MSR income, net on our consolidated statements of income.

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 alleged that the alleged misstatements concerned 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 sought 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, at September 30, 2017, the FHLB-Seattle has received approximately $125 million of principal and $11 million of interest payments in respect of the Seattle Certificate. The matter was subsequently resolved and the claims were dismissed by the FHLB Seattle as to all the FHLB Seattle Defendants. At the time the Seattle Certificate was issued, Redwood agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2005-4 RMBS, which underwriters were named 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 resolution 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 claimed 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 alleged that the misstatements for the 2005-4 RMBS concerned 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. The Schwab Certificate was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $15 million, and, at September 30, 2017, approximately $14 million of principal and $1 million of interest payments have been made in respect of 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. Subsequently, the matter was resolved and Schwab dismissed its claims against the lead underwriter of the 2005-4 RMBS. At the time the Schwab Certificate was issued, Redwood agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2005-4 RMBS, which underwriters were also named 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 resolution of this litigation, Redwood could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

Through certain of our wholly-owned subsidiaries, we have in the past engaged in, and expect to continue to engage in, activities relating to the acquisition and securitization of residential mortgage loans. In addition, certain of our wholly-owned subsidiaries have in the past engaged in activities relating to the acquisition and securitization of debt obligations and other assets through the issuance of collateralized debt obligations (commonly referred to as CDO transactions). Because of this involvement in the securitization and CDO businesses, we could become the subject of litigation relating to these businesses, including additional litigation of the type described above, and we could also become the subject of governmental investigations, enforcement actions, or lawsuits, and governmental authorities could allege that we violated applicable law or regulation in the conduct of our business. As an example, in July 2016 we became aware of a complaint filed by the State of California on April 1, 2016 against Morgan Stanley & Co. and certain of its affiliates alleging, among other things, that there were misleading statements contained in offering materials for 28 different mortgage pass-through certificates purchased by various California investors, including various California public pension systems, from Morgan Stanley and alleging that Morgan Stanley made false or fraudulent claims in connection with the sale of those certificates. Of the 28 mortgage pass-through certificates that are the subject of the complaint, two are Sequoia mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2004 and two are Sequoia mortgage pass-through certificates issued in 2007. With respect to each of those certificates our wholly-owned subsidiary, RWT Holdings, Inc., was the sponsor and our wholly-owned subsidiary, Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc., was the depositor. At the time these four Sequoia mortgage pass-through certificates were issued, Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc. and Redwood Trust agreed to indemnify the underwriters of these certificates for certain losses and expenses they might incur as a result of claims made against them relating to these certificates, including, without limitation, certain legal expenses. Regardless of the outcome of this litigation, we 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 September 30, 2017, 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 or co-defendants. 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.