XML 44 R30.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2

Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2022
Loss Contingency [Abstract] |
Contingencies |
Note 22 – 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, and those brought under the False Claims Act by private citizens on behalf of the U.S. In addition, we may be a party or potential party to threatened or pending legal proceedings brought by fair-housing advocates, current and former commercial counterparties and market competitors, including, among others, claims related to the sale or purchase of loans, MSRs or other assets, and breach of contract actions, parties on whose behalf we service or serviced mortgage loans, parties who provide ancillary services including property preservation and other post-foreclosure related services, and parties who provide or provided consulting, subservicing, or other services to Ocwen. 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, bankruptcy violation actions, payment misapplication 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 and individual state laws, claims related to our payment, escrow and other processing operations, claims relating to fees imposed on borrowers relating to inspection fees, foreclosure attorneys’ fees, reinstatement fees, foreclosure registration fees, payment processing, payment facilitation or payment convenience fees, claims related to ancillary products marketed and sold to borrowers, claims related to call recordings, claims regarding certifications of our legal compliance related to our participation in certain government programs, claims related to improper occupancy inspections, and claims related to untimely recording of mortgage satisfactions. 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 and similar state laws, (2) certain fees we assess on borrowers are improperly assessed and/or marked up improperly in violation of applicable state and federal law, (3) we breached fiduciary duties we purportedly owe to benefit plans due to the discretion we exercise in servicing certain securitized mortgage loans, and (4) 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 $43.6 million at June 30, 2022. We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible losses above amounts that have been recorded at June 30, 2022. As previously disclosed, we are subject to individual lawsuits relating to our FDCPA compliance and putative state law class actions based on the FDCPA and state statutes similar to the FDCPA. Ocwen agreed to a settlement in principle of a putative class action, Morris v. PHH Mortgage Corp., filed in March 2020 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that PMC’s and legacy Ocwen’s practices of charging a fee to borrowers who voluntarily use certain optional expedited payment options violates the FDCPA and its state law analogs. Several similar putative class actions have been filed against PMC and Ocwen since July 2019. Following mediation, PMC agreed to the terms of a settlement agreement to resolve all claims in the Morris matter. During the preliminary approval process, several third parties, including a group of state Attorneys General, expressed opposition to the proposed settlement. As a result of this opposition, we also received requests for information from various state regulators and Attorneys General regarding our practices, to which we have responded in due course. On November 8, 2021, in a similar lawsuit also challenging our convenience fees practices in California, Torliatt v. PHH Mortgage Corp. (pending in the Northern District of California), the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and certified a class of California borrowers. Because the certified Torliatt class overlaps with the putative class certified in Morris, the Morris settlement could not move forward in its current form. Following a mediation in the Torliatt matter, the parties reached an agreement on the terms of a settlement. The parties filed a stipulation of settlement and motion for preliminary approval on June 27, 2022, and on July 20, 2022, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. Ocwen cannot predict whether the proposed settlement will receive final approval and in the absence of such approval, Ocwen cannot predict the eventual outcome of the Torliatt proceeding and similar putative class actions. Nor can Ocwen predict whether courts will agree with the CFPB’s recent Advisory Opinion, issued on June 29, 2022, which concludes that the charging of convenience fees violates the FDCPA where such fees are neither specifically permitted by the applicable loan documents nor by state law. In addition, we continue to be involved in legacy matters arising prior to Ocwen’s October 2018 acquisition of PHH, including a putative class action filed in 2008 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California against PHH and related entities alleging that PHH’s legacy mortgage reinsurance arrangements between its captive reinsurer, Atrium Insurance Corporation, and certain mortgage insurance providers violated RESPA. See Munoz v. PHH Mortgage Corp. et al. (Eastern District of California). In June 2015, the court certified a class of borrowers who obtained loans with private mortgage insurance through PHH’s captive reinsurance arrangement between June 2007 and December 2009. PHH asserted numerous defenses to the merits of the case. Following pre-trial developments in August 2020, the only issues remaining for trial were whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims and whether the reinsurance services provided by PHH’s captive reinsurance subsidiary, Atrium, were actually provided in order for the safe harbor provision of RESPA to apply. On January 31, 2022, the Court denied a motion by the plaintiffs to enter new evidence and a motion by PHH to decertify the class, which motion PHH may renew if the case ultimately goes to trial. Following the entry of this order, at the request of the parties, the Court dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing and entered judgment in favor of PHH. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ocwen will continue to vigorously defend itself. Our current accrual with respect to this matter is included in the $43.6 million legal and regulatory accrual referenced above. At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of such lawsuit. If our efforts to defend this lawsuit are not successful, our business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. The same plaintiffs who filed a TCPA class action against Ocwen subsequently filed a similar class action against trustees of RMBS trusts based on vicarious liability for Ocwen’s alleged non-compliance with the TCPA. This class action filed against the trustees has settled, and while the trustees previously have indicated their intent to seek indemnification from Ocwen based on the vicarious liability claims, they have yet to take any formal action. Additional lawsuits have been and may be filed against us in relation to our TCPA compliance. However, a recent Supreme Court decision significantly undercuts the predominant theory of liability under the TCPA, and should provide even greater defenses on which Ocwen can rely when defending existing lawsuits or any additional lawsuits that may be filed. Nevertheless, given the recency of this Supreme Court decision, and the lack of opportunity for lower courts to interpret and apply it, it remains difficult to predict 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. Ocwen is a defendant in a certified class action in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of California where the plaintiffs claim Ocwen marked up fees for property valuations and title searches in violation of California state law. See Weiner v. Ocwen Financial Corp., et al. Ocwen’s motion for summary judgment, filed in June 2019, was denied in May 2020; however, the court ruled that plaintiff’s recoverable damages are limited to out-of-pocket costs, i.e., the amount of marked-up fees actually paid, rather than the entire cost of the valuation that plaintiffs sought. Ocwen has moved to decertify the class. A jury trial was scheduled to commence March 7, 2022, but on December 22, 2021, the Court vacated the trial setting and associated pretrial conference due to a conflict with the Court’s trial schedule and indicated it would reset the dates after it issues a ruling on the decertification motion and a motion to compel testimony filed by the plaintiffs. On August 2, 2022, the Court granted Ocwen’s motion for decertification. At this time, Ocwen is unable to predict the outcome of this 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 intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. If our efforts to defend this lawsuit are not successful, our business, financial condition liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. Ocwen may have affirmative indemnification rights and/or other claims against third parties related to the allegations in the lawsuit. Although we may pursue these claims, we cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of recoveries from these third parties. We are currently involved in a dispute with a former subservicing client, HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (HSBC), which filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against PHH. See HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. PHH Mortgage Corp. (Supreme Court of the State of New York). HSBC’s claims relate to alleged breaches of agreements entered into under a prior subservicing arrangement and origination assistance agreement. In its complaint, HSBC also asserted a claim for fraud, which was dismissed by the Court. PHH has answered the complaint and has asserted counterclaims against HSBC for breach of contract. We believe we have strong factual and legal defenses to the remaining claims and are vigorously defending the action. Ocwen is currently unable to predict the outcome of this dispute or estimate the size of any loss which could result from a potential resolution reached through litigation or otherwise. 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 events of default alleging material failures by servicers to comply with applicable servicing agreements. Although Ocwen has not been sued by an RMBS trustee in response to an event of default notice, 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 certificate holders, or, under certain circumstances, that the RMBS investors who issue notices of event 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 an event of default notice, nor can we predict at this time the potential loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of any event of default notice or the potential impact on our operations. If Ocwen were to be terminated as servicer, or other related legal actions were pursued against Ocwen, it could have an adverse effect on Ocwen’s business, 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. We may also on occasion be subject to foreign regulatory actions in the countries where we operate outside the U.S. 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. Our accrual for probable and estimable legal and regulatory matters, including accrued legal fees, was $43.6 million at June 30, 2022. We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible losses above amounts that have been recorded at June 30, 2022. 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, Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (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 laws prohibiting unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices, as well as violations of other 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. The parties participated in mediation in October 2020 and subsequently held additional settlement discussions. However, the parties were unable to reach a resolution of the litigation. On March 4, 2021, the court issued an order granting in part and reserving ruling in part on Ocwen’s motion for summary judgment. In that order, the court granted Ocwen summary judgment on 9 of 10 counts in the CFPB’s amended complaint, finding that the CFPB’s allegations were barred under the principles of claim preclusion or res judicata to the extent those claims are premised on servicing activity occurring prior to February 26, 2017 and are covered by a 2014 Consent Judgment entered by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The CFPB subsequently filed its Second Amended Complaint to remove count 10 as well as allegations in counts 1-9 concerning servicing activity that occurred after February 26, 2017. On April 21, 2021, the court entered final judgment in our favor, denied all pending motions as moot, and closed the case. The CFPB thereafter filed a notice of appeal. Appellate briefing concluded August 26, 2021, and oral argument before the Eleventh Circuit occurred on February 10, 2022. On April 6, 2022, the Eleventh Circuit issued its opinion, largely adopting the district court’s decision precluding the CFPB from bringing claims covered by the National Mortgage Settlement, but vacating and remanding the case back to the district court to determine which, if any, claims are not covered and may still be brought by the CFPB. Neither party sought rehearing of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision and therefore, the case has been remanded back to the trial court for further briefing. Ocwen will continue to vigorously defend itself. Our current accrual with respect to this matter is included in the $43.6 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, as well as from state attorneys general, the CFPB and other federal agencies, including the Department of Justice and various inspectors general. For example, we have received requests regarding the charging of certain fees to borrowers; the post-boarding process to verify loan and payment terms are properly implemented, calculated, and applied; bankruptcy practices; COVID-19-related forbearance and post-forbearance options; and Homeowner Assistance Fund participation and implementation. 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 administrative 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. We resolved the majority of these matters in 2017 and resolved the remaining matters in early 2018 An additional state regulator brought legal action together with that state’s attorney general, which we resolved in 2020. In resolving these matters, we entered into agreements that contained certain restrictions and commitments with respect to the operation of our business and our regulatory compliance activities, including certain restrictions and conditions relating to acquisitions of MSRs, a transition to an alternate loan servicing system from the REALServicing system, engagement of third-party auditors, escrow and data testing, error remediation, and financial condition reporting. We also provided certain borrower financial remediation and made payments to state regulators. We believe we have completed all material obligations under these agreements, although a few remaining reporting and other such obligations are ongoing. On occasion, we engage with agencies of the federal government on various matters. For example, Ocwen was named as a defendant in a HUD administrative complaint filed by a non-profit organization in 2017 alleging discrimination in the manner in which Ocwen 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 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 in the Treasury Department’s Making Home Affordable Program. Ocwen has also received subpoenas that appear to relate to federal government agency initiatives relating to our industry generally, since we understand other lenders and servicers have received similar subpoenas. These include subpoenas in 2016 and 2017 from the Office of Inspector General of HUD requesting documentation related to HECM loans and lender-placed insurance arrangements with a mortgage insurer and a 2019 subpoena from the VA Office of the Inspector General requesting documentation related to the origination and underwriting of loans guaranteed by the Veterans Benefits Administration. In each instance, we have provided documents and information in response to these subpoenas. Loan Put-Back and Related Contingencies We have exposure to representation, warranty and indemnification obligations relating to our Originations business, including lending, sales and securitization activities, and relating to our servicing practices. At June 30, 2022 and June 30, 2021, we had outstanding representation and warranty repurchase demands of $51.9 million UPB (270 loans) and $50.7 million UPB (267 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 similar indemnification obligations:
| Six Months Ended June 30,
| 2022 |  | 2021
Beginning balance (1) | $ | 49,430 |  |  | $ | 40,374 |
Provision (reversal) for representation and warranty obligations | (2,185) |  |  | 458 |
New production liability | 1,393 |  |  | 1,993 |
Charge-offs and other (2) | (5,923) |  |  | (1,247) |
Ending balance (1) | $ | 42,715 |  |  | $ | 41,578 |
(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. 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, 2022. 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 five 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 service providers and parties from whom we purchased 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 or by parties on whose behalf we service mortgage loans. 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: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration