Note 11.—Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

The Company is a defendant in or a party to a number of legal actions or proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. In some of these actions and proceedings, claims for monetary damages are asserted against the Company. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such legal actions and proceedings, the Company generally cannot predict what the eventual outcome of the pending matters will be, what the timing of the ultimate resolution of these matters will be, or what the eventual loss related to each pending matter may be, if any.

In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company establishes an accrued liability for litigation when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable. In any case, there may be an exposure to losses in excess of any such amounts whether accrued or not. Any estimated loss is subject to significant judgment and is based upon currently available information, a variety of assumptions, and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimated loss will change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. Therefore, an estimate of possible loss represents what the Company believes to be an estimate of possible loss only for certain matters meeting these criteria. It does not represent the Company’s maximum loss exposure.

Based on the Company’s current understanding of these pending legal actions and proceedings, management does not believe that judgments or settlements arising from pending or threatened legal matters, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, operating results or cash flows of the Company. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, some of which are beyond the Company’s control, and the very large or indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company’s results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.

The legal matter updates summarized below are ongoing and may have an effect on the Company’s business and future financial condition and results of operations:

On December 7, 2011, a purported class action was filed in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City entitled Timm, v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc, et al. alleging on behalf of holders of the Company’s 9.375% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (Preferred B) and 9.125% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (Preferred C) who did not tender their stock in connection with the Company’s 2009 completion of its Offer to Purchase and Consent Solicitation that the Company failed to achieve the required consent of the Preferred B and C holders, the consents to amend the Preferred stock were not effective because they were given on unissued stock (after redemption), the Company tied the tender offer with a consent requirement that constituted an improper “vote buying” scheme, and that the tender offer was a breach of a fiduciary duty. The action seeks the payment of two quarterly dividends for the Preferred B and C holders, the unwinding of the consents and reinstatement of the cumulative dividend on the Preferred B and C stock, and the election of two directors by the Preferred B and C holders. The action also seeks punitive damages and legal expenses. On July 16, 2018, the Court entered a Judgement Order whereby it (1) declared and entered judgment in favor of all defendants on all claims related to the Preferred C holders and all claims against all individual defendants thereby affirming the validity of the 2009 amendments to the Series B Articles Supplementary; (2) declared its interpretation of the voting provision language in the Preferred B Articles Supplementary to mean that consent of two-thirds of the Preferred B stockholders was required to approve the 2009 amendments to the Preferred B Articles Supplementary, which consent was not obtained, thus rendering the amendments invalid and leaving the 2004 Preferred B Articles Supplementary in effect; (3) ordered the Company to hold a special election within sixty days for the Preferred B stockholders to elect two directors to the Board of Directors pursuant to the 2004 Preferred B Articles Supplementary (which Directors will remain on the Company’s Board of Directors until such time as all accumulated dividends on the Preferred B have been paid or set aside for payment); and, (4) declared that the Company is required to pay three quarters of dividends on the Preferred B stock under the 2004 Articles Supplementary (approximately, $1.2 million, but did not order the Company to make any payment at this time). The Court declined to certify any class pending the outcome of appeals and certified its Judgment Order for immediate appeal. On October 2, 2019, the appellate court held oral argument for all appeals in the matter. On February 5, 2020, the Court of Special Appeal requested that the parties provide a supplemental memorandum explaining the appealability of the original circuit court opinion which the Company responded to on February 21, 2020. On April 1, 2020, the Court of Special Appeal issued an opinion affirming the judgment in favor of plaintiffs on the Series B voting rights arguing that the voting rights provision was not ambiguous. In response, the Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Maryland Court of Appeal appealing the Court of Special Appeals opinion. The petition was submitted by the Company on May 20, 2020, the plaintiffs responded on June 4, 2020, and the Company submitted a reply brief on June 15, 2020. The Maryland Court of Appeals granted the writ of certiorari on July 13, 2020.

On April 30, 2012, a purported class action was filed entitled Marentes v. Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., alleging that certain loan modification activities of the Company constitute an unfair business practice, false advertising and marketing, and that the fees charged are improper. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, restitution, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest. On August 22, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Impac Funding Corporation as a defendant and on October 2, 2012, the plaintiffs dismissed Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc., without prejudice. On January 11, 2019, the trial court determined that the plaintiffs were unable to prove their case and ordered that judgment be entered in favor of the defendant. On April 19, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal and the plaintiffs filed their opening brief on October 31, 2019. The Company filed its response on February 19, 2020. The plaintiffs filed their appellate reply on May 26, 2020. The Court has set August 17, 2020 for oral arguments.

The Company is a party to other litigation and claims which are normal in the course of the Company’s operations. While the results of such other litigation and claims cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to defend these claims vigorously and as such the Company believes the final outcome of such matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of operations. Nevertheless, litigation is uncertain and the Company may not prevail in the lawsuits and can express no opinion as to their ultimate resolution. An adverse judgment in any of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position and results of operations.

Please refer to IMH’s report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 for a full description of litigation and claims.

Repurchase Reserve

When the Company sells mortgage loans, it makes customary representations and warranties to the purchasers about various characteristics of each loan such as the origination and underwriting guidelines, including but not limited to the validity of the lien securing the loan, property eligibility, borrower credit, income and asset requirements, and compliance with applicable federal, state and local law. The Company’s whole loan sale agreements generally require it to repurchase loans if the Company breached a representation or warranty given to the loan purchaser as well as refunds of premiums to investors for early payoffs on loans sold.

The following table summarizes the repurchase reserve activity, within other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets, related to previously sold loans for the six months ended June 30, 2020 and year ended December 31, 2019:


	June 30,		December 31,
	2020		2019
Beginning balance	$	8,969	$	7,657
Provision for repurchases (1)		5,009		5,487
Settlements		(3,936)		(4,175)
Total repurchase reserve	$	10,042	$	8,969

(1)

The provision for repurchases is included in gain (loss) on sale of loans, net in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) earnings.

Corporate-owned Life Insurance Trusts

During the first quarter of 2020, there was a triggering event that caused the Company to reevaluate the consolidation of certain corporate-owned life insurance trusts. As a result, the Company has consolidated life insurance trusts for three former executive officers. The corporate-owned life insurance contracts are recorded at cash surrender value, which is provided by a third party and held within trusts. At June 30, 2020, the cash surrender value of the policies was $10.7 million and were recorded within other assets on the consolidated balance sheets. At June 30, 2020, the liability associated with the corporate-owned life insurance trusts was $12.2 million.


	At June 30, 2020
Corporate-owned life insurance trusts:	Trust #1		Trust #2		Trust #3		Total
Corporate-owned life insurance cash surrender value	$	4,958	$	3,796	$	1,980	$	10,734
Corporate-owned life insurance liability		5,641		4,425		2,152		12,218
Corporate-owned life insurance shortfall (1)	$	(683)	$	(629)	$	(172)	$	(1,484)

(1)

$1.3 million of the total shortfall was recorded as a change in retained deficit at the time of the consolidation of the trusts. The additional shortfall was recorded in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) earnings.

Commitments to Extend Credit

The Company enters into IRLCs with prospective borrowers whereby the Company commits to lend a certain loan amount under specific terms and interest rates to the borrower. These loan commitments are treated as derivatives and are carried at fair value. See Note 7. — Fair Value of Financial Instruments for more information.