XML 128 R29.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.19.3

Contingencies | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2019
Loss Contingency [Abstract] |
Contingencies |
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, those brought derivatively on behalf of Ocwen against certain current or former officers and directors or others and those brought by commercial counterparties, including claims by parties to whom we have sold MSRs or other assets or those on whose behalf we service mortgage loans. 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 FDCPA, the RESPA, the TILA, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, the Homeowners Protection Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the 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 and mortgage reinsurance 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 currently a defendant in various matters alleging that (1) certain fees imposed on borrowers relating to payment processing, payment facilitation, or payment convenience violate the FDCPA, (2) we violated the TCPA by using an automated telephone dialing system to call class members’ cell phones without their consent, (3) we committed securities fraud in connection with certain of our public disclosures, (4) certain fees we assess on borrowers are marked up improperly in violation of applicable state and federal law, (5) the solicitation and marketing to borrowers of certain ancillary products was unfair and deceptive, (6) we breached fiduciary duties we purportedly owe to benefit plans due to the discretion we exercise in servicing certain securitized mortgage loans and (7) certain legacy mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA. In the future, we are likely to become subject to other private legal proceedings alleging failures to comply with applicable laws and regulations, including putative class actions, in the ordinary course of our business. 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, including punitive 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, liquidity 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 $39.0 million at September 30, 2019. We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible losses above amounts that have been recorded at September 30, 2019. 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 (N.D. Ala.). The plaintiffs sought statutory damages under the FDCPA, compensatory damages and injunctive relief. We subsequently entered into an agreement in principle to resolve this matter, and in August 2019, the court granted final approval of the class settlement. While we believe we had sound legal and factual defenses, we agreed to this settlement in order to avoid the uncertain outcome of litigation and the additional expense and demands on the time of our senior management that such litigation would involve. Our accrual with respect to this matter is included in the $39.0 million legal and regulatory accrual referenced above. 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 individuals’ cell phones without their consent. In July 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 (N.D. Ill.); Beecroft v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (N.D. Ill.). In October 2017, the court preliminarily approved the settlement and, thereafter, we paid a settlement amount into an escrow account held by the settlement administrator. However, in September 2018, the Court denied the motion for final approval. In November 2018, the parties engaged in mediation to address the issues raised by the Court in its denial order. The parties thereafter reached agreement on a revised settlement. In June 2019, the court entered an order approving the settlement, and Ocwen is taking steps to satisfy its settlement obligations. The settlement provides for the establishment of a settlement fund to be distributed to class members 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 the settlement 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. Ocwen is also involved in a related TCPA class action that involves claims against trustees of RMBS trusts based on vicarious liability for Ocwen’s alleged non-compliance with the TCPA. The trustees have indicated they may seek indemnification from Ocwen based on the vicarious liability claims. Additional lawsuits have been and may be filed against us in relation to our TCPA compliance. Our accrual with respect to TCPA matters is included in the $39.0 million legal and regulatory accrual referenced above. At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome of existing lawsuits or any additional lawsuits that may be filed, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, above the amount accrued 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, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. We have settled two “opt-out” securities fraud actions brought on behalf of certain putative shareholders of Ocwen based on allegations in connection with the restatements of our 2013 and first quarter 2014 financial statements, among other matters. See Brahman Partners et al. v. Ocwen Financial Corporation et al. (S.D. Fla.) and Owl Creek et al. v. Ocwen Financial Corporation et al. (S.D. Fla.). Both of these cases were dismissed with prejudice in February 2019. We have previously disclosed that as a result of the federal and state regulatory actions taken in April 2017 and shortly thereafter, which are 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. (S.D. Fla.). In April 2018, the court in Carvelli granted our motion to dismiss, and dismissed the consolidated case with prejudice. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and a hearing took place in June 2019. In August 2019, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling dismissing the consolidated case with prejudice. Plaintiffs have until November 13, 2019 to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. 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, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. Over the past several years, lawsuits have been filed by RMBS trust investors alleging that the trustees and master servicers breached their contractual and statutory duties by (i) failing to require loan servicers to abide by their contractual obligations; (ii) failing to declare that certain alleged servicing events of default under the applicable contracts occurred; and (iii) failing to demand that loan sellers repurchase allegedly defective loans, among other things. Ocwen has received several letters from trustees and master servicers purporting to put Ocwen on notice that the trustees and master servicers may ultimately seek indemnification from Ocwen in connection with the litigations. Ocwen has not yet been impleaded into any of these cases, but it has produced and continues to produce documents to the parties in response to third-party subpoenas. Ocwen has, however, been impleaded as a third-party defendant into five consolidated loan repurchase cases first filed against Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc. in 2012 and 2013. Ocwen is vigorously defending itself in those cases against allegations by the mortgage loan seller-defendant that Ocwen failed to inform its contractual counterparties that it had discovered defective loans in the course of servicing them and had otherwise failed to service the loans in accordance with accepted standards. Ocwen is unable at this time to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of these matters 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, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be adversely affected. In addition, several 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. 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, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations. Regulatory We are subject to a number of ongoing federal and state regulatory examinations, 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 In April 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. In September 2019, the court issued a ruling on our motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part. The court granted our motion dismissing the entire complaint without prejudice because the court found that the CFPB engaged in impermissible “shotgun pleading,” holding that the CFPB must amend its complaint to specifically allege and distinguish the facts between all claims. The CFPB filed an amended complaint in October 2019, and we filed our answer and affirmative defenses on November 1, 2019 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 $39.0 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 potentially involve monetary fines or penalties or additional restrictions on our business and 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. In April 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 Ocwen Business Solutions, Inc. (OBS). We entered into agreements with all 29 states plus the District of Columbia to resolve these regulatory actions. These agreements generally contained the following key terms (the Multi-State Common Settlement Terms):
• | Ocwen would not acquire any new residential MSRs until April 30, 2018.
• | Ocwen would develop a plan of action and milestones regarding its transition from the REALServicing servicing system to an alternate servicing system and, with certain exceptions, would not board any new loans onto the REALServicing system.
• | In the event that Ocwen chose to merge with or acquire an unaffiliated company or its assets in order to effectuate a transfer of loans from the REALServicing system, Ocwen was required to comply with regulatory notice and waiting period requirements.
• | Ocwen would 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 would develop corrective action plans for any errors identified by the third-party auditor.
• | Ocwen would develop and submit for review a plan to enhance our consumer complaint handling processes.
• | Ocwen would 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 restrictions, certain review, reporting and remediation obligations, and the following additional terms:
• | Ocwen agreed with the Connecticut Department of Banking 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 Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation, 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 Division of Banks 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 system. 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 system transition. The first phase of this audit, which was required to be completed prior to transitioning any Massachusetts loans to a new servicing system, has already been completed.
• | Ocwen agreed with the Nebraska Department of Banking and Finance until April 30, 2019, to limit its growth through acquisition from correspondent relationships to no more than ten percent per year for Nebraska loans (based on the total number of loans held at the prior calendar year-end).
Accordingly, we have now resolved all of the administrative actions (but not all of the legal actions, which are described below) taken by state regulators in April 2017. We have taken substantial steps toward fulfilling our commitments under the agreements described above, including completing the transfer of loans to Black Knight MSP, developing and implementing certain enhancements to our consumer complaint process, engaging a third-party auditor who has completed the initial testing phase of its escrow review, and complying with our other information sharing and reporting obligations. In April 2017 and shortly thereafter, 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. In September 2019, the court issued its ruling on our motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part. The court granted our motion dismissing the entire complaint without prejudice because the court found that the plaintiffs engaged in impermissible “shotgun pleading,” holding that the plaintiffs must amend their complaint to specifically allege and distinguish the facts between all claims. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 1, 2019. We are reviewing and planning our response to the amended complaint. We believe we have factual and legal defenses to the allegations raised in this lawsuit and are vigorously defending ourselves. The outcome of this lawsuit, whether through a negotiated settlement, 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. Our accrual with respect to this matter is included in the $39.0 million litigation and regulatory matters accrual referenced above. We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible loss above the amount currently accrued. 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. In April 2019, we agreed to resolve this matter without admitting liability. The resolution includes a payment to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of $675,000, a loan modification program for certain eligible Massachusetts borrowers, and certain already-completed relief. The settlement amount of $675,000 was paid in April 2019. Our accrual with respect to the administrative and legal actions initiated in April 2017 is included in the $39.0 million litigation and regulatory matters accrual referenced above. We have also incurred, and will continue to incur costs to comply with the terms of the settlements we have entered into, including the costs of conducting an escrow review, Maryland organizational assessments and Massachusetts data integrity audits, and costs relating to the transition to Black Knight MSP. With respect to the escrow review, although the initial testing phase is now complete, the third-party auditor continues its work, including drafting its final report. To the extent that errors that have been identified require remediation, we will incur costs in connection with remediating those errors. In addition, it is possible that legal or other actions could be taken against us with respect to such errors, which could result in additional costs or other adverse impacts. If we fail to comply with the terms of our settlements, additional legal or other 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 referenced 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. Ocwen responded to the MOU items and continues to provide certain reports and other information pursuant to the MOU. There were no monetary or other penalties imposed under the MOU. However, the MOU prohibited us from repurchasing stock during the development of a going forward plan and, thereafter, except as permitted by the plan. We prepared and submitted a plan that contained no stock repurchase restrictions and, therefore, we do not believe we are currently restricted from repurchasing stock. However, the MMC may not agree with our interpretation. For this reason, and on the basis of our progress to date responding to our obligations under the MOU, we have requested that the MOU be terminated. To the extent that we cannot terminate the MOU, we may remain subject to a share repurchase restriction and continued reporting obligations. 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. We continue to provide information to the Department of Justice and we are engaged in ongoing discussions with the Department of Justice relating to this inquiry. 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 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 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 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 HAMP. We have been providing documents and information in response to these subpoenas. In April 2019, PMC received a subpoena from the VA Office of the Inspector General requesting the production of documentation related to the origination and underwriting of loans guaranteed by the Veterans Benefits Administration. We understand that other servicers in the industry have received similar subpoenas. 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 historical actions by investors, 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. In our servicing business, claims alleging that we did not comply with our servicing obligations may require us to repurchase mortgage loans, make whole or otherwise indemnify investors or other parties. If home values were to decrease, our realized 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 relating to our lending, sales and securitization activities. 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 loan sale or collateral liquidation as well as current market conditions. We have exposure to servicing representation, warranty and indemnification obligations relating to our servicing practices. We record an accrual for a loss contingency if the loss contingency is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. We monitor the adequacy of the overall liability and make adjustments, as necessary, after consideration of our historical losses and other qualitative factors including ongoing dialogue and experience with our counterparties. At September 30, 2019 and September 30, 2018, we had outstanding representation and warranty repurchase demands of $49.9 million UPB (289 loans) and $26.5 million UPB (160 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 and compensatory fees for foreclosures that may ultimately exceed investor timelines and similar indemnification obligations:
| Nine Months Ended September 30,
| 2019 |  | 2018
Beginning balance (1) | $ | 49,267 |  |  | $ | 19,229 |
Provision (reversal) for representation and warranty obligations | (10,367 | ) |  | 4,443 |
New production reserves | 186 |  |  | 259 |
Charge-offs and other (2) (3) | 14,887 |  |  | (6,824 | )
Ending balance (1) | $ | 53,973 |  |  | $ | 17,107 |
(1) | The liability for representation and warranty obligations and compensatory fees for foreclosures is reported in Other liabilities (a component of Liability for indemnification obligations) on our unaudited consolidated balance sheets.
(2) | Includes principal and interest losses realized in connection with repurchased loans, make-whole, indemnification and fee payments and settlements net of recoveries, if any.
(3) | Includes $18.0 million liability for representation and warranty obligations as of September 30, 2019 related to sold advances previously presented as allowance for losses. See Note 7 – Advances.
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, 2019. Other Ocwen, on its own behalf and on behalf of various mortgage loan investors, is 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. In some cases, Ocwen has entered into tolling agreements, initiated arbitration or litigation, engaged in settlement discussions, or taken other similar actions. To date, Ocwen has settled with four mortgage insurers, and expects the ultimate outcome to result in recovery of additional unpaid claims, although we cannot quantify the likely amount at this time. We may, from time to time, have affirmative indemnification and other 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. Similarly, from time to time, indemnification and other claims are made against us by parties to whom we sold MSRs or other assets. We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible loss above amounts recorded.

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://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 30 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/subtopic&trid=2127197 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -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