Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

We are routinely involved in a number of legal actions and proceedings, the outcome of which are 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 1, 2011, Radian Guaranty filed a lawsuit against Quicken in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On September 5, 2012, Radian Guaranty filed an amended complaint that sought a declaratory judgment that Radian Guaranty properly rescinded mortgage insurance coverage under its master insurance policy and delegated underwriting endorsement for certain home mortgage loans originated by Quicken based upon deficiencies and improprieties in the underwriting process. 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. The parties agreed by stipulation that there were 507 loans at issue in this case, representing an aggregate RIF of approximately $29 million. Effective August 15, 2014, Radian Guaranty and Quicken entered into the Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which the parties agreed to dismiss with prejudice all pending claims and counterclaims. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, each party also agreed to release the other with respect to all known and unknown claims that were or that could have been asserted in the litigation. As previously disclosed, based on developments in this litigation during the second quarter of 2014, we had accrued an amount equal to our best estimate of the probable loss related to the resolution of this matter. As a result, the Company was fully reserved for the settlement as of June 30, 2014 and the settlement had no impact on our results of operations for the third quarter of 2014.

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 RESPA. On December 9, 2011, an action titled Samp v. JPMorgan (the “JPMorgan Case”) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The defendants were JPMorgan and several mortgage insurers, including Radian Guaranty. The plaintiffs purported 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 asserted 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. On November 9, 2013, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal.

Each of the cases described below are putative class actions (with alleged facts substantially similar to the facts alleged in the JPMorgan Case discussed above) in which Radian Guaranty has been named as a defendant and has insured at least one loan of one of the plaintiffs:

•

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. 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, reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially the same allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint on July 22, 2013. The court denied Radian Guaranty’s motion on August 18, 2014, without prejudice to Radian Guaranty’s ability to raise the statute of limitations bar on a motion for summary judgment. On September 9, 2014, the court stayed this litigation, pending the outcome of an appeal filed by plaintiffs in Riddle v. Bank of America et. al. (another punitive class action under RESPA in which Radian Guaranty is not a party and referred to herein as the “Riddle Case”).

•

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. 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, reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially the same allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint on September 17, 2013. The court denied Radian Guaranty’s motion on February 4, 2014, without prejudice to Radian Guaranty’s ability to raise the statute of limitations bar on a motion for summary judgment. On March 26, 2014, the court stayed this litigation, pending the outcome of an appeal filed by plaintiffs in the Riddle Case.

•

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 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, reasserting a putative claim under RESPA on substantially the same allegations. Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint on September 17, 2013. The court denied Radian Guaranty’s motion on February 5, 2014, without prejudice to Radian Guaranty’s ability to raise the statute of limitations bar on a motion for summary judgment. On March 26, 2014, the court stayed this litigation, pending the outcome of an appeal filed by plaintiffs in the Riddle Case.

On October 15, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued its decision in the Riddle Case, affirming summary judgment against the plaintiffs on the basis that their RESPA claims were barred by the statute of limitations. With respect to each of the putative class actions discussed above, Radian intends to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings in light of the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Riddle Case. With respect to the putative class action cases 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 still 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 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 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 September 30, 2014, we had received total cash reinsurance recoveries from these captive reinsurance arrangements of approximately $817 million.

In August 2013, Radian Guaranty and other mortgage insurers first 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 the penalties they are seeking and 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.

On September 4, 2014, we received Notices of Deficiency from the IRS covering our 2000 through 2007 tax years. The Notices of Deficiency assert unpaid taxes and penalties related to certain losses and deductions resulting from our investment in a portfolio of REMIC residual interests of approximately $157 million. As of September 30, 2014, there also would be interest of approximately $113 million related to these matters. Depending on the outcome of these matters, additional state income taxes, penalties and interest also may become due when a final resolution is reached. As of September 30, 2014, these additional state tax payments would approximate $30 million. The Notices of Deficiency also reflected additional amounts due of approximately $105 million, which are primarily associated with the disallowance of the previously filed carryback of our 2008 NOL to the 2006 and 2007 tax years. We currently believe that the disallowance of our 2008 NOL carryback is a precautionary position by the IRS and that we will ultimately maintain the benefit of this NOL carryback claim. See Note 13 for additional information.

We have until December 3, 2014 to either pay the Deficiency Amount in full or petition the U.S. Tax Court to litigate the Deficiency Amount. We currently intend to petition the U.S. Tax Court to litigate this matter, which could take several years to resolve and may result in substantial legal expenses. We can provide no assurance regarding the outcome of any such litigation or whether a compromised settlement with the IRS will ultimately be reached. However, if the ultimate resolution of this matter produces a result that differs materially from our current expectations, there could be a material impact on our effective tax rate, results of operations and cash flows.

Under our master insurance policy, any suit or action arising from any right of an 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 loss mitigation activities, which have resulted in some reversals of our decisions regarding rescissions, denials or claim curtailments. We are currently in discussions with customers regarding these loss mitigation activities, which if not resolved, could result in arbitration or additional judicial proceedings. See Note 9 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 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 discussions or the ultimate resolution of these issues, it is possible that these discussions could result in arbitration or legal proceedings.

The elevated levels of our loss mitigation activities (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. We believe that our loss mitigation actions are justified under our policies. However, in the event the BofA Settlement Agreement is not implemented or we are not successful in defending our loss mitigation activities, 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 9 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 $134.1 million of remaining credit exposure as of September 30, 2014.

On March 1, 2011, our subsidiary, 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 $7.5 million at September 30, 2014, 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 contract underwriting, an outsourced service to its customers. 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. Beginning in 2008, we limited the recourse available to our contract underwriting customers to apply only to those loans that are simultaneously underwritten for secondary market compliance and for potential mortgage insurance. In the first nine months of 2014, we paid losses related to contract underwriting remedies of approximately $1.0 million. Rising mortgage interest rates or further economic uncertainty may expose our mortgage insurance business to an increase in such costs. Our reserve for contract underwriting obligations at September 30, 2014 was approximately $2.6 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.

Through September 30, 2014, Radian Asset Assurance has received a series of claims totaling €12.4 million ($15.7 million) from one of its trade credit and surety ceding companies related to surety bonds for Spanish housing cooperative developments. The ceding company is still in the process of settling additional similar claims, so the ultimate amount the ceding company will claim is uncertain. Based on information we received from the ceding company and the advice of our legal advisors, we believe that these claims are subject to a number of defenses, including that the risk under these surety bonds was not eligible for cession to Radian Asset Assurance under the terms and conditions of the applicable reinsurance treaties. We have rejected all claims related to these surety bonds and because we do not believe a loss is probable, we have not recorded a liability with respect to any of these claims. In May 2014, the ceding company sent us a demand to arbitrate this dispute, to which we have replied. We have begun to prepare for this arbitration, for which formal arbitration proceedings could commence in 2015. Without giving any consideration to our defenses, we estimate the maximum aggregate potential liability for claims received and future claims related to these surety bonds to be €16.9 million ($21.3 million).

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 $10.1 million, of which $1.3 million of unearned retention expense has not been recorded as of September 30, 2014. The remaining cost for these agreements is expected to be recorded by the end of 2015.