Note 21 – 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 even if the potential loss could be material and adverse to our business, reputation, financial condition and results of operations. 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.

The majority of these proceedings are 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, claims relating to fees imposed on borrowers relating to payment processing, payment facilitation, or payment convenience, 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 $31.9 million as of September 30, 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 September 30, 2017.

We have previously disclosed several 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 the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the matter captioned In re Ocwen Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, 9:14-cv-81057-WPD (S.D. Fla.) (such consolidated lawsuit, the Securities Class Action).

In July 2017, following a mediated settlement process resulting in all parties' acceptance of the mediator's recommendation for settlement, we reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter. Subject to final approval by the court, the settlement will include an aggregate cash payment by Ocwen to the plaintiffs of $49.0 million (of which Ocwen expects to recover $14.0 million from insurance proceeds), and an issuance to the plaintiffs of an aggregate of 2,500,000 shares of Ocwen's common stock. Under certain circumstances related to the price of Ocwen's common stock over the five trading days prior to court approval of the settlement, the amount of shares issuable could be increased so that the aggregate number of shares issued has a total value of $7.0 million. However, in no event will Ocwen be required to issue more than 4% of the number of shares of its common stock outstanding as of the date of court approval. Further, in lieu of issuing shares, Ocwen may elect to pay the plaintiffs $7.0 million in cash. Attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs will be paid from the amounts described above.

We paid the $49.0 million cash portion of the settlement in July 2017 and have a remaining accrual of $7.0 million recorded as of September 30, 2017 in connection with this settlement. We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible loss above such accrual. The $7.0 million is included within the $31.9 million litigation accrual referenced above. Recoveries from insurance will reduce our aggregate exposure for this matter and have been recorded as a reduction of Professional services expense in the unaudited consolidated statements of operations.

While Ocwen believes that it has sound legal and factual defenses, Ocwen agreed to this settlement in principle in order to avoid the uncertain outcome of litigation and the additional expense and demands on the time of its senior management that a trial would involve. Following written submissions to the court, in August 2017, the presiding judge preliminarily approved the settlement. There can be no assurance that the settlement will be finally approved by the court. In the event the settlement is not finally approved, the litigation would continue and we would vigorously defend the allegations made against Ocwen. If our efforts to defend against such claims were not successful, our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

In January 2016, Ocwen was named as a defendant in a separate “opt-out” securities fraud action brought on behalf of certain putative shareholders of Ocwen based on similar allegations to those contained in the securities fraud class action lawsuit described above. See Broadway Gate Master Fund, Ltd. et al. v. Ocwen Financial Corporation et al., 9:16-cv-80056-WPD (S.D. Fla.). Dispositive motions are pending in this lawsuit, and trial is set to commence on November 27, 2017. Additional lawsuits may be filed against us in relation to these matters. At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome of this existing “opt-out” lawsuit or any additional lawsuits that may be filed, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of such lawsuits or the potential impact such lawsuits may have on us or our operations. Ocwen and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend against such 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, among other matters. Additional lawsuits may be filed against us in relation to these matters. At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome of these existing lawsuits or any additional lawsuits that may be filed, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of such lawsuits or the potential impact such lawsuits may have on us or our operations. Ocwen and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend against such 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.

Ocwen has been named in putative class actions and individual actions related to its compliance with the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Generally, plaintiffs in these actions allege that Ocwen knowingly and willfully violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by using an automated telephone dialing system to call class members’ cell phones without their consent. On July 28, 2017, Ocwen entered into an agreement in principle to resolve two such putative class actions, which have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. See Snyder v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 1:14-cv-08461-MFK (N.D. Ill.); Beecroft v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 1:16-cv-08677-MFK (N.D. Ill.). Subject to final approval by the court, the settlement will include the establishment of a settlement fund to be distributed to impacted borrowers that submit claims for settlement benefits pursuant to a claims administration process. Our accrual with respect to this matter is included in the $31.9 million litigation accrual referenced above. We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible loss above the amount accrued.

While Ocwen believes that it has sound legal and factual defenses, Ocwen agreed to this settlement in principle in order to avoid the uncertain outcome of litigation and the additional expense and demands on the time of its senior management that such litigation would involve. The court has preliminarily approved the settlement but there can be no assurance that it will finally approve the settlement. In the event the settlement is not finally approved, the litigation would continue, and we would vigorously defend the allegations made against Ocwen. Additional lawsuits may be filed against us in relation to these matters. At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome of these existing lawsuits or any additional lawsuits that may be filed, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of such lawsuits or the potential impact such lawsuits may have on us or our operations. Ocwen intends 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 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 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 RMBS 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 RMBS investors sought to direct one trustee to bring suit against Ocwen. The trustee declined to bring suit, and the RMBS investors instead brought suit against Ocwen directly. The court dismissed the RMBS investors’ suit without prejudice on October 4, 2017, and the investors have subsequently filed an amended complaint. Ocwen intends to defend itself vigorously. 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 system 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 are vigorously defending 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 satisfactorily completing 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 servicing and lending businesses. We also regularly engage with state attorneys general and the CFPB and, on occasion, we engage with other federal agencies, including the Department of Justice and various inspectors general 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, and such resolutions could have material and adverse effects on our business, reputation, operations, results of operations and financial condition.

On April 20, 2017 and shortly thereafter, mortgage and banking regulatory agencies from 30 states and the District of Columbia issued orders against OLS and certain other Ocwen companies that alleged deficiencies in our compliance with laws and regulations relating to our servicing and lending activities. In general, the orders were 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 as a state when we reference states below for ease of reference. All of the cease and desist orders were applicable to OLS, but additional Ocwen entities were named in some orders, including Ocwen Financial Corporation, OMS, Homeward and Liberty. While each cease and desist order was different, the orders generally prohibited 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. In addition, in July 2017, and in connection with the cease and desist orders, we received a subpoena from one state seeking information relating to lender placed insurance activities, consumer complaints and certain other matters, with which we have cooperated. Following the issuance of the orders, we reached agreements with certain regulatory agencies to obtain delays in the enforcement of certain terms or exceptions to certain terms contained in the cease and desist orders. Additionally, we revised our operations based on the terms of the orders while we sought to negotiate resolutions.

We have entered into agreements with 19 states plus the District of Columbia to resolve these regulatory actions. These agreements generally contain the following key terms (the Multi-State Common Settlement Terms):


•	Ocwen will not acquire any new residential mortgage servicing rights until April 30, 2018.


•	Ocwen will develop a plan of action and milestones regarding its transition from the servicing system we currently use, REALServicing^®, to an alternate servicing system and, with certain exceptions, will not board any new loans onto the REALServicing system.

•

In the event that Ocwen chooses to merge with or acquire an unaffiliated company or its assets in order to effectuate a transfer of loans from the REALServicing system, Ocwen must give the applicable regulatory agency prior notice to the signing of any final agreement and the opportunity to object. If no objection is received, the provisions of the first bullet point above shall not prohibit the transaction, or limit the transfer of loans from the REALServicing system onto the merged or acquired company’s alternate servicing system. In the event that an unaffiliated company merges with or acquires Ocwen or Ocwen’s assets, the provisions of the first bullet point above shall not prohibit the transaction, or limit the transfer of loans from the REALServicing system onto the merging or acquiring company’s alternate servicing system.


•	Ocwen will engage a third-party auditor to perform an analysis with respect to our compliance with certain federal and state laws relating to escrow by testing approximately 9,000 loan files relating to residential real property in various states, and Ocwen must develop corrective action plans for any errors that are identified by the third-party auditor.


•	Ocwen will develop and submit for review a plan to enhance our consumer complaint handling processes.


•	Ocwen will provide financial condition reporting on a confidential basis as part of each state’s supervisory framework through September 2020.

In addition to the terms described above, Ocwen has agreed with the Texas regulatory agency on certain additional communications with and for Texas borrowers, as well as certain review and reporting obligations. We also entered into an agreement to resolve the regulatory action brought by Tennessee on separate terms that addressed concerns generally related to financial reporting and two additional states have either withdrawn or allowed their respective cease and desist orders to expire.

As of November 1, 2017, the total number of jurisdictions where we have reached a resolution is 22.

These agreements are generally documented as consent orders or consent agreements that resolve the specific cease and desist or other order brought by the applicable regulatory agency and contain the specific terms agreed with each agency, which in certain instances include certain state specific reporting or other requirements. In all of the above-described agreements, Ocwen neither admitted nor denied liability. None of the agreements contain any monetary fines or penalties, although we will incur costs complying with the terms of these settlements, including in connection with the escrow analysis and transition to a new servicing system. In addition, in the event errors were to be uncovered during the escrow analysis, we could incur costs remedying such errors or other actions could be taken against by regulators or others.

We continue to seek timely resolutions with the remaining nine state regulatory agencies. If Ocwen is successful in reaching such resolutions, they may contain some or all of the Multi-State Common Settlement Terms and may also contain additional terms, including potentially monetary fines or penalties or additional restrictions on our business. There can be no assurance that Ocwen will be able to reach resolutions with the remaining regulatory agencies. It is possible that the outcome of the remaining 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, and continues to provide certain reports and other information pursuant to the MOU.

In April 2017, and concurrent with the issuance of the cease and desist orders and the filing of the CFPB lawsuit discussed above, 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. While we endeavor to negotiate appropriate resolutions in these two matters, we are vigorously defending ourselves, as we believe we have valid defenses to the claims made in both lawsuits. The outcome of these two lawsuits, whether through negotiated settlements, court rulings or otherwise, could potentially involve monetary fines or penalties or additional restrictions on our business and 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 agencies of the federal government 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 addition, Ocwen is one of three defendants in an administrative complaint pending with HUD brought by a non-profit organization alleging discrimination in the manner in which the company maintains REO properties in minority communities. We believe the allegations to be without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these allegations.

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. In May 2016, Ocwen received a subpoena from the Office of Inspector General of HUD requesting the production of documentation related to HECM loans originated by Liberty. We understand that other lenders in the industry have received similar subpoenas.

In July 2017, we received a letter from Ginnie Mae in which Ginnie Mae informed us that the state regulators’ cease and desist orders discussed above create a material change in Ocwen’s business status under Chapter 3 of the Ginnie Mae MBS Guide, and Ginnie Mae has accordingly declared an event of default under Guaranty Agreements between Ocwen and Ginnie Mae. In the letter, Ginnie Mae notified Ocwen that it will forbear from immediately exercising any rights relating to this matter for a period of 90 days from the date of the letter. During such forbearance period, Ginnie Mae has asked Ocwen to provide certain information regarding the cease and desist orders and certain information regarding Ocwen’s business plan, financial results and operations. Ginnie Mae stated that it reserves the right to make additional requests of Ocwen and to restrict or terminate Ocwen’s participation in the Ginnie Mae mortgage-backed securities program. Based on our conversations with Ginnie Mae, we understand that Ginnie Mae views this as a violation with a prescribed remedy and that the purpose of the notice is to provide for a period of resolution. We have provided and intend to continue to provide information to Ginnie Mae as we seek to resolve its concerns, including with respect to our efforts to settle the state regulatory and operational matters outlined by Ginnie Mae. Ginnie Mae has indicated to us that resolution of the state regulators’ cease and desist orders would substantially address its concerns and that there may be other alternatives to address them as well. Based on our progress in resolving the matters raised by Ginnie Mae, Ginnie Mae has extended the forbearance period for an additional 90 days. We continue to operate as a Ginnie Mae issuer in all respects and continue to participate in Ginnie Mae issuing of mortgage-backed securities and home equity conversion loan pools in the ordinary course.

Adverse actions by Ginnie Mae could materially and adversely impact our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations, including if Ginnie Mae were to terminate us as an issuer or servicer of Ginnie Mae securities or otherwise take action indicating that such a termination was planned. For example, such actions could make financing our business more difficult, including by making future financing more expensive or if a lender were to allege a default under our debt agreements, which could trigger cross-defaults under all of our other material debt agreements.

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 (NY 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 NY 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 NY Operations Monitor on April 14, 2017, (2) a regulatory examination of our servicing business, following which the NY 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 NY Operations Monitor. In addition, the 2017 NY Consent Order provides that if the NY DFS concludes that we have materially failed to comply with our obligations under the order 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.

The NY Operations Monitor delivered its final report on April 14, 2017 when its engagement terminated. The final report contained certain recommended operational enhancements to which we have responded. Under the 2017 NY Consent Order, we are required to update the NY DFS quarterly on our implementation of the enhancements that we and the NY DFS agreed should be made. Our updates to date show that all agreed upon enhancements are being implemented.

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. We believe that we have completed those obligations of the 2017 CA Consent Order that have already come due, and we have so notified the CA DBO. 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 2013 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 (the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement). The settlement contained monetary and non-monetary provisions, including quarterly testing on various metrics relating to servicing standards agreed under the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement.

In September 2017, Ocwen reached an agreement in principle with the Monitoring Committee established under the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement relating to a previously disclosed potential violation of one of the tested metrics during the first quarter of 2017. In order to resolve the matter and without agreeing with the Monitoring Committee’s allegations, Ocwen agreed to pay $1.0 million and to provide notices to certain borrowers with active lender placed insurance policies. On September 26, 2017, the court overseeing the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement issued an order approving the agreement in principle. The parties reached this agreement in principle following the filing of the final report of the Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight under the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement. With this final report, the Office of Mortgage Settlement Oversight has concluded all monitoring and testing activities under the Ocwen National Mortgage Settlement.

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. 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. We cooperated with the SEC in both of these matters and voluntarily produced documents and information. On October 2, 2017, we received confirmation from the Staff that it had concluded both investigations as they relate to Ocwen and, based on the Staff’s information as of such date, the Staff did not intend to recommend that any related enforcement action be taken against Ocwen.

To the extent that an examination, 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) administrative fines and penalties and litigation, (ii) loss of our licenses and approvals to engage in our servicing and lending businesses, (iii) governmental investigations and enforcement actions, (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.

In our lending business, we have exposure to indemnification risks and repurchase requests. 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 September 30, 2017 and September 30, 2016, we had outstanding representation and warranty repurchase demands of $40.2 million UPB (213 loans) and $59.3 million UPB (272 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:



Nine months ended September 30,	2017			2016
Beginning balance	$	24,285		$	36,615
Provision for representation and warranty obligations	(3,285		)	(2,403		)
New production reserves	554			615
Payments made in connection with sales of MSRs	—			(1,320		)
Charge-offs and other (1)	(3,036		)	(6,396		)
Ending balance	$	18,518		$	27,111


(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 September 30, 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.

We have outstanding affirmative indemnification claims against parties from whom we have previously acquired MSRs. Although we are pursuing these claims, we cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of our recoveries, which could be material.