Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

We are routinely involved in a number of legal actions and proceedings, the outcome of which are always uncertain. The legal proceedings could result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, injunctions, restitutions or other relief that could require significant expenditures or have other effects on our business. In accordance with applicable accounting standards and guidance, we establish accruals for a legal proceeding only when we determine both that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. We accrue the amount that represents our best estimate of the probable loss; however, if we can only determine a range of estimated losses, we accrue an amount within the range that, in our judgment, reflects the most likely outcome, and if none of the estimates within the range is more likely, we accrue the minimum amount of the range.

In the course of our regular review of pending legal matters, we determine whether it is reasonably possible that a potential loss relating to a legal proceeding may have a material impact on our liquidity, results of operations or financial condition. If we determine such a loss is reasonably possible, we disclose information relating to any such potential loss, including an estimate or range of loss or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. On a quarterly and annual basis, we review relevant information with respect to legal loss contingencies and update our accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or range of losses based on such reviews. We are often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from other parties and investigation of factual allegations, rulings by the court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts, and the progress of settlement negotiations. In addition, we generally make no disclosures for loss contingencies that are determined to be remote. For matters for which we disclose an estimated loss, the disclosed estimate reflects the reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount accrued, if any.

Loss estimates are inherently subjective, based on currently available information, and are subject to management’s judgment and various assumptions. Due to the inherently subjective nature of these estimates and the uncertainty and unpredictability surrounding the outcome of legal proceedings, actual results may differ materially from any amounts that have been accrued.

On August 13, 2010, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (“AHMSI”) filed a complaint against Radian Guaranty in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, on its own behalf and as servicer for certain RMBS insured by Radian Guaranty under 27 separate bulk primary mortgage insurance policies. AHMSI alleged that in 2008, it mistakenly sent cancellation notices to Radian Guaranty for certain loans covered under these policies, and that Radian Guaranty wrongfully refused to reinstate coverage for these loans after AHMSI discovered the alleged error. According to AHMSI, Radian Guaranty’s refusal to reinstate coverage was in breach of its contractual duties under the policies and in bad faith. AHMSI sought money damages and injunctive relief requiring Radian Guaranty to reinstate full coverage on all loans insured under the policies. Without making any admissions of liability or other concessions, and in order to avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigation, on September 13, 2013, Radian Guaranty entered into a Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the defendants with respect to approximately 680 loans, relating to approximately $19 million of RIF that were affected by this alleged error. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Radian agreed to reinstate a majority of the insurance policies at issue (the “Reinstated Certificates”) upon receipt of premiums in arrears for each of the Reinstated Certificates. Most of the remaining insurance policies at issue were deemed cancelled and Radian Guaranty paid an agreed upon amount (the “Settlement Amount”) with respect to these policies. The Settlement Agreement, including payment of the Settlement Amount, did not have a material impact on our liquidity, results of operations or financial condition.

On August 1, 2011, Radian Guaranty filed a lawsuit against Quicken Loans Inc. (“Quicken”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On September 5, 2012, Radian Guaranty filed an amended complaint. Radian Guaranty’s complaint, as amended, seeks a declaratory judgment that it properly rescinded mortgage insurance coverage under Radian Guaranty’s master insurance policy and delegated underwriting endorsement for approximately 220 home mortgage loans originated by Quicken based upon deficiencies and improprieties in the underwriting process. The approximate 220 home mortgage loans relate to an aggregate RIF of approximately $13 million. On October 25, 2012, Quicken answered Radian Guaranty’s amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against Radian Guaranty for alleged breach of contract and bad faith. On November 19, 2012, Radian Guaranty moved to dismiss Quicken’s counterclaims. On October 28, 2013, the court granted Radian Guaranty’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court ruled that Quicken could not pursue a tort theory of bad faith and that Quicken had not stated a basis to toll the statute of limitations for any claims arising after the lawsuit was filed. The court permitted Quicken’s remaining claims to proceed at this stage. This litigation is in the early stages of the proceedings, and therefore, we are unable to estimate whether a loss is reasonably possible in this matter.

We have been named as a defendant in a number of putative class action lawsuits alleging, among other things, that our captive reinsurance agreements violate the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act of 1974 (“RESPA”). On December 9, 2011, an action titled Samp v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the “Samp case”), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The defendants are JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., its affiliates (collectively, “JPMorgan”), and several mortgage insurers, including Radian Guaranty. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of borrowers whose loans allegedly were referred to mortgage insurers by JPMorgan in exchange for reinsurance agreements between the mortgage insurers and JPMorgan’s captive reinsurer. Plaintiffs assert violations of RESPA. On October 4, 2012, Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss on a number of grounds, and on May 7, 2013, the court granted the motion and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. The court ruled that the plaintiffs could not state a claim against Radian Guaranty because it did not insure their loans, and, in addition, ruled that their claims were barred by the statute of limitations. On June 5, 2013, plaintiffs appealed these rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Each of the cases described below are putative class actions (with alleged facts substantially similar to the facts alleged in the Samp case discussed above) in which Radian Guaranty has been named as a defendant:

•

On December 30, 2011, a putative class action under RESPA titled White v. PNC Financial Services Group was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On September 29, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In this case, Radian Guaranty has insured the loan of one of the plaintiffs. On November 26, 2012, Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims as barred by the statute of limitations. On June 20, 2013, the court granted Radian Guaranty’s motion and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on July 5, 2013. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint on July 22, 2013.

•

On January 13, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled Menichino, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Radian Guaranty was not named as a defendant in the original complaint. On December 4, 2012, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Radian Guaranty as an additional defendant. In this case, Radian Guaranty has insured the loan of one of the plaintiffs. On February 4, 2013, Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it as barred by the statute of limitations. On July 19, 2013, the court granted Radian Guaranty’s motion and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on August 16, 2013. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint on September 17, 2013.

•

On April 5, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled Riddle v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On January 4, 2013, Radian Guaranty moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims as barred by the statute of limitations. The court denied that motion on April 11, 2013, and ordered a brief period of discovery limited to the statute of limitations issue. The discovery period was scheduled to end on June 14, 2013; however, on May 31, 2013, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Radian Guaranty from the lawsuit because it did not insure any of their loans.

•

On April 5, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled Manners, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. On September 28, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding three borrowers whose loans were insured by Radian Guaranty. On November 28, 2012, Radian Guaranty moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims as barred by the statute of limitations. On July 19, 2013, the court granted Radian Guaranty’s motion and dismissed plaintiffs’ claims, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on August 16, 2013. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint on September 17, 2013.


•	On May 18, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled Hill, et al. v. Flagstar Bank FSB, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In this case, Radian Guaranty insured the loan of one of the plaintiffs, however, that plaintiff withdrew from the lawsuit and Radian Guaranty was dismissed from the case on August 22, 2013.

•

On May 31, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled Barlee, et al. v. First Horizon National Corporation, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On October 9, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on November 5, 2012, Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of standing because it did not insure any of the plaintiffs’ loans. On February 27, 2013, the court granted Radian Guaranty’s motion to dismiss and Radian Guaranty has been dismissed from this lawsuit.

•

On June 28, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA titled Cunningham, et al. v. M&T Bank Corporation, et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On October 9, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which they added one borrower whose loan was insured by Radian Guaranty. On December 10, 2012, Radian Guaranty moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims as barred by the statute of limitations, and on February 11, 2013, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On October 30, 2013, the court denied that motion and ordered a brief period of discovery limited to the statute of limitations issue. The discovery period is scheduled to end on January 3, 2014.

•

On January 4, 2013, a putative class action under RESPA titled Ba, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On February 26, 2013, Radian Guaranty moved to dismiss this lawsuit for lack of standing because it did not insure any of the plaintiffs’ loans. On March 25, 2013, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Radian Guaranty from this lawsuit.

With respect to the Samp case and the other similar putative class actions discussed above, Radian Guaranty believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. We are not able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss for these matters because the proceedings are in a very preliminary stage and there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of a class.

In addition to the litigation discussed above, we are involved in litigation that has arisen in the normal course of our business. We are contesting the allegations in each such pending action and management believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such litigation will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition. However, the outcome of litigation and other legal and regulatory matters is inherently uncertain, and it is possible that one or more of the matters currently pending or threatened could have an unanticipated adverse effect on our liquidity, financial condition or results of operations for any particular period.

In addition to the private lawsuits discussed above, we and other mortgage insurers have been subject to inquiries from the Minnesota Department of Commerce and the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), requesting information relating to captive reinsurance. We have cooperated with these requests for information. The Dodd-Frank Act amended RESPA and transferred the authority to implement and enforce RESPA from HUD to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). In January 2012, we and other mortgage insurers received a request for information and documents from the CFPB relating to captive reinsurance arrangements, and in June 2012, we and other mortgage insurers received a Civil Investigative Demand from the CFPB as part of its investigation to determine whether mortgage lenders and private mortgage insurance providers engaged in acts or practices in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act, RESPA and the Consumer Financial Protection Act. On April 4, 2013, we reached a settlement with the CFPB, which was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 9, 2013. The settlement concludes the investigation with respect to Radian Guaranty without the CFPB making any findings of wrongdoing. As part of the settlement, Radian Guaranty agreed not to enter into new captive reinsurance arrangements for a period of ten years and to pay a civil penalty of $3.75 million. We have not entered into any new captive reinsurance arrangements since 2007. During the high-claim years that followed the most recent economic downturn, captive arrangements have proven to represent a critical component of our loss mitigation strategy, effectively serving as designed to protect our capital position during a period of stressed losses. As of December 31, 2012, we had received total cash reinsurance recoveries from these captive reinsurance arrangements of approximately $750 million. In August 2013, Radian Guaranty and other mortgage insurers received a draft Consent Order from the Minnesota Department of Commerce, containing proposed conditions and unspecified penalties, to resolve its outstanding inquiries related to captive reinsurance arrangements involving mortgage insurance in Minnesota. We continue to cooperate with the Minnesota Department of Commerce and are engaged in active discussions with them with respect to their inquiries, including various alternatives for resolving this matter. We cannot predict the outcome of this matter or whether additional actions or proceedings may be brought against us.

We are also currently contesting proposed adjustments resulting from the examination by the IRS of our 2000 through 2007 tax years. The IRS opposes the recognition of certain tax losses and deductions that were generated through our investment in a portfolio of non-economic REMIC residual interests currently held by Commonwealth Mortgage Assurance Company of Texas, one of our wholly-owned subsidiaries. The proposed adjustments relating to the 2000 through 2007 tax years, if sustained, will result in additional income taxes of approximately $128 million plus proposed penalties of approximately $42 million. Additionally, we would incur interest on any sustained adjustments. We appealed the proposed adjustments and reached a tentative settlement agreement with Appeals. Upon subsequent review and consideration, however, Appeals informed us that it was no longer willing to settle on the originally proposed terms. After several attempts to reach a compromised settlement, we were notified in January 2013 that Appeals rejected our latest offer and plans to issue a formal notice of deficiency. Upon receipt of the notice, we will have 90 days to pay the deficiency amount or petition the U.S. Tax Court to litigate the matter. If we choose to pay the deficiency amount, we could pursue a full refund of such amount through litigation in either U.S. District Court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Litigation of the deficiency amount may result in substantial legal expenses and the litigation process could take several years to resolve. We can provide no assurance regarding the outcome of any such litigation or whether a compromised settlement with the IRS may ultimately be reached. See Note 12 for additional information.

Under our master insurance policy, any suit or action arising from any right of the insured under the policy must be commenced within two years after such right first arose for primary insurance and within three years for certain other policies, including certain pool insurance policies. We continue to face a number of challenges from certain lender and servicer customers regarding our insurance rescissions and claim denials, which have resulted in some reversals of our decisions regarding rescissions or denials. We are currently in discussions with customers regarding rescissions and claim denials, which if not resolved, could result in arbitration or additional judicial proceedings. The assumptions embedded in our estimated default to claim rate on our in-force defaulted inventory includes an adjustment to our estimated rescission and denial rate to account for the fact that we expect a certain number of previously rescinded policies and denied claims ultimately to be paid, as a result of valid challenges by such policy holders. See Note 8 for further information.

Further, we have identified a significant number of loans in our total defaulted portfolio (in particular, our older defaulted portfolio) for which “appropriate proceedings” (actions or proceedings such as foreclosure that provide the insured with title to the property) may not have been commenced within the outermost deadline in our master insurance policy. We currently are in discussions with the servicers for these loans regarding this potential violation and our corresponding rights under the master insurance policy. While we can provide no assurance regarding the outcome of these conversations or the ultimate resolution of these issues, it is possible that this matter could result in arbitration or legal proceedings.

The elevated levels of our rate of rescissions, claim denials and claim curtailments (related to servicer negligence) have led to an increased risk of litigation by lenders, policyholders and servicers challenging our right to rescind coverage, deny claims or curtail claim amounts. Although we believe that our loss mitigation actions are justified under our policies, if we are not successful in defending these actions, we may need to reassume the risk on and increase loss reserves for previously rescinded policies or pay additional claims on curtailed amounts. See Note 8 for further information.

Other

Securities regulations became effective in 2005 that impose enhanced disclosure requirements on issuers of ABS (including mortgage-backed securities). To allow our customers to comply with these regulations at that time, we typically were required, depending on the amount of credit enhancement we were providing, to provide (1) audited financial statements for the insurance subsidiary participating in the transaction, or (2) a full and unconditional holding company-level guarantee for our insurance subsidiaries’ obligations in such transactions. Radian Group has guaranteed two structured transactions for Radian Guaranty involving approximately $142.7 million of remaining credit exposure as of September 30, 2013.

On March 1, 2011, our subsidiary, Enhance Financial Services Group Inc. (“EFSG”) sold its 45% interest in the holding company of a Brazilian insurance company, which specializes in surety and agricultural insurance, to another owner for a nominal purchase price. This holding company and its subsidiaries are subject to regulation by The Superintendence of Private Insurance, the regulatory agency responsible for the supervision and control of the insurance market in Brazil. Although EFSG wrote off its entire interest in this company in 2005 and has sold its ownership interest, under Brazilian law, it is possible that EFSG could become liable for its proportionate share of the liabilities of the company related to the period in which EFSG was a significant shareholder, if the company was to become insolvent and had insufficient capital to satisfy its outstanding liabilities. EFSG’s share of the liabilities of the company attributable to this period was approximately $103.4 million as of December 31, 2010, the date of the most recent financial information available to us.

As part of the non-investment-grade allocation component of our investment program, we had unfunded commitments of $7.4 million at September 30, 2013, related to alternative investments that are primarily private equity structures. These commitments have capital calls expected through 2015, with the possibility of additional calls through 2017, and certain fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses.

Our mortgage insurance business provides an outsourced underwriting service to its customers known as contract underwriting. Typically, we agree that if we make a material error in underwriting a loan, we will provide a remedy to the customer, by purchasing the loan or placing additional mortgage insurance coverage on the loan, or by indemnifying the customer against loss up to a maximum specified amount. By providing these remedies, we assume some credit risk and interest-rate risk if an error is found during the limited remedy period in the agreements governing our provision of contract underwriting services. We limit the recourse available to our contract underwriting customers to apply only to those loans that are simultaneously underwritten for compliance with secondary market compliance and for potential mortgage insurance. In the first nine months of 2013, we paid losses related to contract underwriting remedies of approximately $1.6 million. Rising mortgage interest rates or further economic uncertainty may expose our mortgage insurance business to an increase in such costs. In the first nine months of 2013, our provision for contract underwriting expenses was approximately $1.7 million and our reserve for contract underwriting obligations at September 30, 2013 was approximately $3.8 million. We monitor this risk and negotiate our underwriting fee structure and recourse agreements on a client-by-client basis. We also routinely audit the performance of our contract underwriters.

We have incentive, retention and severance agreements with certain employees in our financial guaranty business. The total cost expected to be incurred under these agreements is $13.3 million, of which $3.9 million of unearned retention expense has not been recorded as of September 30, 2013. The remaining cost for these agreements is expected to be recorded by the end of 2015.