Note 27 — Contingencies

When we become aware of a matter involving uncertainty for which we may incur a loss, we assess the likelihood of any loss. If a loss contingency is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, we record an accrual for the loss. In such cases, there may be an exposure to potential loss in excess of the amount accrued. Where a loss is not probable but is reasonably possible or where a loss in excess of the amount accrued is reasonably possible, we disclose an estimate of the amount of the loss or range of possible losses for the claim if a reasonable estimate can be made, unless the amount of such reasonably possible loss is not material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. If a reasonable estimate of loss cannot be made, we do not accrue for any loss or disclose any estimate of exposure to potential loss. An assessment regarding the ultimate outcome of any such matter involves judgments about future events, actions and circumstances that are inherently uncertain. The actual outcome could differ materially. Where we have retained external legal counsel or other professional advisers, such advisers assist us in making such assessments.

Litigation

In the ordinary course of business, we are routinely a defendant in, or a party or potential party to, many threatened and pending legal proceedings, including proceedings brought on behalf of various classes of claimants, those brought derivatively on behalf of Ocwen against certain current or former officers and directors, and those brought under the False Claims Act by private citizens on behalf of the United States of America.

These proceedings are generally based on alleged violations of federal, state and local laws and regulations governing our mortgage servicing and lending activities, including wrongful foreclosure and eviction actions, allegations of wrongdoing in connection with lender-placed insurance arrangements, claims relating to our pre-foreclosure property preservation activities, claims relating to our written and telephonic communications with our borrowers, claims related to our payment and other processing operations, and claims regarding certifications of our legal compliance related to our participation in certain government programs. In some of these proceedings, claims for substantial monetary damages are asserted against us. To address the claims in the small number of proceedings brought derivatively by purported shareholders, the independent directors of the Board have established a Special Litigation Committee to investigate the shareholders’ allegations.

In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of any threatened or pending legal proceedings, particularly where the claimants seek very large or indeterminate damages or where the matters present novel legal theories or involve a large number of parties, we generally cannot predict what the eventual outcome of such proceedings will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution will be, or what the eventual loss, if any, will be. Any material adverse resolution could materially and adversely affect our business, reputation, financial condition and results of operations.

Where we determine that a loss contingency is probable in connection with a pending or threatened legal proceeding and the amount of our losses can be reasonably estimated, we record an accrual for the losses. Excluding expenses of internal or external legal counsel, we have accrued $40.2 million as of December 31, 2015 for losses relating to threatened and pending litigation pertaining to our mortgage servicing practices that we believe are probable and reasonably estimable based on current information regarding these matters. Where we determine that a loss is not probable but is reasonably possible or where a loss in excess of the amount accrued is reasonably possible, we disclose an estimate of the amount of the loss or range of possible losses for the claim if a reasonable estimate can be made, unless the amount of such reasonably possible loss is not material to our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. It is possible that we will incur losses relating to threatened and pending litigation pertaining to our mortgage servicing practices that materially exceed the amount accrued. We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible losses above amounts that have been recorded at December 31, 2015.

Following our announcement on August 12, 2014 that we intended to restate our financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and the quarter ended March 31, 2014, and amend our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed against Ocwen and certain of its officers and directors regarding such restatements and amendments. Those lawsuits have been consolidated and are pending in federal court in Florida. After Ocwen signed a Consent Order with the NYDFS on December 22, 2014, the consolidated securities fraud class action complaint was amended to include allegations relating to that Consent Order and other matters. In January 2015, Ocwen was named as a defendant in a separate consolidated securities fraud class action that has been brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders of Altisource Portfolio Solutions, S.A. (Altisource). On September 4, 2015, the presiding federal court dismissed both the above-referenced consolidated securities fraud class actions. Both of those actions have since been re-filed in federal court. On December 22, 2015, the presiding federal court dismissed the claims against Ocwen with prejudice in the above-referenced matter brought by the putative class of Altisource shareholders. On that same day, the presiding federal court dismissed in part the above-referenced matter brought by the putative class of Ocwen shareholders. In January 2016, Ocwen was named as a defendant in a separate securities action brought on behalf of certain putative shareholders of Ocwen. Additional lawsuits may be filed and, at this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of these lawsuits or any potential impact they may have on us or our operations. Ocwen and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. If our efforts to defend these lawsuits are not successful, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

OFC, OLS, and Homeward are defendants in two qui tam actions pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, brought by private citizens on behalf of the United States under the False Claims Act (FCA): U.S. Ex rel. Fisher v. Homeward Residential, Inc., et al and U.S. Ex rel. Fisher v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, et al. On April 2, 2014, the United States declined to intervene in these actions, and the complaints were unsealed shortly thereafter. The complaints allege in substance that Homeward and OLS violated the FCA by falsely certifying their compliance with applicable laws and regulations in connection with their respective participation in the United States Treasury’s HAMP and FHA insurance programs, thus rendering all HAMP incentive and FHA insurance payments on OLS- or Homeward-serviced loans false claims. The complaints seek damages including (i) an award equal to three times the total HAMP incentive and FHA insurance payments that OLS and Homeward have received from the United States and (ii) statutory penalties of between $5,000 and $10,000 per alleged false claim. Discovery is ongoing, and the parties have each filed motions for summary judgment. Trial in the OLS action is scheduled for May 16, 2016 and trial in the Homeward action is scheduled for June 28, 2016. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with resolving these lawsuits or any potential impact they may have on us or our operations. OFC, OLS and Homeward intend to vigorously defend against these lawsuits. If our efforts to defend these lawsuits are not successful, our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

In several recent court actions, mortgage loan sellers against whom repurchase claims have been asserted based on alleged breaches of representations and warranties are defending on various grounds including the expiration of statutes of limitation, lack of notice and opportunity to cure, and vitiation of the obligation to repurchase as a result of foreclosure or charge-off of the loan. We have entered into tolling agreements with respect to our role as servicer for a small number of securitizations and may enter into additional tolling agreements in the future. Other court actions have been filed against certain RMBS trustees alleging that the trustees breached their contractual and statutory duties by, among other things, failing to require the loan servicers to abide by the servicers’ obligations and failing to declare that certain alleged servicing events of default under the applicable contracts occurred.

Ocwen is a third-party defendant in certain of these actions, is the servicer for certain securitizations involved in other such actions and is the servicer for other securitizations as to which actions have been threatened by certificate holders. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in the lawsuits to which we have been named a party. Should Ocwen be made a party to other similar actions or should Ocwen be asked to indemnify any parties to such actions, we may need to defend allegations that we failed to service loans in accordance with applicable agreements and that such failures prejudiced the rights of repurchase claimants against loan sellers or otherwise diminished the value of the trust collateral. At this time, we are unable to predict the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of these lawsuits or any potential impact they may have on us or our operations. If, however, we were required to compensate claimants for losses related to the alleged loan servicing breaches, then our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

In addition, a number of RMBS trustees have received notices of default alleging material failures by servicers to comply with applicable servicing agreements. For example, certain investors claiming to hold at least 25% ownership interest in 119 RMBS trusts serviced by Ocwen have submitted to the respective trustees of those trusts a Notice of Non-Performance, alleging that we have materially breached our obligations under the servicing agreements in those trusts. The Notice further alleged that our conduct, if not timely cured, would give rise to events of default under the applicable servicing agreements, on the basis of which we could potentially be terminated as servicer for the 119 Trusts. Ocwen denies the allegations in the Notice and intends to vigorously rebut them. Since the Notice was issued, Ocwen has been directed by the trustee for two of the trusts to transfer its servicing to another loan servicing company based on ratings downgrades. There is a risk that Ocwen could be replaced as servicer on the remaining trusts at issue in the Notice, that the trustees could take legal action on behalf of the trust certificateholders, or, under certain circumstances, that the investors who issued the Notice could seek to press their allegations against Ocwen, independent of the trustees. We are unable at this time to predict what, if any, actions the trustees will take in response to the Notice, nor can we predict at this time the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of the Notice or the potential impact on our operations. If Ocwen were to be terminated as servicer, or other related legal actions were pursued against Ocwen, it could have an adverse effect on Ocwen’s business, financing activities, financial condition and results of operations.

Regulatory

We are subject to a number of ongoing federal and state regulatory examinations, consent orders, inquiries, requests for information and other actions.

New York Department of Financial Services

In December 2012, we entered into a consent order with the New York Department of Financial Services (NY DFS) in which we agreed to the appointment of a Monitor to oversee our compliance with an Agreement on Servicing Practices that we had entered into with the NY DFS in September 2011. After the Monitor began its work in 2013, the NY DFS began an investigation into Ocwen’s compliance with the servicing requirements specified in the Agreement on Servicing Practices as well as New York State laws and regulations relating to the servicing of residential mortgages.

In December 2014, Ocwen reached a settlement with the NY DFS related to this investigation and entered into a consent order (the NY Consent Order) with the NY DFS to reflect such settlement. The settlement contained monetary and non-monetary provisions including the payment of a civil monetary penalty of $100.0 million and restitution in the amount of $50.0 million to certain New York borrowers. Non-monetary provisions include: the appointment of an independent Operations Monitor who will, among other responsibilities, review and assess the adequacy and effectiveness of our operations, including providing periodic reporting on findings and progress, and review transactions with Altisource, Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. (HLSS), Altisource Residential Corporation (Residential) and Altisource Asset Management Corporation (AAMC); the appointment of two additional independent directors to the Board of Directors; the resignation of William C. Erbey as an officer and director, as of January 16, 2015, as well as from the boards of Altisource, HLSS, AAMC and Residential; and restrictions on the ability and/or timing of any future MSR acquisitions which effectively prohibit any such future acquisitions until we have satisfied certain specified conditions. We must pay all reasonable and necessary costs of the Operations Monitor.

We continue to work with the Operations Monitor. If we are found to have breached the terms of the NY Consent Order or if the NY DFS or the Operations Monitor were to allege non-compliance with New York laws or regulations, we could become subject to financial penalties or other regulatory action could be taken against us. The Operations Monitor also makes recommendations to Ocwen on various operational and governance matters. If we do not address such recommendations in a manner deemed satisfactory by the Operations Monitor and the NY DFS, we could be subject to additional scrutiny by the Operations Monitor or the NY DFS or other regulatory action could be taken against us.

California Department of Business Oversight

In January 2015, OLS reached an agreement with the CA DBO relating to Ocwen’s failure to produce certain information and documents during a routine licensing examination, which resulted in the CA DBO withdrawing its notice of hearing to suspend OLS’ license in California. OLS and the CA DBO entered into a Consent Order pursuant to the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act (the CA Consent Order) with the CA DBO to reflect such settlement. The CA Consent Order addresses and resolves the examination disputes between the CA DBO and OLS, and does not involve any accusation or admission of wrongdoing with regard to OLS’ servicing practices.

Under the terms of the CA Consent Order, OLS paid the CA DBO a penalty of $2.5 million plus costs associated with the examination. OLS also agreed to cease acquiring any additional MSRs for loans secured in California until the CA DBO is satisfied that OLS can satisfactorily respond to the requests for information and documentation made in the course of a regulatory exam.

In addition, the CA DBO has selected an independent third-party auditor (the CA Auditor) to assess OLS’ compliance with laws and regulations impacting California borrowers for an initial term of two years, extendable for one year at the discretion of the CA DBO. OLS must pay all reasonable and necessary costs of the CA Auditor. The CA Auditor will report periodically on its findings and progress and OLS must submit to the CA DBO a written plan to address and implement corrective measures and address any deficiencies identified by the CA Auditor.

We continue to work cooperatively with the CA Auditor. As part of the CA Auditor’s work, from time to time the CA Auditor and the CA DBO have made observations regarding our compliance with various regulations and legal requirements, including the Consent Order. At this time, we believe that we will be able to resolve all matters related to such observations in a constructive manner with the CA DBO, and we are not aware of any issue that we believe will have a material impact on our financial condition. As part of these observations, the CA DBO has informed us of its position that certain onboarding activities relating to new California originations in 2015 were prohibited by the Consent Order and represent a material breach of the agreement. We disagree with this position. Given that we have already made adjustments to our processes for California originations, the CA DBO has not asked us to make any additional changes to such processes at this time. The CA DBO has also raised similar concerns related to our on-boarding of loans subject to subservicing agreements. The CA DBO is still evaluating this activity as it relates to the Consent Order. The CA DBO has not asked us to cease any subservicing activities, and these activities are not material to our overall operations. However, it is possible that the CA DBO could determine to take action against us, which could subject us to financial penalties or other regulatory action, and it is possible that the CA Auditor or the CA DBO could allege that other activities do not comply with California laws or regulations, which could also result in regulatory action against us.

National Mortgage Settlement

In February 2014, the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement involving the CFPB and various state attorneys general and other state agencies that regulate the mortgage servicing industry (NMS Regulators), relating to various allegations regarding deficient mortgage servicing practices, including those with respect to foreclosures, was memorialized by a consent order entered by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (District Court).

We are tested on a quarterly basis on various metrics to ensure compliance with the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement. These metrics relate to various aspects of our servicing business, and each has a proscribed error threshold. These metrics are tested by a dedicated group of Ocwen employees who do not report to the servicing business and are referred to as the Internal Review Group (IRG). The IRG tests these metrics, and reports their findings to the professional firms employed by the Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight (OMSO). OMSO has ultimate authority to accept or reject the IRG’s findings, and OMSO reports its findings to the District Court.

Exceeding the metric error rate threshold for the first time does not result in a violation of the settlement, but rather it is deemed a “potential violation” which then is subject to a cure period. Any potential violation requires us to submit a corrective action plan (CAP) to OMSO for approval and review, and all testing for that metric is suspended until the CAP is completed. Following the completion of the CAP, testing on that metric resumes by the IRG and any further fails in the cure period or the quarter following that cure period would subject us to financial penalties. These penalties start at an amount of not more than $1.0 million for the first uncured violation and increase to an amount of not more than $5.0 million for the second uncured violation.

To date, OMSO’s reports have found six metrics where our testing has exceeded the applicable error rate threshold. Each of those metrics has been the subject of an agreed-upon CAP, and one of those potential fails have been deemed “cured” by OMSO as subsequent testing has not exceeded the metric error rate threshold. The remainder of the metrics are either still under CAPs or the post-cure testing has yet to be validated by OMSO. Moreover, we agreed with OMSO to deem an additional five metrics as having failed due to the letter-dating issues that were raised by the NY DFS in 2014, as the testing of those metrics could have been affected by that issue. Those metrics are subject to a “global CAP” that covers all letter-dating issues under the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement, in addition to any metric-specific CAP plan. It is also possible that if we are found to have caused borrower harm, we would be subject to costs to remediate that harm. In addition, in the event that there were widespread metric failures, it is possible that OMSO or the District Court could determine that we were generally violating the settlement and seek to impose a broader range of financial, injunctive or other penalties on us.

In December 2014, OMSO identified two issues involving our compliance with the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement. The first concerned the adequacy and independence of our IRG, which is responsible for reporting on our compliance with the settlement. The second concerned the letter-dating issues discussed above. OMSO’s reports since then have identified the steps that we have taken to remediate these issues and acknowledged Ocwen’s cooperation. OMSO has recently reported that Ocwen’s IRG appears to be operating in conformity with the National Mortgage Settlement, and noted that the letter-dating issues are subject to the global CAP discussed above.

We continue to work with OMSO on ongoing testing and CAPs. While, to date, these issues have not resulted in financial or other penalties, if we are found to have breached the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement, we could become subject to financial penalties or other regulatory action could be taken against us.

Securities and Exchange Commission

In April 2014, we received a letter from the staff of the New York Regional Office of the SEC (the Staff) informing us that it was conducting an investigation relating to Ocwen and making a request for voluntary production of documents and information relating to the April 2014 surrender of certain options to purchase our common stock by Mr. Erbey, our former Executive Chairman, including the 2007 Equity Incentive Plan and the related option grant and surrender documents. In June 2014, we received a subpoena from the SEC requesting production of various documents relating to our business dealings with Altisource, HLSS, AAMC and Residential and the interests of our directors and executive officers in these companies. Following our announcement in August 2014 that we intended to amend our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, we received an additional subpoena in September 2014 in relation to such amendments. In addition, we received a further subpoena in November 2014 requesting certain documents related to Ocwen’s agreement with Southwest Business Corporation, and related to Mr. Erbey’s approvals for specifically enumerated board actions. We cooperated with the SEC in its investigation.

On January 20, 2016, the SEC entered an administrative order resolving its investigation, which required Ocwen to pay, without admitting or denying liability, a $2.0 million civil money penalty and consent to the entry of an administrative order requiring that we cease and desist from any violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and certain related SEC rules promulgated thereunder. We had previously disclosed in our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2015 that we had reached this resolution in principle with the SEC staff and that we accrued $2.0 million as of September 30, 2015 as we believed this loss was probable and reasonably estimable based on current information.

Separately, on February 10, 2015, we received a letter from the Staff informing us that it was conducting an investigation relating to the use of collection agents by mortgage loan servicers. The letter requested that we voluntarily produce documents and information. We believe that the February 10, 2015 letter was also sent to other companies in the industry. On February 11, 2016, we received a letter from the Staff informing us that it was conducting an investigation relating to fees and expenses charged in connection with liquidated loans and REO properties held in non-agency RMBS trusts. The letter requested that we voluntarily produce documents and information. We are cooperating with the Staff on these matters.

General

In addition to the above matters, our loan origination and servicing businesses require one or more licenses in the various jurisdictions in which we operate. Our licensed entities are required to renew their licenses, typically on an annual basis, and to do so they must satisfy the license renewal requirements of each jurisdiction, which in some cases include the requirement to provide audited financial statements. Last year, our licensed entities did not satisfy the requirements for timely provision of financial statements due to the delay in finalizing the audits for the 2014 fiscal years of these entities.

The same agencies that issue licenses to us engage in regular supervisory examinations of the licensable activities. We are also subject to supervision by the CFPB at the federal level, and it similarly has the authority to conduct regulatory examinations, in addition to its enforcement and investigatory powers. These examinations are part of our ordinary course business activities, and the mere existence of an examination is not typically indicative of anything unusual or material as to that business. The GSEs and their conservator, FHFA, HUD, FHA, VA, Ginnie Mae, the United States Treasury Department, and others also subject us to periodic reviews and audits. We also receive information requests and other inquiries, both formal and informal in nature, from these agencies as part of their general regulatory or other oversight of our origination and servicing businesses.

We also have regular engagements with not only our state financial regulators, but also the attorneys general in the various states and the CFPB to address individual borrower complaints that they bring to our attention, or to respond to information requests and other inquiries. On occasion, we also engage with U.S. attorneys. Many of these matters are brought to our attention as a complaint that the entity is investigating, although some are formal investigations or proceedings. Ocwen is currently in receipt of three Civil Investigative Demands from the CFPB, one Civil Investigative Demand from the Massachusetts Attorney’s General Office and two subpoenas from the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts seeking information about our servicing practices.

To the extent that an examination, monitorship, audit or other regulatory engagement results in an alleged failure by us to comply with applicable law, regulation or licensing requirement, or if allegations are made that we have failed to comply with the commitments we have made in connection with our regulatory settlements or if other regulatory actions of a similar or different nature are taken in the future against us, this could lead to (i) loss of our licenses and approvals to engage in our servicing and lending businesses, (ii) governmental investigations and enforcement actions, (iii) administrative fines and penalties and litigation, (iv) civil and criminal liability, including class action lawsuits, (v) breaches of covenants and representations under our servicing, debt or other agreements, (vi) inability to raise capital and (vii) inability to execute on our business strategy. Any of these occurrences could increase our operating expenses and reduce our revenues, hamper our ability to grow or otherwise materially and adversely affect our business, reputation, financial condition and results of operations.

Loan Put-Back and Related Contingencies

Homeward’s contracts with purchasers of originated loans contain provisions that require indemnification or repurchase of the related loans under certain circumstances. Additionally, in one of the servicing contracts that Homeward acquired in 2008 from Freddie Mac, Homeward assumed the origination representations and warranties even though it did not originate the loans. While the language in the purchase contracts varies, they contain provisions that require Homeward to indemnify purchasers of related loans or repurchase such loans if:


•	representations and warranties concerning loan quality, contents of the loan file or loan underwriting circumstances are inaccurate;


•	adequate mortgage insurance is not secured within a certain period after closing;


•	a mortgage insurance provider denies coverage; or


•	there is a failure to comply, at the individual loan level or otherwise, with regulatory requirements.

We receive origination representations and warranties from our network of approved originators in connection with loans we purchase through our correspondent lending channel. To the extent that we have recourse against a third-party originator, we may recover part or all of any loss we incur.

We believe that, as a result of the current market environment, many purchasers of residential mortgage loans are particularly aware of the conditions under which originators must indemnify or repurchase loans and under which such purchasers would benefit from enforcing any indemnification rights and repurchase remedies they may have.

As our lending business grows, we expect that our exposure to indemnification risks and repurchase requests is likely to increase. If home values were to decrease, our realized loan losses from loan repurchases and indemnifications may increase as well. As a result, our liability for repurchases may increase beyond our current expectations. If we are required to indemnify or repurchase loans that we originate and sell, or where we have assumed this risk on loans that we service, as discussed above, in either case resulting in losses that exceed our related liability, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

We have exposure to origination representation, warranty and indemnification obligations because of our lending, sales and securitization activities and in connection with our servicing practices. Our acquisitions in prior years also created exposure for us to the extent we assumed one or more of these obligations. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, we had outstanding representation and warranty repurchase demands of $97.5 million UPB (506 loans) and $96.6 million UPB (511 loans), respectively. We review each demand and monitor through resolution, primarily through rescission, loan repurchase or make-whole payment.

The following table presents the changes in our liability for representation and warranty obligations, compensatory fees for foreclosures that may ultimately exceed investor timelines and similar indemnification obligations for the following years ended December 31:



	2015			2014			2013
Beginning balance	$	132,918		$	192,716		$	38,140
Provision for representation and warranty obligations	(8,418		)	(1,947		)	18,154
New production reserves	814			1,605			1,325
Obligations assumed in connection with MSR and servicing business acquisitions	—			—			190,658
Payments made in connection with sales of MSRs	(81,498		)	—			—
Charge-offs and other (1)	(7,201		)	(59,456		)	(55,561		)
Ending balance	$	36,615		$	132,918		$	192,716


(1)	Includes principal and interest losses realized in connection with repurchased loans, make-whole, indemnification and fee payments and settlements net of recoveries, if any.

We believe that it is reasonably possible that losses beyond amounts currently recorded for potential representation and warranty obligations and other claims described above could occur, and such losses could have an adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. However, based on currently available information, we are unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses above amounts that have been recorded at December 31, 2015.