Commitments and contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	Commitments and contingencies Litigation, claims and assessments From time to time, we may be involved in various claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. Set forth below is a summary of legal proceedings to which we are a party as of June 30, 2016 during 2016: Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation et al. On March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands by a purported shareholder of the Company under the caption Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00024. The action names as defendants the Company, Mr. Erbey and certain officers and a former officer of the Company and alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other things, making materially false statements and/or failing to disclose material information to the Company's shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and transactions with AAMC, Ocwen and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. These alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations that the defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance on Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen, including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans, that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violating state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen’s lack of proper internal controls. The complaint also contains allegations that certain of the Company's disclosure documents were false and misleading because they failed to disclose fully the entire details of a certain asset management agreement between the Company and AAMC that allegedly benefited AAMC to the detriment of the Company's shareholders. The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney’s and other fees and expenses. In May 2015, two of our purported shareholders filed competing motions with the court to be appointed lead plaintiff and for selection of lead counsel in the action. Subsequently, opposition and reply briefs were filed by the purported shareholders with respect to these motions. On October 7, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be lead plaintiff and denying the other motion to be lead plaintiff. On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the action. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on May 20, 2016, and the defendants filed a reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016. We believe the complaint is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. At this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any. Sokolowski v. Erbey, et al. On December 24, 2014, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida by a purported shareholder of Ocwen. The action named the directors of Ocwen as defendants and alleged, among other things, various breaches of fiduciary duties by the directors of Ocwen. On February 11, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming the directors of Ocwen as defendants and also naming the Company, AAMC, Altisource and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. as alleged aiders and abettors of the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The amended complaint alleges that the directors of Ocwen breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, allegedly failing to exercise oversight over Ocwen’s compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations; failing to exercise oversight responsibilities with respect to the accounting and financial reporting processes of Ocwen; failing to prevent conflicts of interest and allegedly improper related party transactions; failing to adhere to Ocwen’s code of conduct and corporate governance guidelines; selling personal holdings of Ocwen stock on the basis of material adverse inside information; and disseminating allegedly false and misleading statements regarding Ocwen’s compliance with regulatory obligations and allegedly self-dealing transactions with related companies. Plaintiff claims that as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, Ocwen has suffered damages, including settlements with regulatory agencies in excess of $2 billion, injury to its reputation and corporate goodwill and exposure to governmental investigations and securities and consumer class action lawsuits. In addition to the derivative claims, the plaintiff also alleges an individual claim that Ocwen’s 2014 proxy statement allegedly contained untrue statements of material fact and failed to disclose material information in violation of federal securities laws. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order requiring the defendants to repay to Ocwen unspecified amounts by which Ocwen has been damaged or will be damaged, an award of an unspecified amount of exemplary damages, changes to Ocwen's corporate governance and an award of attorneys’ and other fees and expenses. On April 13, 2015, nominal defendant Ocwen and defendants Mr. Erbey and Mr. Faris filed a motion to stay the action. On July 16, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss all claims against us in the action, based upon, among other arguments, lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Co-defendant AAMC filed a similar motion to dismiss the complaint as to all claims asserted against it. On December 8, 2015, the court granted AAMC’s and our motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction with leave to amend the jurisdiction allegations no later than January 4, 2016. On December 15, 2015, Hutt v. Erbey, et al., Case No. 15-cv-81709-WPD, was transferred to the Southern District of Florida from the Northern District of Georgia. That same day, a third related derivative action, Lowinger v. Erbey, et al., Case No. 15-cv-62628-WPD, was also filed in the Southern District of Florida. The court then requested that the parties file a response stating their positions as to whether the actions should be consolidated. On December 29, 2015, we filed a response stating that we took no position on the issue of consolidation, so long as our defenses were fully reserved should plaintiff Sokolowski seek to file an amended complaint. Neither plaintiff Sokolowski nor plaintiff Hutt opposed consolidation in their responses. On December 30, 2015, the court issued an order that, among other things, extended the deadline for plaintiff Sokolowski to file its amended complaint to cure the jurisdictional defects as to AAMC and us until January 13, 2016. On January 8, 2016, the court issued an order consolidating the three related actions. On February 2, 2016, Plaintiffs Sokolowski and Lowinger filed competing motions for appointment of lead counsel in the consolidated action. These motions were fully briefed on February 5, 2016. Subsequently, on February 17, 2016, the court issued an order appointing Sokolowski’s counsel as lead counsel with Lowinger’s and Hutt’s counsel serving on the executive committee of the plaintiffs. It also ordered that a consolidated complaint in the matter shall be filed no later than March 8, 2016. On March 8, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated certified shareholder derivative complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”) in the action. On March 11, the Special Litigation Committee of Ocwen sought additional time beyond the March 31, 2016 originally anticipated completion date to analyze the Consolidated Complaint. On March 22, 2016, the parties filed a joint consent motion for entry of an order amending the briefing schedule regarding the Consolidated Complaint. On March 23, 2016, the court entered a scheduling order requiring defendants to file their motions to dismiss on or before May 13, 2016, plaintiffs to file a response to any such motion on or before June 17, 2016 and defendants to file any reply briefs on or before July 15, 2016. On May 13, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the Sokolowski action as to us. Subsequently, plaintiffs sought and received an extension to file their opposition to the defendants' motions to dismiss to August 19, 2016. We believe the complaint against us is without merit. At this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any. Moncavage v. Faris, et al. In March, 2015, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida by a purported shareholder of Ocwen under the caption Moncavage v. Ronald Faris, et al., Case No. 2015-CA-03244 (MB-AD). The action named certain officers and directors of Ocwen as defendants and alleged, among other things, various breaches of fiduciary duties by these individual defendants. The action also named Altisource, Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. and us as alleged aiders and abettors of the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The allegations of wrongdoing contained in the Moncavage action are similar to the allegations in the Sokolowski action updated above. On July 13, 2015, the plaintiff and we jointly filed a stipulation of an extension of time to respond to the pending motions to stay the action that had been filed by Ocwen and the individual defendants. On November 9, 2015, the court granted Ocwen’s motion to stay the action in its entirety for a period of 180 days. We believe the claims against us in the matter are without merit. At this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any. Management does not believe that we have incurred an estimable, probable or material loss by reason of any of the above actions.

Commitments and contingencies

Litigation, claims and assessments

From time to time, we may be involved in various claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business. Set forth below is a summary of legal proceedings to which we are a party as of June 30, 2016 during 2016:

Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation et al.

On March 27, 2015, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands by a purported shareholder of the Company under the caption Martin v. Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00024. The action names as defendants the Company, Mr. Erbey and certain officers and a former officer of the Company and alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by, among other things, making materially false statements and/or failing to disclose material information to the Company's shareholders regarding the Company's relationship and transactions with AAMC, Ocwen and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. These alleged misstatements and omissions include allegations that the defendants failed to adequately disclose the Company's reliance on Ocwen and the risks relating to its relationship with Ocwen, including that Ocwen was not properly servicing and selling loans, that Ocwen was under investigation by regulators for violating state and federal laws regarding servicing of loans and Ocwen’s lack of proper internal controls. The complaint also contains allegations that certain of the Company's disclosure documents were false and misleading because they failed to disclose fully the entire details of a certain asset management agreement between the Company and AAMC that allegedly benefited AAMC to the detriment of the Company's shareholders. The action seeks, among other things, an award of monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount and an award of attorney’s and other fees and expenses.

In May 2015, two of our purported shareholders filed competing motions with the court to be appointed lead plaintiff and for selection of lead counsel in the action. Subsequently, opposition and reply briefs were filed by the purported shareholders with respect to these motions. On October 7, 2015, the court entered an order granting the motion of Lei Shi to be lead plaintiff and denying the other motion to be lead plaintiff.

On January 23, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On March 22, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the action. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on May 20, 2016, and the defendants filed a reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 11, 2016.

We believe the complaint is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. At this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any.

Sokolowski v. Erbey, et al.

On December 24, 2014, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida by a purported shareholder of Ocwen. The action named the directors of Ocwen as defendants and alleged, among other things, various breaches of fiduciary duties by the directors of Ocwen.

On February 11, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming the directors of Ocwen as defendants and also naming the Company, AAMC, Altisource and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. as alleged aiders and abettors of the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The amended complaint alleges that the directors of Ocwen breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, allegedly failing to exercise oversight over Ocwen’s compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations; failing to exercise oversight responsibilities with respect to the accounting and financial reporting processes of Ocwen; failing to prevent conflicts of interest and allegedly improper related party transactions; failing to adhere to Ocwen’s code of conduct and corporate governance guidelines; selling personal holdings of Ocwen stock on the basis of material adverse inside information; and disseminating allegedly false and misleading statements regarding Ocwen’s compliance with regulatory obligations and allegedly self-dealing transactions with related companies. Plaintiff claims that as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, Ocwen has suffered damages, including settlements with regulatory agencies in excess of $2 billion, injury to its reputation and corporate goodwill and exposure to governmental investigations and securities and consumer class action lawsuits. In addition to the derivative claims, the plaintiff also alleges an individual claim that Ocwen’s 2014 proxy statement allegedly contained untrue statements of material fact and failed to disclose material information in violation of federal securities laws. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order requiring the defendants to repay to Ocwen unspecified amounts by which Ocwen has been damaged or will be damaged, an award of an unspecified amount of exemplary damages, changes to Ocwen's corporate governance and an award of attorneys’ and other fees and expenses.

On April 13, 2015, nominal defendant Ocwen and defendants Mr. Erbey and Mr. Faris filed a motion to stay the action.

On July 16, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss all claims against us in the action, based upon, among other arguments, lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Co-defendant AAMC filed a similar motion to dismiss the complaint as to all claims asserted against it.

On December 8, 2015, the court granted AAMC’s and our motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction with leave to amend the jurisdiction allegations no later than January 4, 2016.

On December 15, 2015, Hutt v. Erbey, et al., Case No. 15-cv-81709-WPD, was transferred to the Southern District of Florida from the Northern District of Georgia. That same day, a third related derivative action, Lowinger v. Erbey, et al., Case No. 15-cv-62628-WPD, was also filed in the Southern District of Florida. The court then requested that the parties file a response stating their positions as to whether the actions should be consolidated. On December 29, 2015, we filed a response stating that we took no position on the issue of consolidation, so long as our defenses were fully reserved should plaintiff Sokolowski seek to file an amended complaint. Neither plaintiff Sokolowski nor plaintiff Hutt opposed consolidation in their responses. On December 30, 2015, the court issued an order that, among other things, extended the deadline for plaintiff Sokolowski to file its amended complaint to cure the jurisdictional defects as to AAMC and us until January 13, 2016. On January 8, 2016, the court issued an order consolidating the three related actions.

On February 2, 2016, Plaintiffs Sokolowski and Lowinger filed competing motions for appointment of lead counsel in the consolidated action. These motions were fully briefed on February 5, 2016. Subsequently, on February 17, 2016, the court issued an order appointing Sokolowski’s counsel as lead counsel with Lowinger’s and Hutt’s counsel serving on the executive committee of the plaintiffs. It also ordered that a consolidated complaint in the matter shall be filed no later than March 8, 2016.

On March 8, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated certified shareholder derivative complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”) in the action. On March 11, the Special Litigation Committee of Ocwen sought additional time beyond the March 31, 2016 originally anticipated completion date to analyze the Consolidated Complaint. On March 22, 2016, the parties filed a joint consent motion for entry of an order amending the briefing schedule regarding the Consolidated Complaint. On March 23, 2016, the court entered a scheduling order requiring defendants to file their motions to dismiss on or before May 13, 2016, plaintiffs to file a response to any such motion on or before June 17, 2016 and defendants to file any reply briefs on or before July 15, 2016.

On May 13, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the Sokolowski action as to us. Subsequently, plaintiffs sought and received an extension to file their opposition to the defendants' motions to dismiss to August 19, 2016.

We believe the complaint against us is without merit. At this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any.

Moncavage v. Faris, et al.

In March, 2015, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida by a purported shareholder of Ocwen under the caption Moncavage v. Ronald Faris, et al., Case No. 2015-CA-03244 (MB-AD). The action named certain officers and directors of Ocwen as defendants and alleged, among other things, various breaches of fiduciary duties by these individual defendants. The action also named Altisource, Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. and us as alleged aiders and abettors of the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The allegations of wrongdoing contained in the Moncavage action are similar to the allegations in the Sokolowski action updated above. On July 13, 2015, the plaintiff and we jointly filed a stipulation of an extension of time to respond to the pending motions to stay the action that had been filed by Ocwen and the individual defendants. On November 9, 2015, the court granted Ocwen’s motion to stay the action in its entirety for a period of 180 days.

We believe the claims against us in the matter are without merit. At this time, we are not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can we estimate the range of possible loss, if any.

Management does not believe that we have incurred an estimable, probable or material loss by reason of any of the above actions.