Note 19 – 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 a defendant in, or a party or potential party to, many threatened and pending legal proceedings, including proceedings brought by regulatory agencies (discussed further under “Regulatory” below), those brought on behalf of various classes of claimants, and those brought derivatively on behalf of Ocwen against certain current or former officers and directors or others.

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 such as claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, claims related to our payment, escrow 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.

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 loss can be reasonably estimated, we record an accrual for the loss. Excluding expenses of internal or external legal counsel, we have accrued $57.9 million as of March 31, 2017 for losses relating to threatened and pending litigation 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 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 March 31, 2017.

We have previously disclosed several putative securities fraud class action lawsuits filed against Ocwen and certain of its officers and directors that contain allegations in connection with the restatements of our 2013 and first quarter 2014 financial statements and our December 2014 Consent Order with the NY DFS, among other matters. Those lawsuits have been consolidated and are pending in federal court in Florida. In December 2015, the court dismissed the action in part. In November 2016, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification with respect to the pending claims. We have recorded $8.0 million in our consolidated financial statements as of March 31, 2017 related to this certified, consolidated matter based on developments during the quarter. The amount recorded reflects our assessment of the probable contribution Ocwen would make to a settlement and consists of an accrual of $18.0 million, net of $10.0 million expected insurance recoveries. If we are successful in defending ourselves against this matter, it is possible that our losses could be less than $8.0 million. It is also possible that we could incur losses that materially exceed the amount accrued, and the resolution of this matter could have a material adverse impact on our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible loss above amounts previously accrued.

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, liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

As a result of the federal and state regulatory actions described below under “Regulatory”, and the impact on our stock price, several putative securities fraud class action lawsuits have been filed against Ocwen and certain of its officers that contain allegations in connection with Ocwen’s statements concerning its efforts to satisfy the evolving regulatory environment, and the resources it devoted to regulatory compliance. 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, liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

On February 17, 2017, OFC, OLS and Homeward signed an agreement with two qui tam relators to settle the following previously disclosed litigation matters relating to claims under the False Claims Act: (the Fisher Cases). The settlement agreement, which was subsequently approved by the United States, contained no admission of liability or wrongdoing by Ocwen and provided for the payment of $15.0 million to the United States and $15.0 million for the private citizens’ attorneys’ fees and costs. We accrued $30.0 million in 2016 with respect to the settlement agreement. The $57.9 million accrual for litigation matters noted above included the $30.0 million accrual that existed as of March 31, 2017 for the Fisher Cases. We paid the settlement amount in April 2017.

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 relating to our performance under the servicing agreements for those 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 party 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 ourselves against 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, liquidity, 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. Although Ocwen has not yet been sued by an RMBS trustee in response to a notice of default, there is a risk that Ocwen could be replaced as servicer as a result of said notices, that the trustees could take legal action on behalf of the trust certificateholders, or, under certain circumstances, that the investors who issue notices of default could seek to press their allegations against Ocwen, independent of the trustees. At present, one such group of affiliated investors sought to direct one trustee to bring suit against Ocwen. The trustee declined to bring suit, and the investors instead brought suit against Ocwen directly. Ocwen is vigorously defending itself in that action. We are unable at this time to predict what, if any, actions any trustee will take in response to a notice of default, nor can we predict at this time the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of any notices of default 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, cease and desist orders, consent orders, inquiries, subpoenas, civil investigative demands, requests for information and other actions. Where we determine that a loss contingency is probable in connection with a regulatory matter and the amount of our loss can be reasonably estimated, we record an accrual for the loss. 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 regulatory matters that materially exceed any accrued amount. Predicting the outcome of any regulatory matter is inherently difficult and we generally cannot predict the eventual outcome of any regulatory matter or the eventual loss, if any, associated with the outcome.

CFPB

On April 20, 2017, the CFPB filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Southern District of Florida against Ocwen, OMS and OLS alleging violations of federal consumer financial laws relating to our servicing business dating back to 2014. The CFPB’s claims include allegations regarding (1) the adequacy of Ocwen’s servicing platform and integrity of Ocwen’s mortgage servicing data, (2) Ocwen’s foreclosure practices and (3) various purported servicer errors with respect to borrower escrow accounts, hazard insurance policies, timely cancellation of private mortgage insurance, handling of customer complaints, and marketing of optional products. The CFPB alleges violations of unfair, deceptive acts or abusive practices, as well as violations of specific laws or regulations. The CFPB does not claim specific monetary damages, although it does seek consumer relief, disgorgement of allegedly improper gains, and civil money penalties. We believe we have factual and legal defenses to the CFPB’s allegations and intend to vigorously defend ourselves.

Prior to the CFPB instituting legal proceedings, we had been engaged with the CFPB in efforts to resolve the matter. We recorded $12.5 million as of December 31, 2016 as a result of these discussions. If we are successful in defending ourselves against the CFPB, it is possible that our losses could be less than $12.5 million. It is also possible that we could incur losses that materially exceed the amount accrued, and the resolution of the matters raised by the CFPB could have a material adverse impact on our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible loss above amounts previously accrued.

State Licensing, State Attorneys General and Other Matters

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 generally include financial requirements such as providing audited financial statements or satisfying minimum net worth requirements and non-financial requirements such as examinations as to the licensee’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Failure to satisfy any of the requirements to which our licensed entities are subject could result in a variety of regulatory actions ranging from a fine, a directive requiring a certain step to be taken, a suspension or ultimately a revocation of a license, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, we receive information requests and other inquiries, both formal and informal in nature, from our state financial regulators as part of their general regulatory oversight of our loan origination and servicing businesses. We also regularly engage with state attorneys general and the CFPB and, on occasion, we engage with the Department of Justice on various matters, including responding to information requests and other inquiries. Many of our regulatory engagements arise from a complaint that the entity is investigating, although some are formal investigations or proceedings. 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 have in the past resolved, and may in the future resolve, matters via consent orders or payment of monetary amounts to settle issues identified in connection with examinations or regulatory or other oversight activities.

On April 20, 2017 and subsequently, thirty state mortgage and banking regulatory agencies issued orders against OLS and certain other Ocwen companies. In general, the orders are styled as “cease and desist orders,” and we use that term to refer to all of the orders for ease of reference; we also include the District of Columbia regulator as a state regulator for ease of reference. All of the cease and desist orders apply to OLS, but additional Ocwen entities are named in some state orders, including Ocwen Financial Corporation, OMS, Homeward and Liberty. While each state’s cease and desist order is different, the orders generally prohibit a range of actions, including (1) acquiring new MSRs (17 states), (2) originating or acquiring new mortgage loans, where we would be the servicer (13 states), (3) originating or acquiring new mortgage loans (4 states) and (4) conducting foreclosure activities (2 states), among others. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against unfounded claims while continuing to work with these regulatory agencies to resolve their concerns. We are currently working toward an agreement of an escrow account review plan to be conducted by an independent firm engaged by Ocwen. The independent firm would develop a statistically-based sample population, consistent with MMC guidelines (which would be substantially less than the entire loan population), as well as a possible targeted review of escrow accounts linked to certain loan categories. An agreement and implementation of an escrow review plan could be one aspect of a resolution of the cease and desist orders issued by the states described above. We have agreed with certain regulatory agencies, where necessary, to obtain delays or exceptions to the orders. Additionally, we have revised our operations, where necessary, so as to comply with the orders in the interim period while we attempt to negotiate resolutions. For example, in certain states, we are arranging to release servicing on new originations and we have paused our origination activities in two states. If we are unable to obtain timely resolutions in certain states, more serious consequences could result. For example, we could be required to transfer all of our mortgage servicing in Massachusetts and we could be required to cease mortgage servicing in Rhode Island. It is possible that the outcome of these state regulatory actions, whether through negotiated settlements or other resolutions, could be materially adverse to our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible loss related to these matters.

Certain of the state regulators’ cease and desist orders reference a confidential supervisory memorandum of understanding (MOU) that we entered into with the Multistate Mortgage Committee (MMC), a multistate coalition of various mortgage banking regulators, and six states relating to a servicing examination from 2013 to 2015. The MOU contained various provisions relating to servicing practices and safety and soundness aspects of the regulatory review, as a step toward closing the 2013-2015 examination. There were no monetary or other penalties under the MOU. Ocwen responded to the MOU items.

In April 2017, two state attorneys general took actions against us relating to our servicing practices. The Florida Attorney General filed a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Southern District of Florida against Ocwen, OMS and OLS alleging violations of federal and state consumer financial laws relating to our servicing business. These claims are similar to the claims made by the CFPB. The Florida Attorney General’s lawsuit seeks injunctive and equitable relief, costs, and civil money penalties in excess of $10,000 per confirmed violation of the applicable statute. As previously disclosed, the Massachusetts Attorney General had sent us a civil investigative demand requesting information relating to various aspects of our servicing practices, including lender-placed insurance and property preservation fees. Subsequently, the Massachusetts Attorney General filed a lawsuit against OLS in the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts alleging violations of state consumer financial laws relating to our servicing business, including with respect to our activities relating to lender-placed insurance and property preservation fees. The Massachusetts Attorney General’s lawsuit seeks injunctive and equitable relief, costs, and civil money penalties of $5,000 per confirmed violation of the applicable statute. We believe we have valid defenses to the claims made in both lawsuits and are vigorously defending ourselves in both of them. The outcome of these two lawsuits, whether through negotiated settlements in conjunction with other state settlements or otherwise, could be materially adverse to our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible loss related to these matters.

On occasion, we engage with the Department of Justice on various matters. For example, OLS received a letter from the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, notifying OLS that the Department of Justice had initiated a general investigation into OLS’s policies and procedures to determine whether violations of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act by OLS might exist. The letter stated that at this point, the investigation is preliminary in nature and the Department of Justice has not made any determination as to whether OLS violated the act.

In April 2017, Ocwen received a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General of HUD requesting the production of documentation related to lender-placed insurance arrangements with a mortgage insurer and the amounts paid for such insurance. We understand that other servicers in the industry have received similar subpoenas. The subpoena consisted of a request for information but did not contain allegations against us.

New York Department of Financial Services

In December 2014, we entered into a consent order (the 2014 NY Consent Order) with the NY DFS as a result of an investigation relating to Ocwen’s servicing of residential mortgages. The 2014 NY Consent Order contained monetary and non-monetary provisions including the appointment of a third-party Operations Monitor to monitor various aspects of our operations and restrictions on our ability to acquire MSRs that effectively prohibit any such future acquisitions until we have satisfied certain specified conditions. We were also required to pay all reasonable and necessary costs of the Operations Monitor, and those costs were substantial.

On March 27, 2017, we entered into a consent order (the 2017 NY Consent Order) with the NY DFS that provided for (1) the termination of the engagement of the Operations Monitor on April 14, 2017, (2) a regulatory examination of our servicing business, following which the DFS would make a determination on whether the restrictions on our ability to acquire MSRs contained in the 2014 NY Consent Order should be eased and (3) certain reporting and other obligations, including in connection with matters identified in a final report by the Operations Monitor. In addition, if the NY DFS concludes that we have materially failed to comply with these obligations or otherwise finds that our servicing operations are materially deficient, the NY DFS may, among other things and in addition to its general authority to take regulatory action against us, require us to retain an independent consultant to review and issue recommendations on our servicing operations.

California Department of Business Oversight

In January 2015, OLS entered into a consent order (the 2015 CA Consent Order) with the CA DBO relating to our failure to produce certain information and documents during a routine licensing examination. The order contained monetary and non-monetary provisions, including the appointment of an independent third-party auditor (the CA Auditor) to assess OLS’ compliance with laws and regulations impacting California borrowers and a prohibition on acquiring any additional MSRs for loans secured in California. We were also required to pay all reasonable and necessary costs of the CA Auditor, and those costs were substantial.

On February 17, 2017, OLS and two other subsidiaries, Ocwen Business Solutions, Inc. (OBS) and OFSPL, reached an agreement, in three consent orders (collectively, the 2017 CA Consent Order), with the CA DBO that terminated the 2015 CA Consent Order and resolved open matters between the CA DBO and OLS, OBS and OFSPL, including certain matters relating to OLS’ servicing practices and the licensed activities of OBS and OFSPL. The 2017 CA Consent Order does not involve any admission of wrongdoing by OLS, OBS or OFSPL. Additionally, we have certain reporting and other obligations under the 2017 CA Consent Order. If the CA DBO were to allege that we failed to comply with these obligations or otherwise were in breach of applicable laws, regulations or licensing requirements, it could take regulatory action against us.

Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement

In December 2013, we entered into a settlement with the CFPB and various state attorneys general and other state agencies that regulate the mortgage servicing industry relating to various allegations regarding deficient mortgage servicing practices, including those with respect to foreclosures (the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement). The settlement contained monetary and non-monetary provisions, including quarterly testing on various metrics to ensure compliance with the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement.

For periods prior to 2016, the Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight (OMSO) reports have detailed a number of instances where our testing has exceeded the applicable error rate threshold for a specific metric. 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 following submission, approval and completion of a corrective action plan (CAP) to OMSO. 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 for certain metrics. In addition, in the event of substantial noncompliance with the settlement’s servicing standards, it is possible that a party to the settlement could bring an action to enforce the terms of the settlement and seek to impose on us a broader range of financial, injunctive or other penalties. OMSO has not yet released any reports relating to 2016 testing. Ocwen’s Internal Review Group’s analysis for 2016 has not found any instances for a tested metric where we exceeded the applicable error rate threshold, but this analysis has not been validated by any third party.

While, to date, our performance under the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement has not resulted in financial or other penalties, if we are found to have breached the settlement terms, we could become subject to financial penalties or other regulatory action could be taken against us.

Securities and Exchange Commission

In February 2015, we received a letter from the New York Regional Office of the SEC (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 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 incurred 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.

To the extent that an examination, monitorship, audit or other regulatory engagement results in an alleged failure by us to comply with applicable laws, regulations or licensing requirements, or if allegations are made that we have failed to comply with applicable laws, regulations or licensing requirements or the commitments we have made in connection with our regulatory settlements (whether such allegations are made through administrative actions such as cease and desist orders, through legal proceedings or otherwise) 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 and actions to recover incentive and other payments made by governmental entities, (v) breaches of covenants and representations under our servicing, debt or other agreements, (vi) damage to our reputation, (vii) inability to raise capital or otherwise fund our operations and (viii) 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, liquidity and results of operations.

Loan Put-Back and Related Contingencies

Our contracts with purchasers of originated loans contain provisions that require indemnification or repurchase of the related loans under certain circumstances. While the language in the purchase contracts varies, they contain provisions that require us 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.

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.

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. We initially recognize these obligations at fair value. Thereafter, the estimation of the liability considers probable future obligations based on industry data of loans of similar type segregated by year of origination, to the extent applicable, and estimated loss severity based on current loss rates for similar loans, our historical rescission rates and the current pipeline of unresolved demands. Our historical loss severity considers the historical loss experience that we incur upon sale or liquidation of a repurchased loan as well as current market conditions. We monitor the adequacy of the overall liability and make adjustments, as necessary, after consideration of other qualitative factors including ongoing dialogue and experience with our counterparties.

At March 31, 2017 and March 31, 2016, we had outstanding representation and warranty repurchase demands of $45.4 million UPB (249 loans) and $81.9 million UPB (408 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 Three Months Ended March 31,
	2017			2016
Beginning balance	$	24,285		$	36,615
Provision for representation and warranty obligations	(2,680		)	(840		)
New production reserves	181			152
Charge-offs and other (1)	(2,250		)	(3,598		)
Ending balance	$	19,536		$	32,329


(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 March 31, 2017.

Other

OLS, on its own behalf and on behalf of various investors, has been engaged in a variety of activities to seek payments from mortgage insurers for unpaid claims, including claims where the mortgage insurers paid less than the full claim amount. Ocwen believes that many of the actions by mortgage insurers were in violation of the applicable insurance policies and insurance law. Ocwen is in the process of settlement discussions with certain mortgage insurers. In some cases, Ocwen has entered into tolling agreements, initiated arbitration or litigation, or taken other similar actions. While we expect the ultimate outcome to result in recovery of some unpaid mortgage insurance claims, we cannot quantify the likely amount at this time.