Commitments and Contingencies | 10. Commitments and Contingencies The Company and its subsidiaries are routinely, and currently, defendants in various legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of our business, including class actions and other private and civil litigation. These proceedings are generally based on alleged violations of consumer protection laws (including the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA")), employment laws and contractual obligations. Similar to other mortgage loan originators and servicers, the Company and its subsidiaries are also routinely, and currently, subject to government and regulatory examinations, investigations and inquiries or other requests for information. The resolution of these various legal and regulatory matters may result in adverse judgments, fines, penalties, injunctions and other relief against the Company as well as monetary payments or other agreements and obligations. In particular, legal proceedings brought under RESPA and other federal or state consumer protection laws that are ongoing, or may arise from time to time, may include the award of treble and other damages substantially in excess of actual losses, attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements, and other consumer and injunctive relief. These proceedings and matters are at varying procedural stages and the Company may engage in settlement discussions on certain matters in order to avoid the additional costs of engaging in litigation. The outcome of legal and regulatory matters is difficult to predict or estimate and the ultimate time to resolve these matters may be protracted. In addition, the outcome of any legal proceeding or governmental and regulatory matter (including the Company's ongoing proceeding with the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (the “CFPB”) described below) may affect the outcome of other pending legal proceedings or governmental and regulatory matters. A liability is established for legal and regulatory contingencies when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of such loss can be reasonably estimated. In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in litigation, legal proceedings and other governmental and regulatory matters, it is not always possible to determine a reasonable estimate of the amount of a probable loss, and the Company may estimate a range of possible loss for consideration in its estimates. The estimates are based upon currently available information and involve significant judgment taking into account the varying stages and inherent uncertainties of such matters. Accordingly, the Company’s estimates may change from time to time and such changes may be material to the consolidated financial results. As of June 30, 2016 , the Company’s recorded liability associated with legal and regulatory contingencies was $110 million and is presented in Other liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets . Given the inherent uncertainties and status of the Company’s outstanding legal proceedings, the range of reasonably possible losses cannot be estimated for all matters. For matters where the Company can estimate the range, the Company believes reasonably possible losses in excess of recorded liability may be up to $150 million in aggregate as of June 30, 2016 . There can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not result in losses in excess of the Company’s recorded liability, or in excess of the estimate of reasonably possible losses. As a result, the ultimate resolution of any particular legal matter, or matters, could be material to the Company’s results of operations or cash flows for the period in which such matter is resolved. The following are descriptions of the Company’s significant legal and regulatory matters. CFPB Enforcement Action. In January 2014, the CFPB initiated an administrative proceeding alleging that the Company’s reinsurance activities, including its mortgage insurance premium ceding practices, have violated certain provisions of RESPA and other laws enforced by the CFPB. Through its reinsurance subsidiaries, the Company assumed risk in exchange for premiums ceded from primary mortgage insurance companies. In November 2014, the Company received a recommended decision from the administrative law judge for the payment of $6.4 million to the CFPB. The Company and the CFPB’s enforcement counsel both appealed the recommended decision to the Director of the CFPB. In June 2015, the Director of the CFPB issued a final order upholding in part, and reversing in part, the recommended decision. The final order requires the Company to pay $109 million , which is based upon the gross reinsurance premiums the Company received on or after July 21, 2008. Subsequently, the Company filed an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the “Court of Appeals”). In August 2015, the Court of Appeals stayed the CFPB's order pending the appeal, and as a result, the Company was not required to post the judgment amount in escrow or comply with injunctive relief provided for in the order. A hearing on the merits of the appeal was held on April 12, 2016. The Company is currently awaiting a ruling from the Court of Appeals on the merits of the appeal, which it expects to receive no later than the end of the third quarter of 2016. While the Company continues to believe that it has complied with RESPA and other laws applicable to its former mortgage reinsurance activities, there can be no assurances as to the final outcome of the appeal. As of June 30, 2016 , the Company's recorded estimate of probable losses in connection with this matter is not material, and is substantially less than the amount reflected in the final order issued by the Director of the CFPB. MMC and NYDFS Examinations. The Company has undergone a regulatory examination by a multistate coalition of certain mortgage banking regulators (the “MMC”) and such regulators have alleged various violations of federal and state consumer protection and other laws related to the Company’s legacy mortgage servicing practices. In July 2015, the Company received a settlement proposal from the MMC, proposing payments to certain borrowers nationwide where foreclosure proceedings were either referred to a foreclosure attorney or completed during 2009 through 2012, as well as other consumer relief and administrative penalties. In addition, the proposal would require that the Company comply with national servicing standards, submit its servicing activities to monitoring for compliance, and other injunctive relief. The Company continues to engage in substantive discussions with the MMC regarding the proposal. The Company believes it has meritorious explanations and defenses to the findings. In the second quarter of 2016, the New York Department of Financial Services ("NYDFS") proposed terms for a consent order to close out pending examination report findings, including New York findings stemming from the MMC examination. Any consent order may subject the Company to monetary penalties, consumer relief payments, oversight of certain activities and other injunctive relief. The Company continues to engage in discussions with and correspond with NYDFS regarding the findings and the proposed consent order terms. The Company believes it has meritorious explanations and defenses to the findings. As of June 30, 2016 , the Company included an estimate of probable losses in connection with the MMC and NYDFS matters in the recorded liability. HUD Subpoenas. The Company has received document subpoenas from the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) requesting production of certain documents related to, among other things, the Company’s origination and underwriting process for loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) during the period between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2011. As part of the investigation, HUD has also requested documents related to a small sample of loans originated during this period. This investigation could lead to a demand or claim under the False Claims Act, which allows for civil penalties and treble damages substantially in excess of actual losses. Several large mortgage originators that participate in FHA lending programs have been subject to similar investigations, which have resulted in settlement agreements that included the payment of substantial fines and penalties. The Company has been cooperating in this investigation since its receipt of the subpoenas in 2013, and certain current and former employees of the Company have been deposed in connection with this matter. The Company is continuing its discussions with HUD about the ongoing investigation. As of June 30, 2016 , the Company included an estimate of probable losses in connection with this matter in the recorded liability. Lender-Placed Insurance. The Company is currently subject to pending litigation alleging that its servicing practices around lender-placed insurance were not in compliance with applicable laws. Through its mortgage subsidiary, the Company did have certain outsourcing arrangements for the purchase of lender-placed hazard insurance for borrowers whose coverage had lapsed. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these allegations; however, the resolution of such matter may result in adverse judgments and other relief against the Company, as well as monetary payments or other agreements and obligations. As of June 30, 2016 , the Company included an estimate of probable losses in connection with this matter in the recorded liability. Other Subpoenas and Investigations. The Company has received document subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. The subpoenas requested production of certain documents related to, among other things: (i) foreclosure expenses that we incurred in connection with the foreclosure of loans insured or guaranteed by FHA, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac and (ii) the origination and underwriting of loans sold pursuant to programs sponsored by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae. In July 2016, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York requested production of additional documents responsive to the subpoenas. There can be no assurance that claims or litigation will not arise from these inquiries, or that fines and penalties, as well as other consumer or injunctive relief, will not be incurred in connection with any of these matters. In addition, in October 2014, the Company received a document subpoena from the Office of the Inspector General of the Federal Housing Financing Agency (the “FHFA”) requesting production of certain documents related to, among other things, our origination, underwriting and quality control processes for loans sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While the FHFA, as regulator and conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, does not have regulatory authority over the Company or its subsidiaries, there can be no assurance that Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac will not assert additional claims as a result of this inquiry. |