| 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 borrowers, regulatory agencies (discussed further under “Regulatory” below), current or former employees, those brought on behalf of various classes of claimants, and those brought derivatively on behalf of Onity 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 involving 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, applicable taxing authorities, and parties who provide or provided consulting, subservicing, or other services to Onity. 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, federal and local bankruptcy rules, federal and local tax regulations, and state deceptive trade practices laws. 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 loan modifications and loan assumptions, 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, claims related to untimely recording of mortgage satisfactions, and claims related to tax deficiencies owed by and tax refunds due to us. 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, (4) certain legacy mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA, (5) we failed to subservice loans appropriately pursuant to subservicing and other agreements, and (6) we did not comply with specific state and federal wage and hour laws for certain non-exempt employees. 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 $15.1 million at June 30, 2024. We cannot currently estimate the amount, if any, of reasonably possible losses above amounts that have been recorded at June 30, 2024. 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 similar state statutes. We are currently defending a class action lawsuit challenging, under state and federal law, our practice of charging borrowers a fee to use certain optional payment methods, in Jones v. PHH Mortg. Corp., et al. (D. NJ), which we have filed a motion to dismiss. In addition, between November 2022 and June 2023, we settled the previously disclosed cases of Morris v. PHH Mortg. Corp., et al. (S.D. FL), Torliatt v. PHH Mortg. Corp., et al. (N.D. CA), Thacker v. PHH Mortg. Corp., et al. (N.D. WV), Forest v. PHH Mortg. Corp., et al. (D. RI), and Williams v. PHH Mortg. Corp., et al. (S.D. TX). In addition, we continue to be involved in legacy matters arising prior to Onity’s October 2018 acquisition of PHH Corporation, 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 Corporation’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 Corporation’s captive reinsurance subsidiary, Atrium, were actually provided in order for the safe harbor provision of RESPA to apply. In January 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, and in February 2023 that court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Onity will continue to vigorously defend itself. Our current accrual with respect to this matter is included in the $15.1 million legal and regulatory accrual referenced above. At this time, Onity 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. Onity is a defendant in a certified class action in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of California where the plaintiffs claim Onity marked up fees for property valuations and title searches in violation of California state law. See Weiner v. Ocwen Financial Corp., et al . In May 2020, 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. In October 2023, the parties reached a tentative settlement to resolve the lawsuit prior to trial. A hearing on the parties’ motion for preliminary approval was scheduled for February 29, 2024, but the court postponed that hearing pending the submission of certain additional briefing, which the parties filed on March 8, 2024. On March 29, 2024, the district court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the parties’ settlement agreement, and directing notice to the settlement class. The notice process began on April 29, 2024, and continues until September 29, 2025. The Court also set a Final Fairness Hearing for September 19, 2024. If the proposed settlement is not ultimately approved, Onity will vigorously defend itself. Onity is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of such lawsuit or the potential impact on us or our operations. If our efforts to settle or defend this lawsuit are not successful, our business, financial condition liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. Onity 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 have settled in principle a dispute with a former subservicing client, HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (HSBC). See HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. PHH Mortgage Corp. (Supreme Court of the State of New York). HSBC’s claims related 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 answered the complaint and asserted counterclaims against HSBC for breach of contract. PHH filed a motion for summary judgment on December 19, 2022. In June 2024, PHH and HSBC agreed to settle HSBC’s claims for $3.0 million, which amount was previously accrued. 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. Onity has received several letters from trustees and master servicers purporting to put Onity on notice that the trustees and master servicers may ultimately seek indemnification from Onity in connection with the litigations. Onity 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. Onity 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. Onity is vigorously defending itself in those cases against allegations by the mortgage loan seller-defendant that Onity 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. In September 2023, the Court granted in part Onity’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing Nomura’s “failure to notify” claim in its entirety; the Court, however, denied Onity’s motion with respect to Nomura’s second claim alleging failure to service loans in accordance with accepted standards. In May 2024, Onity filed its opening brief in its appeal of the Court’s partial denial of Onity’s summary judgment motion. The scope of any resulting trial is uncertain, and thus Onity 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 Onity has not been sued by an RMBS trustee in response to an event of default notice, there is a risk that Onity 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 Onity, 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 Onity were to be terminated as servicer, or other related legal actions were pursued against Onity, it could have an adverse effect on Onity’s business, reputation, financial condition, liquidity, and results of operations. Regulatory We are subject to a number of ongoing federal and state regulatory examinations, 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. 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. We regularly 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 licensed servicing and lending businesses, as well as from state attorneys general, the CFPB and other federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, HUD and various inspectors general. For example, we have received requests regarding the charging of certain fees to borrowers (including our practice of charging borrowers a fee to use certain optional payment methods, or “convenience fees”); 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, and engage with us on various matters. For example, we are currently engaged with several regulators on guidance and applicable law related to borrower convenience fees. 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. Our current accrual with respect to these matters is included in the $15.1 million legal and regulatory accrual referenced above. Loan Put-Back and Related Contingencies We have exposure to representation, warranty and indemnification obligations relating to our lending, loan sales and securitization activities, and servicing practices. 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 may incur. We do not provide or assume any origination representations and warranties in connection with our MSR purchases. At June 30, 2024 and June 30, 2023, we had outstanding representation and warranty repurchase demands of $24.5 million UPB (69 loans) and $39.1 million UPB (142 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, 2024 2023 Beginning balance (1) $ 32.9 $ 41.6 Provision for (reversal of) representation and warranty obligations (1.0) 2.1 Provision for representation and warranty obligations - New production liability 0.9 0.6 Charge-offs and other (2) 0.2 (6.2) Ending balance (1) $ 33.0 $ 38.1 (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 reclassification of principal and interest losses 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, 2024 . Other We may, from time to time, have affirmative indemnification and other claims against service providers, parties from whom we purchased MSRs or other assets, investors or other parties. 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. |
