XML 39 R28.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2018
Loss Contingency [Abstract] |
Contingencies | Note 20 – 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, among others, the Dodd-Frank Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the Homeowners Protection Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as well as individual state licensing and foreclosure laws and federal and local bankruptcy rules. Such proceedings include wrongful foreclosure and eviction actions, allegations of wrongdoing in connection with lender-placed insurance arrangements, claims relating to our property preservation activities, claims related to REO management, claims relating to our written and telephonic communications with our borrowers such as claims under the TCPA, 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, claims related to ancillary products marketed and sold to borrowers, 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. For example, we are a defendant in various class action matters alleging that (1) certain fees we assess on borrowers are marked up improperly in violation of applicable state and federal law; and (2) the solicitation and marketing to borrowers of certain ancillary products was unfair and deceptive. 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. We have accrued 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. Our accrual for probable and estimable legal and regulatory matters, including accrued legal fees, was $54.3 million at June 30, 2018. We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible losses above amounts that have been recorded at June 30, 2018. In 2014, plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Ocwen in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, alleging that Ocwen violated the FDCPA by charging borrowers a convenience fee for making certain loan payments. See McWhorter et al. v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2:15-cv-01831 (N.D. Ala.). The plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages under the FDCPA, compensatory damages and injunctive relief. The presiding court previously ruled on Ocwen’s motions to dismiss, and Ocwen answered the operative complaint. Ocwen subsequently entered into an agreement in principle to resolve this matter, and the presiding court is considering motions to approve the settlement. While Ocwen believes that it has sound legal and factual defenses, Ocwen has 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. There can be no assurance that the court 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. Our accrual with respect to this matter is included in the $54.3 million legal and regulatory accrual referenced above. We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible loss above the amount accrued. Ocwen has been named in putative class actions and individual actions related to its compliance with the TCPA. Generally, plaintiffs in these actions allege that Ocwen knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA 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. 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 and we have paid the settlement amount into an escrow account held by the settlement administrator. However, there can be no assurance that the court 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. We have previously disclosed the settlement of the consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit that contained allegations in connection with the restatements of our 2013 and first quarter 2014 financial statements, among other matters, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida captioned In re Ocwen Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, 9:14-cv-81057-WPD (S.D. Fla.) (such consolidated lawsuit, the Securities Class Action). In March 2018 and April 2018, respectively, Ocwen was named as a defendant in two separate “opt-out” securities fraud actions brought on behalf of certain putative shareholders of Ocwen based on similar allegations to those contained in the Securities Class Action. See Brahman Partners et al. v. Ocwen Financial Corporation et al., 9:18-cv-80359-DMM (S.D. Fla.) and Owl Creek et al. v. Ocwen Financial Corporation et al., 9:18-cv-80506-BB (S.D. Fla.). Our accrual with respect to these matters is included in the $54.3 million legal and regulatory accrual referenced above. We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible loss above the amount accrued. 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. We have previously disclosed that as a result of the April 2017 federal and state regulatory actions described below under “Regulatory”, and the impact on our stock price, several putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were 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. Those lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the matter captioned Carvelli v. Ocwen Financial Corporation et al., 9:14-cv-9:17-cv-80500-RLR (S.D. Fla.). On April 27, 2018, the court in Carvelli granted our motion to dismiss, and dismissed the consolidated case with prejudice. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a notice of appeal. Ocwen and the other defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously. 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 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. If additional lawsuits are filed, Ocwen intends to vigorously defend itself against such lawsuits. If our efforts to defend the existing lawsuit or any future lawsuit 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 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. Previously, 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 RMBS investors subsequently filed an amended complaint. On January 23, 2018, the court dismissed the RMBS investors’ amended suit with prejudice. The RMBS investors thereafter appealed the district court’s dismissal. Ocwen is vigorously defending itself. 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. 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. 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 initiation of legal proceedings, we had been engaged with the CFPB in efforts to resolve the matter and recorded $12.5 million as of December 31, 2016 as a result of these discussions. Our accrual with respect to this matter is included in the $54.3 million legal and regulatory accrual referenced above. The outcome of the matters raised by the CFPB, whether through negotiated settlements, court rulings or otherwise, could have a material adverse impact on our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. 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, entry into a consent order, 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, payments of monetary amounts and other agreements in order to settle issues identified in connection with examinations 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 29 states and the District of Columbia took regulatory actions against OLS and certain other Ocwen companies that alleged deficiencies in our compliance with laws and regulations relating to our servicing and lending activities. An additional state regulator brought legal action together with that state’s attorney general, as described below. In general, the regulatory actions took the form of orders styled as “cease and desist orders,” and we use that term to refer to all of the orders for ease of reference; for ease of reference we also include the District of Columbia as a state when we reference states below. 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, Liberty, OFSPL and OBS. 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 29 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 would 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 (which prior notice requirement is independent of, and in addition to, applicable state law notice and consent requirements relating to change of control transactions). 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 entered into settlements with certain states on different or additional terms, which include making additional communications with and for borrowers, certain review, reporting and remediation obligations, and the following additional terms:
• | Ocwen agreed with the Connecticut regulatory agency to pay certain amounts only in the event we fail to comply with certain requirements under our agreement with Connecticut.
• | In its agreement with the Maryland regulatory agency, Ocwen agreed to complete an independent management assessment and enterprise risk assessment and to a prohibition, with certain de minimis exceptions, on repurchases of our stock until December 7, 2018. Ocwen also agreed to make certain payments to Maryland, to provide remediation to certain borrowers in the form of cash payments or credits and to pay certain amounts only in the event we fail to comply with certain requirements under our agreement with Maryland.
• | Ocwen agreed with the Massachusetts regulatory agency to pay $1.0 million to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Mortgage Education Trust. Ocwen and the Massachusetts regulatory agency also agreed on a schedule pursuant to which we will regain eligibility to acquire residential MSRs on Massachusetts loans (including loans originated by Ocwen) as it meets certain thresholds in its transition to a new servicing platform. All restrictions on Massachusetts MSR acquisitions will be lifted when Ocwen completes the second phase of a three-phase data integrity audit which will be conducted by an independent third-party following completion of Ocwen’s servicing platform transition.
Following the resolution with Massachusetts, we have resolved all of the administrative actions (but not all of the legal actions, which are described below) taken by state regulators on April 20, 2017 and shortly thereafter. We have taken substantial steps toward fulfilling our commitments under the agreements described above, including, developing and providing periodic updates regarding our plan to transition to an alternate loan servicing system (which our pending acquisition of PHH could help to accelerate), developing and implementing certain enhancements to our consumer complaint process, engaging a third-party auditor who is currently performing escrow-related testing, and complying with our other information sharing and reporting obligations. 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, together with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, 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 lawsuit seeks injunctive and equitable relief, costs, and civil money penalties in excess of $10,000 per confirmed violation of the applicable statute. 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. Previously, 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. 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 above amounts currently accrued. Our accrual with respect to the administrative and legal actions initiated on April 20, 2017 and shortly thereafter is included in the $54.3 million litigation and regulatory matters accrual referenced above. We will also incur costs complying with the terms of the settlements we have entered into, including in connection with the escrow review and transition to a new servicing system. For example, with respect to the escrow review, which is currently underway, we will incur remediation costs to the extent that errors are identified which require remediation. If we fail to comply with the terms of our settlements, additional administrative or legal regulatory actions could be taken against us. Such actions could have a materially adverse impact on our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. 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. 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 was named as a defendant in a HUD administrative complaint filed by a non-profit organization alleging discrimination in the manner in which the company maintains REO properties in minority communities. In February 2018, this matter was administratively closed, and similar claims were filed in federal court. We believe these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves. 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 May 2017, Ocwen received a subpoena from the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program requesting documents and information related to Ocwen’s participation from 2009 to the present in the Treasury Department’s Making Home Affordable Program and its Home Affordable Modification Program. We have been providing documents and information in response to these 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 would forbear from immediately exercising any rights relating to this matter for a period of 90 days from the date of the letter; however, it reserved 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. During such forbearance period, which was extended three times based on the information supplied and the progress we had made, Ocwen provided certain information regarding the cease and desist orders, our resolutions of the cease and desist orders and Ocwen’s business plan, financial results and operations. On July 17, 2018, Ginnie Mae informed us in an e-mail that it considers the matters raised in its July 2017 letter resolved, and that it will provide a formal letter which may contain specific, continuing oversight criteria regarding the matters raised in the July 2017 letter. 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. 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.
We received origination representations and warranties from our network of approved originators in connection with loans we purchased 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 June 30, 2018 and June 30, 2017, we had outstanding representation and warranty repurchase demands of $29.0 million UPB (184 loans) and $55.8 million UPB (282 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:
| Six Months Ended June 30,
| 2018 |  | 2017
Beginning balance | $ | 19,229 |  |  | $ | 24,285 |
Provision for representation and warranty obligations | 2,072 |  |  | (5,125 | )
New production reserves | 198 |  |  | 381 |
Charge-offs and other (1) | (3,643 | ) |  | 209 |
Ending balance | $ | 17,856 |  |  | $ | 19,750 |
(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 June 30, 2018. 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 may, from time to time, have affirmative indemnification claims against parties from whom we acquired MSRs or other assets. Although we pursue these claims, we cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of further recoveries.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LossContingencyAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for loss and gain contingencies. Describes any existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as of the balance sheet date (or prior to issuance of the financial statements) as to a probable or reasonably possible loss incurred by an entity that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur, and typically discloses the amount of loss recorded or a range of possible loss, or an assertion that no reasonable estimate can be made. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 30 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/subtopic&trid=2127197 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/subtopic&trid=2127163 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LossContingencyDisclosures
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration