| 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, and those brought derivatively on behalf of Ocwen against certain current or former officers and directors or others. In addition, we may be a party or potential party to threatened or pending legal proceedings brought by fair-housing advocates, commercial counterparties, including claims by parties who provide trustee services, parties to whom we have sold MSRs or other assets, parties on whose behalf we service mortgage loans, and parties who provide ancillary services including property preservation and other post-foreclosure related services. 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, 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 payment processing, payment facilitation or payment convenience, claims related to ancillary products marketed and sold to borrowers, claims related to call recordings, 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 and similar state laws, (2) certain fees we assess on borrowers are 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 $40.4 million at March 31, 2021. We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible losses above amounts that have been recorded at March 31, 2021. 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 laws similar to the FDCPA. Ocwen has recently 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 practice of charging a fee to borrowers who voluntarily choose to 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. A motion requesting preliminary approval of the settlement was filed on August 25, 2020. Several third parties, including a group of State Attorneys General, have filed papers opposing preliminary approval, and these third parties could ultimately file objections to the proposed settlement. Following the preliminary approval hearing, PMC and plaintiffs renegotiated portions of the settlement agreement to address several questions raised by the Court, and subsequently filed a renewed motion for preliminary approval. Ocwen expects final approval of the Morris settlement will resolve the claims of the substantial majority of the putative class members described in the other similar cases that Ocwen is defending. Ocwen cannot guarantee that the proposed settlement will receive final approval and in the absence of such approval, Ocwen cannot predict the eventual outcome of the Morris proceeding and similar putative class actions. 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 in 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., No. 1:08-cv-00759-DAD-BAM (E.D. Ca.). 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 2, 2007 and December 31, 2009. PHH has asserted numerous defenses to the merits of the case. On August 12, 2020, the Court granted, in part, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The only issue remaining for trial is 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. A pre-trial conference was held on February 1, 2021. The Court declined to set a trial date due to COVID issues and strained judicial resources. Instead, the Court will resume the Pre-Trial Conference on May 24, 2021, to determine when a trial may be feasible. PHH accrued $2.5 million when the case was filed in 2008 and that amount is included in the $40.4 million legal and regulatory accrual referenced above. 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, 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. Although they have yet to take any formal action, the trustees have indicated their intent to seek indemnification from Ocwen based on the vicarious liability claims. However, a recent Supreme Court decision significantly undercuts the predominant theory of liability under the TCPA, and should provide even greater defenses on which the Company 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 .; 2:14-cv-02597-MCE-DB. Ocwen’s motion for summary judgment, filed in June 2019, was denied in May 2020; however, the court did rule that plaintiff’ 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. A jury trial was scheduled for August 30, 2021, however on April 12, 2021, the case was reassigned to a new district judge and we are anticipating the new judge will advise soon on any changes to the schedule. 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. From time to time we are also subject to indemnification claims from contractual parties (i) on whose behalf we service or subservice loans, or did so in the past and (ii) to whom we sold loans or MSRs. 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 N.Y.; Index No. 655868/2020). HSBC’s claims relate to alleged breaches of agreements entered into under a prior subservicing arrangement. We believe we have strong factual and legal defenses to all of HSBC’s 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. We are also currently involved in three lawsuits pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York with a purchaser of MSRs, Mr. Cooper (formerly Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc.), who alleges breaches of representations and warranties made by PHH in the MSR sale agreements. The initial complaint filed in the first case was dismissed in its entirety, but Mr. Cooper has since appealed that ruling, filed an amended complaint in that case, and commenced the second and third litigation. We believe we have strong factual and legal defenses to Mr. Cooper’s claims and are vigorously defending ourselves. We have also received demands for indemnification for alleged breaches of representations and warranties from parties to whom we sold loans and we are currently a defendant in an adversary proceeding brought by a bankruptcy plan administrator seeking to enforce its right to contractual indemnification for the sale of allegedly defective mortgage loans. 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. 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, 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. 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 in November 2019. Ocwen and the CFPB completed a summary judgment briefing on September 4, 2020. The parties participated in a mediation session on October 23, 2020,and held additional settlement discussions following the conclusion of the mediation session, 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 court held that to the extent counts 1-9 concern servicing activity occurring after the expiration of the NMS consent judgment on February 26, 2017, res judicata is not a bar and therefore ordered the CFPB to submit a supplemental statement concerning its intent to pursue claims for servicing activity post-dating the expiration of the NMS Consent Judgment. As to the remaining count, the court denied the summary judgment motions of both parties, concluding that the summary judgment record revealed a genuine issue of fact. In a subsequently-filed position statement, the CFPB stated it would not be pursuing counts 1–9 for any conduct that took place after February 26, 2017, and on April 19, 2021, the CFPB 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 has filed a notice of appeal. Our current accrual with respect to this matter is included in the $40.4 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 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. An additional state regulator brought legal action together with that state’s attorney general, as described below. These administrative actions were applicable to OLS, but additional Ocwen entities were named in some actions, including Ocwen Financial Corporation, OMS, Homeward, Liberty, OFSPL and Ocwen Business Solutions, Inc. (OBS). As discussed further below, we have now resolved all of the state regulatory matters arising in April 2017. In resolving these matters, we entered into agreements containing certain restrictions and commitments with respect to the operation of our business and our regulatory compliance activities, including 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. In some instances, we also provided borrower financial remediation and made payments to state regulators. We have taken substantial steps toward fulfilling our commitments under the agreements described above, including completing the transfer of loans to Black Knight MSP, completing pre-transfer and post-transfer data integrity audits, developing and implementing certain enhancements to our consumer complaint process, completing a third-party escrow review and ongoing reporting and information sharing. We continue to be subject to obligations under these agreements, including completing the final phase of a data integrity audit under our agreement with the State of Massachusetts. Concurrent with the initiation of the administrative actions and the filing of the CFPB lawsuit discussed above, 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 (ten thousand dollars) 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 in November 2019. We filed a partial motion to dismiss the amended complaint in December 2019. On April 22, 2020, the court granted our motion and dismissed Count V of the amended complaint with prejudice holding the plaintiff failed to plead an actionable claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. On May 6, 2020, Ocwen filed its answer and affirmative defenses to the amended complaint. Ocwen and the plaintiffs completed a summary judgment briefing on September 4, 2020. On October 15, 2020, we announced that we had reached an agreement to resolve the Florida plaintiffs’ lawsuit. Pursuant to that agreement, Ocwen was required to pay the State of Florida $5.2 million within 60 days of the Court entering the final consent judgment between the parties. Ocwen then has an additional two years to provide debt forgiveness totaling at least $1.0 million to certain Florida borrowers. If Ocwen is unable to do so, then two years from now it will owe the State of Florida an additional $1.0 million. We anticipate that we will be able to satisfy the debt forgiveness obligation and therefore do not presently anticipate that the additional $1.0 million payment will be required. In addition, Ocwen agreed to certain late fee waivers, a targeted loan modification program for certain eligible Florida borrowers, and certain non-monetary reporting and handling obligations. Ocwen did not admit any fault or liability as part of the settlement. An Amended Final Consent Judgment was entered on October 27, 2020 and Ocwen satisfied the monetary portions of the settlement on December 17, 2020. Although we believe we had strong defenses to all of Florida’s claims, this was an opportunity to resolve one of Ocwen’s remaining significant legacy matters, and to do so without incurring further expense in preparing for trial. Our accrual with respect to the administrative and legal actions initiated in April 2017 is included in the $40.4 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, the third-party auditor has issued its final report and we have completed all required remediation measures required as part of that review. 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) and six states relating to a servicing examination from 2013 to 2015. Among other things, the MOU prohibited us from repurchasing stock during the development of a going forward plan and, thereafter, except as permitted by the plan. We submitted a plan in 2016 that co |
