Note 6 - Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2021
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies Contingencies — Prior to 2016, the Company originated, purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage securities. The Company has received indemnification and loan repurchase demands with respect to alleged violations of representations and warranties (“defects”) and with respect to other alleged misrepresentations and contractual commitments made in loan sale and securitization agreements. These demands have been received substantially beginning in 2006 and have continued into recent years. Prior to the Company ceasing the origination of loans in its mortgage lending business, it sold loans to securitization trusts and other third parties and agreed to repurchase loans with material defects and to otherwise indemnify parties to these transactions. Beginning in 1997 and ending in 2007, affiliates of the Company sold loans to securitization trusts and third parties with the potential of such obligations. The aggregate original principal balance of these loans was $43.1 billion at the time of sale or securitization. The remaining principal balance of these loans is not available as these loans are serviced by third parties and may have been refinanced, sold or liquidated. Claims to repurchase loans or to indemnify under securitization documents have not been acknowledged as valid by the Company. In some cases, claims were made against affiliates of the Company that have ceased operations and have no or limited assets. The Company has not repurchased any loans or made any such indemnification payments since 2010. Historically, repurchases of loans or indemnification of losses where a loan defect has been alleged have been insignificant and any future losses for alleged loan defects have not been deemed to be probable or reasonably estimable; therefore, the Company has recorded no reserves related to these claims. The Company does not use internal groupings for purposes of determining the status of these loans. The Company is unable to develop an estimate of the maximum potential amount of future payments related to repurchase demands because the Company does not have access to information relating to loans sold and securitized and the number or amount of claims deemed probable of assertion is not known nor is it reasonably estimated. Further, the validity of claims received remains questionable. Also, considering that the Company completed its last sale or securitization of loans during 2007, the Company believes that it will be difficult for a claimant to successfully validate any additional repurchase demands. Management does not expect that the potential impact of claims will be material to the condensed consolidated financial statements. Pending Litigation — The Company is a party to various legal proceedings. Except as set forth below, these proceedings are of an ordinary and routine nature. Any legal fees associated with these proceedings are expensed as incurred. Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of any legal proceeding, in the opinion of management, other than the active proceedings described in detail below, proceedings and actions against the Company should not, individually, or in the aggregate, have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, operations and liquidity. Furthermore, due to the uncertainty of any potential loss as a result of pending litigation and due to the Company's belief that an adverse ruling is not probable, the Company has not accrued a loss contingency related to the following matters in its condensed consolidated financial statements. However, a material outcome in one or more of the active proceedings described below could have a material impact on the results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year. On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation (“NMFC”) and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. ("NMI"), wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company (“affiliated defendants”) and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and the purported class members. On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. Plaintiff filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Appellate Court"). On March 1, 2013, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the Appellate Court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. On April 23, 2013 plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not invested, and on February 5, 2015, the lower court granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier dismissal. On March 8, 2017, the affiliated defendants and all other parties executed an agreement to settle the action, with the contribution of the affiliated defendants to the settlement fund being paid by their insurance carriers. The court certified a settlement class and granted preliminary approval to the settlement on May 10, 2017. One member of the settlement class objected to the settlement and sought a stay of the final settlement approval hearing on the ground that it did not receive notice of the settlement and had no opportunity to timely opt out of the class. After the court rejected the motion for a stay, the objector filed an appeal and requested a stay of the district court proceedings pending disposition of the appeal. The court of appeals denied the temporary stay of the district court proceedings and on October 19, 2018 dismissed the appeal as moot. Following the court of appeals' denial of the objector's petition for rehearing, the district court on March 7, 2019 held a fairness hearing. On March 8, 2019, the district court issued a memorandum and order approving the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate, and dismissing the action with prejudice. Following entry of judgment, the objector filed a notice of appeal on March 26, 2019, and their opening brief was filed on June 28, 2019. The defendants answered on September 27, 2019, and the objector replied on October 18, 2019. Oral argument was held on February 19, 2020. Assuming the settlement approval becomes final, which is expected, the Company will incur no loss. The Company believes that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses to the case and, if the settlement approval does not become final, expects them to defend the case vigorously.

Note

Commitments and Contingencies

Contingencies —

Prior to

2016,

the Company originated, purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage securities. The Company has received indemnification and loan repurchase demands with respect to alleged violations of representations and warranties (“defects”) and with respect to other alleged misrepresentations and contractual commitments made in loan sale and securitization agreements. These demands have been received substantially beginning in

2006

and have continued into recent years. Prior to the Company ceasing the origination of loans in its mortgage lending business, it sold loans to securitization trusts and other

third

parties and agreed to repurchase loans with material defects and to otherwise indemnify parties to these transactions. Beginning in

1997

and ending in

2007,

affiliates of the Company sold loans to securitization trusts and

third

parties with the potential of such obligations. The aggregate original principal balance of these loans was

$43.1

billion at the time of sale or securitization. The remaining principal balance of these loans is

not

available as these loans are serviced by

third

parties and

may

have been refinanced, sold or liquidated. Claims to repurchase loans or to indemnify under securitization documents have

not

been acknowledged as valid by the Company. In some cases, claims were made against affiliates of the Company that have ceased operations and have

or limited assets. The Company has

not

repurchased any loans or made any such indemnification payments since

2010.

Historically, repurchases of loans or indemnification of losses where a loan defect has been alleged have been insignificant and any future losses for alleged loan defects have

not

been deemed to be probable or reasonably estimable; therefore, the Company has recorded

reserves related to these claims. The Company does

not

use internal groupings for purposes of determining the status of these loans. The Company is unable to develop an estimate of the maximum potential amount of future payments related to repurchase demands because the Company does

not

have access to information relating to loans sold and securitized and the number or amount of claims deemed probable of assertion is

not

known nor is it reasonably estimated. Further, the validity of claims received remains questionable. Also, considering that the Company completed its last sale or securitization of loans during

2007,

the Company believes that it will be difficult for a claimant to successfully validate any additional repurchase demands. Management does

not

expect that the potential impact of claims will be material to the condensed consolidated financial statements.

Pending Litigation —

The Company is a party to various legal proceedings. Except as set forth below, these proceedings are of an ordinary and routine nature. Any legal fees associated with these proceedings are expensed as incurred.

Although it is

not

possible to predict the outcome of any legal proceeding, in the opinion of management, other than the active proceedings described in detail below, proceedings and actions against the Company should

not,

individually, or in the aggregate, have a material effect on the Company's financial condition, operations and liquidity. Furthermore, due to the uncertainty of any potential loss as a result of pending litigation and due to the Company's belief that an adverse ruling is

not

probable, the Company has

not

accrued a loss contingency related to the following matters in its condensed consolidated financial statements. However, a material outcome in

one

or more of the active proceedings described below could have a material impact on the results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year.

May 21, 2008,

a purported class action case was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation (“NMFC”) and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. ("NMI"), wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company (“affiliated defendants”) and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On

June 16, 2009,

plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated Sections

11,

and

of the Securities Act of

1933,

as amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and the purported class members. On

August 31, 2009,

the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on

March 31, 2011,

with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a

second

amended complaint on

May 16, 2011,

and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On

March 29, 2012,

the court dismissed plaintiff's

second

amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. Plaintiff filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Appellate Court"). On

March 1, 2013,

the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the Appellate Court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had

not

invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. On

April 23, 2013

plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of plaintiff's claims as to

five

offerings in which plaintiff was

not

invested, and on

February 5, 2015,

the lower court granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier dismissal. On

March 8, 2017,

the affiliated defendants and all other parties executed an agreement to settle the action, with the contribution of the affiliated defendants to the settlement fund being paid by their insurance carriers. The court certified a settlement class and granted preliminary approval to the settlement on

May 10, 2017.

One member of the settlement class objected to the settlement and sought a stay of the final settlement approval hearing on the ground that it did

not

receive notice of the settlement and had

opportunity to timely opt out of the class. After the court rejected the motion for a stay, the objector filed an appeal and requested a stay of the district court proceedings pending disposition of the appeal. The court of appeals denied the temporary stay of the district court proceedings and on

October 19, 2018

dismissed the appeal as moot. Following the court of appeals' denial of the objector's petition for rehearing, the district court on

March 7, 2019

held a fairness hearing. On

March 8, 2019,

the district court issued a memorandum and order approving the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate, and dismissing the action with prejudice. Following entry of judgment, the objector filed a notice of appeal on

March 26, 2019,

and their opening brief was filed on

June 28, 2019.

The defendants answered on

September 27, 2019,

and the objector replied on

October 18, 2019.

Oral argument was held on

February 19, 2020.

Assuming the settlement approval becomes final, which is expected, the Company will incur

loss. The Company believes that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses to the case and, if the settlement approval does

not

become final, expects them to defend the case vigorously.