individual claims should be arbitrated pursuant to the parties’ arbitration agreement, (2) the class claims should be struck from the First Amended Complaint, and (3) the plaintiff will proceed solely with regard to her PAGA claims. This case was consolidated with the Batres v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage case discussed below with a rescheduled trial date of January 18, 2022. On October 28, 2021, the Company entered into a settlement agreement, which was amended and restated on February 17, 2022. On March 14, 2022, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. No assurances can be given that such settlement will receive final approval by the court.
Batres v. Impac Mortgage Corp.
On December 27, 2018, a purported class action was filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County, entitled Batres v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage. The plaintiff contends the defendant did not pay the plaintiff and purported class members overtime compensation, provide required meal and rest breaks, or provide accurate wage statements. The action seeks damages, restitution, penalties, interest, attorney’s fees, and all other appropriate injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief. On March 14, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging only PAGA violations and seeking penalties, attorneys’ fees, and such other appropriate relief. This case was consolidated with the McNair v. Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage discussed above with a rescheduled trial date of January 18, 2022. On October 28, 2021, the Company entered into a settlement agreement, which was amended and restated on February 17, 2022. On March 14, 2022, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. No assurances can be given that such settlement will receive final approval by the court.
UBS Americas Inc., et al. v. Impac Funding Corporation et al.
On December 17, 2021, a summons with notice was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (NY Court), initiating a lawsuit entitled UBS Americas Inc., et al. v. Impac Funding Corporation et al. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants are required to indemnify payments that plaintiffs made to resolve claims asserted by the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and HSH Nordbank AG related to certain residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). Plaintiffs contend that the RMBS included loans that the defendants allegedly sold to certain UBS entities in breach of contractual representations and warranties. Plaintiffs further contend that they settled the cases for which plaintiffs are demanding indemnification in December 2015 and March 2016. On April 18, 2022, the Company accepted service of the summons with notice on behalf of Impac Funding Corp. and Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. On June 2, 2022, a complaint was filed with the NY Court related to the summons with notice, however Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. was no longer listed as a defendant in the matter. On July 25, 2022, Impac Funding Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.
CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC v Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. and Impac Mortgage Corp.
On August 4, 2022, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio – Eastern Division by CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC (Plaintiff) against the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary Impac Mortgage Corp. dba CashCall Mortgage (IMC). The Plaintiff alleges infringement of Plaintiff’s federally-registered trademark, unfair competition and false designation of origin and for substantial and related claims of deceptive trade practice under the statutory and common laws of the State of Ohio. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive and monetary relief. The Company and IMC were served with the complaint on August 8, 2022. The Company and IMC believe the claims are without merit and we intend to defend ourselves vigorously.
The Company is a party to other litigation and claims which are in the course of the Company’s operations. While the results of such other litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company believes the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to defend these claims vigorously and as such the Company believes the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations. Nevertheless, litigation is uncertain and the Company may not prevail in the lawsuits and can express no opinion as to their ultimate resolution. An adverse judgment in any of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position and results of operations.
Please refer to IMH’s report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 for additional information regarding litigation and claims.