Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 14 — Commitments and Contingencies Debt Obligations. Our debt obligations have maturities of $477.8 million for the remainder of 2018, $554.7 million in 2019, $925.7 million in 2020, $387.9 million in 2021, $71.0 million in 2022 and $314.7 million thereafter. Agency Business Commitments. Our Agency Business is subject to supervision by certain regulatory agencies. Among other things, these agencies require us to meet certain minimum net worth, operational liquidity and restricted liquidity collateral requirements, and compliance with reporting requirements. Our adjusted net worth and liquidity required by the agencies for all periods presented exceeded these requirements. As of March 31, 2018, we were required to maintain at least $12.6 million of liquid assets in one of our subsidiaries to meet our operational liquidity requirements for Fannie Mae and we had operational liquidity in excess of this requirement. We are generally required to share the risk of any losses associated with loans sold under the Fannie Mae DUS program and are required to secure this obligation by assigning restricted cash balances and/or a letter of credit to Fannie Mae. The amount of collateral required by Fannie Mae is a formulaic calculation at the loan level by a Fannie Mae assigned tier which considers the loan balance, risk level of the loan, age of the loan and level of risk-sharing. Fannie Mae requires restricted liquidity for Tier 2 loans of 75 basis points, 15 basis points for Tier 3 loans and 5 basis points for Tier 4 loans, which is funded over a 48-month period that begins upon delivery of the loan to Fannie Mae. A significant portion of our Fannie Mae DUS serviced loans for which we have risk sharing are Tier 2 loans. As of March 31, 2018, we met the restricted liquidity requirement with a $42.0 million letter of credit and $0.4 million of cash collateral. As of March 31, 2018, reserve requirements for the Fannie Mae DUS loan portfolio will require us to fund $28.4 million in additional restricted liquidity over the next 48 months, assuming no further principal paydowns, prepayments, or defaults within our at-risk portfolio. Fannie Mae periodically reassesses these collateral requirements and may make changes to these requirements in the future. We generate sufficient cash flow from our operations to meet these capital standards and do not expect any changes to have a material impact on our future operations; however, future changes to collateral requirements may adversely impact our available cash. We are subject to various capital requirements in connection with seller/servicer agreements that we have entered into with secondary market investors. Failure to maintain minimum capital requirements could result in our inability to originate and service loans for the respective investor and, therefore, could have a direct material effect on our consolidated financial statements. As of March 31, 2018, we met all of Fannie Mae’s quarterly capital requirements and our Fannie Mae adjusted net worth was in excess of the required net worth. We are not subject to capital requirements on a quarterly basis for Ginnie Mae or FHA, as such requirements for these investors are only required on an annual basis. As an approved designated seller/servicer under Freddie Mac’s SBL program, we are required to post collateral to ensure that we are able to meet certain purchase and loss obligations required by this program. Under the SBL program, we are required to post collateral equal to $5.0 million, which we utilize letters of credit to fund. At March 31, 2018, we had an outstanding letter of credit of $5.0 million in satisfaction of our requirements under this program. We enter into contractual commitments with borrowers providing rate lock commitments while simultaneously entering into forward sale commitments with investors. These commitments are outstanding for short periods of time (generally less than 60 days) and are described in Note 12—Derivative Financial Instruments and Note 13—Fair Value. Unfunded Commitments. In accordance with certain structured loans and investments, we have outstanding unfunded commitments of $66.9 million as of March 31, 2018 that we are obligated to fund as borrowers meet certain requirements. Specific requirements include, but are not limited to, property renovations, building construction and conversions based on criteria met by the borrower in accordance with the loan agreements. Litigation. We are currently neither subject to any material litigation nor, to the best of our knowledge, threatened by any material litigation other than the following: In June 2011, three related lawsuits were filed by the Extended Stay Litigation Trust (the “Trust”), a post-bankruptcy litigation trust alleged to have standing to pursue claims that previously had been held by Extended Stay, Inc. and the Homestead Village L.L.C. family of companies (together “ESI”) (formerly Chapter 11 debtors, together the “Debtors”) that have emerged from bankruptcy. Two of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, and the third in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. There were 73 defendants in the three lawsuits, including 55 corporate and partnership entities and 18 individuals. A subsidiary of ours and certain other entities that are affiliates of ours are included as defendants. The New York State Court action has been removed to the Bankruptcy Court. Our affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the three lawsuits. The lawsuits all allege, as a factual basis and background certain facts surrounding the June 2007 leveraged buyout of ESI from affiliates of Blackstone Capital. Our subsidiary, Arbor ESH II, LLC, had a $115.0 million investment in the Series A1 Preferred Units of a holding company of Extended Stay, Inc. The New York State Court action and one of the two federal court actions name as defendants, Arbor ESH II, LLC, ACM and ABT-ESI LLC, an entity in which we have a membership interest, among the broad group of defendants. These two actions were commenced by substantially identical complaints. The defendants are alleged in these complaints, among other things, to have breached fiduciary and contractual duties by causing or allowing the Debtors to pay illegal dividends or other improper distributions of value at a time when the Debtors were insolvent. These two complaints also allege that the defendants aided and abetted, induced, or participated in breaches of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment (“Fiduciary Duty Claims”) and name a director of ours, and a former general counsel of ACM, each of whom had served on the Board of Directors of ESI for a period of time. We are defending these two defendants and paying the costs of such defense. On the basis of the foregoing allegations, the Trust has asserted claims under a number of common law theories, seeking the return of assets transferred by the Debtors prior to the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing. In the third action, filed in Bankruptcy Court, the same plaintiff, the Trust, has named ACM and ABT-ESI LLC, together with a number of other defendants and asserts claims, including constructive and fraudulent conveyance claims under state and federal statutes, as well as a claim under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act. In June 2013, the Trust filed a motion to amend the lawsuits, to, among other things, (i) consolidate the lawsuits into one lawsuit, (ii) remove 47 defendants, none of whom are related to us, from the lawsuits so that there are 26 remaining defendants, including 16 corporate and partnership entities and 10 individuals, and (iii) reduce the counts within the lawsuits from over 100 down to 17. The remaining counts in the amended complaint against our affiliates are principally state law claims for breach of fiduciary duties, waste, unlawful dividends and unjust enrichment, and claims under the Bankruptcy Code for avoidance and recovery actions, among others. The bankruptcy court granted the motion and the amended complaint has been filed. The amended complaint seeks approximately $139.0 million in the aggregate, plus interest from the date of the alleged unlawful transfers, from director designees, portions of which are also sought from our affiliates as well as from unaffiliated defendants. We have moved to dismiss the referenced actions and intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted therein. During a status conference held in March 2014, the Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss and adjourned the case pending a ruling. Subsequent to that hearing, a new judge was assigned to the case and, in November 2016, the new judge entered an order directing the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing new cases decided since the last round of briefing. Oral arguments regarding the motion to dismiss were heard at a hearing held in January 2017. The Court reserved decision at that hearing. We have not made a loss accrual for this litigation because we believe that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and an amount cannot be reasonably estimated. Due to Borrowers. Due to borrowers represents borrowers’ funds held by us to fund certain expenditures or to be released at our discretion upon the occurrence of certain pre-specified events, and to serve as additional collateral for borrowers’ loans. While retained, these balances earn interest in accordance with the specific loan terms they are associated with.

Note 14 — Commitments and Contingencies

Debt Obligations. Our debt obligations have maturities of $477.8 million for the remainder of 2018, $554.7 million in 2019, $925.7 million in 2020, $387.9 million in 2021, $71.0 million in 2022 and $314.7 million thereafter.

Agency Business Commitments. Our Agency Business is subject to supervision by certain regulatory agencies. Among other things, these agencies require us to meet certain minimum net worth, operational liquidity and restricted liquidity collateral requirements, and compliance with reporting requirements. Our adjusted net worth and liquidity required by the agencies for all periods presented exceeded these requirements.

As of March 31, 2018, we were required to maintain at least $12.6 million of liquid assets in one of our subsidiaries to meet our operational liquidity requirements for Fannie Mae and we had operational liquidity in excess of this requirement.

We are generally required to share the risk of any losses associated with loans sold under the Fannie Mae DUS program and are required to secure this obligation by assigning restricted cash balances and/or a letter of credit to Fannie Mae. The amount of collateral required by Fannie Mae is a formulaic calculation at the loan level by a Fannie Mae assigned tier which considers the loan balance, risk level of the loan, age of the loan and level of risk-sharing. Fannie Mae requires restricted liquidity for Tier 2 loans of 75 basis points, 15 basis points for Tier 3 loans and 5 basis points for Tier 4 loans, which is funded over a 48-month period that begins upon delivery of the loan to Fannie Mae. A significant portion of our Fannie Mae DUS serviced loans for which we have risk sharing are Tier 2 loans. As of March 31, 2018, we met the restricted liquidity requirement with a $42.0 million letter of credit and $0.4 million of cash collateral.

As of March 31, 2018, reserve requirements for the Fannie Mae DUS loan portfolio will require us to fund $28.4 million in additional restricted liquidity over the next 48 months, assuming no further principal paydowns, prepayments, or defaults within our at-risk portfolio. Fannie Mae periodically reassesses these collateral requirements and may make changes to these requirements in the future. We generate sufficient cash flow from our operations to meet these capital standards and do not expect any changes to have a material impact on our future operations; however, future changes to collateral requirements may adversely impact our available cash.

We are subject to various capital requirements in connection with seller/servicer agreements that we have entered into with secondary market investors. Failure to maintain minimum capital requirements could result in our inability to originate and service loans for the respective investor and, therefore, could have a direct material effect on our consolidated financial statements. As of March 31, 2018, we met all of Fannie Mae’s quarterly capital requirements and our Fannie Mae adjusted net worth was in excess of the required net worth. We are not subject to capital requirements on a quarterly basis for Ginnie Mae or FHA, as such requirements for these investors are only required on an annual basis.

As an approved designated seller/servicer under Freddie Mac’s SBL program, we are required to post collateral to ensure that we are able to meet certain purchase and loss obligations required by this program. Under the SBL program, we are required to post collateral equal to $5.0 million, which we utilize letters of credit to fund. At March 31, 2018, we had an outstanding letter of credit of $5.0 million in satisfaction of our requirements under this program.

We enter into contractual commitments with borrowers providing rate lock commitments while simultaneously entering into forward sale commitments with investors. These commitments are outstanding for short periods of time (generally less than 60 days) and are described in Note 12—Derivative Financial Instruments and Note 13—Fair Value.

Unfunded Commitments. In accordance with certain structured loans and investments, we have outstanding unfunded commitments of $66.9 million as of March 31, 2018 that we are obligated to fund as borrowers meet certain requirements. Specific requirements include, but are not limited to, property renovations, building construction and conversions based on criteria met by the borrower in accordance with the loan agreements.

Litigation. We are currently neither subject to any material litigation nor, to the best of our knowledge, threatened by any material litigation other than the following:

In June 2011, three related lawsuits were filed by the Extended Stay Litigation Trust (the “Trust”), a post-bankruptcy litigation trust alleged to have standing to pursue claims that previously had been held by Extended Stay, Inc. and the Homestead Village L.L.C. family of companies (together “ESI”) (formerly Chapter 11 debtors, together the “Debtors”) that have emerged from bankruptcy. Two of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, and the third in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. There were 73 defendants in the three lawsuits, including 55 corporate and partnership entities and 18 individuals. A subsidiary of ours and certain other entities that are affiliates of ours are included as defendants. The New York State Court action has been removed to the Bankruptcy Court. Our affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the three lawsuits.

The lawsuits all allege, as a factual basis and background certain facts surrounding the June 2007 leveraged buyout of ESI from affiliates of Blackstone Capital. Our subsidiary, Arbor ESH II, LLC, had a $115.0 million investment in the Series A1 Preferred Units of a holding company of Extended Stay, Inc. The New York State Court action and one of the two federal court actions name as defendants, Arbor ESH II, LLC, ACM and ABT-ESI LLC, an entity in which we have a membership interest, among the broad group of defendants. These two actions were commenced by substantially identical complaints. The defendants are alleged in these complaints, among other things, to have breached fiduciary and contractual duties by causing or allowing the Debtors to pay illegal dividends or other improper distributions of value at a time when the Debtors were insolvent. These two complaints also allege that the defendants aided and abetted, induced, or participated in breaches of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment (“Fiduciary Duty Claims”) and name a director of ours, and a former general counsel of ACM, each of whom had served on the Board of Directors of ESI for a period of time. We are defending these two defendants and paying the costs of such defense. On the basis of the foregoing allegations, the Trust has asserted claims under a number of common law theories, seeking the return of assets transferred by the Debtors prior to the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing.

In the third action, filed in Bankruptcy Court, the same plaintiff, the Trust, has named ACM and ABT-ESI LLC, together with a number of other defendants and asserts claims, including constructive and fraudulent conveyance claims under state and federal statutes, as well as a claim under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act.

In June 2013, the Trust filed a motion to amend the lawsuits, to, among other things, (i) consolidate the lawsuits into one lawsuit, (ii) remove 47 defendants, none of whom are related to us, from the lawsuits so that there are 26 remaining defendants, including 16 corporate and partnership entities and 10 individuals, and (iii) reduce the counts within the lawsuits from over 100 down to 17. The remaining counts in the amended complaint against our affiliates are principally state law claims for breach of fiduciary duties, waste, unlawful dividends and unjust enrichment, and claims under the Bankruptcy Code for avoidance and recovery actions, among others. The bankruptcy court granted the motion and the amended complaint has been filed. The amended complaint seeks approximately $139.0 million in the aggregate, plus interest from the date of the alleged unlawful transfers, from director designees, portions of which are also sought from our affiliates as well as from unaffiliated defendants. We have moved to dismiss the referenced actions and intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted therein. During a status conference held in March 2014, the Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss and adjourned the case pending a ruling. Subsequent to that hearing, a new judge was assigned to the case and, in November 2016, the new judge entered an order directing the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing new cases decided since the last round of briefing. Oral arguments regarding the motion to dismiss were heard at a hearing held in January 2017. The Court reserved decision at that hearing.

We have not made a loss accrual for this litigation because we believe that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and an amount cannot be reasonably estimated.

Due to Borrowers. Due to borrowers represents borrowers’ funds held by us to fund certain expenditures or to be released at our discretion upon the occurrence of certain pre-specified events, and to serve as additional collateral for borrowers’ loans. While retained, these balances earn interest in accordance with the specific loan terms they are associated with.