COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 16 — 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 maybe, 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 such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. The estimated loss is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions, and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimated loss may change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. Therefore, an estimate of loss represents what the Company believes to be an estimate of 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, would have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations 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 proceedings summarized below include material matters that were resolved or concluded since December 31, 2012, as well as ongoing matters that may have an adverse effect on our business and future financial results. Final Bankruptcy Decree. On April 15, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (the “California Federal Bankruptcy Court”) granted the Company’s motion for a final decree, and issued a final decree in the Company’s Bankruptcy Proceedings. The California Federal Bankruptcy Court retained jurisdiction to preside over claims described below in the Colburn and Walker matters. Upon the California Federal Bankruptcy Court entering the final orders in each of the Colburn and Walker claims, the Bankruptcy Proceedings will be closed. Faigin Matter. On January 15, 2009, Alan Faigin, a former General Counsel of Fremont, filed a complaint against Fremont Reorganizing Corporation (“FRC”) in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (the “California Superior Court”). On February 3, 2010, Mr. Faigin filed an amended complaint alleging wrongful termination, breach of his employment agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and violation of various California labor codes, among other allegations under a “joint employer” theory. In February 2010, a jury found for Mr. Faigin and awarded him damages in the amount of approximately $1.4 million, which Fremont recorded as an accrued liability in the first quarter of 2010. The Company appealed the California Superior Court decision to the California Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”), which affirmed the lower court decision, and to the California Supreme Court. On February 21, 2013, the California Supreme Court notified counsel for the Company that it would not review the Faigin matter, affirming the Court of Appeal decision and judgment. On April 4, 2013, Mr. Faigin filed a motion for an order releasing funds deposited with the California Superior Court to enforce the judgment. In response, the Company filed a Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment while the Company’s claims against Mr. Faigin, discussed below, are litigated. On May 17, 2013, the judge granted the Company’s Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment and denied Mr. Faigin’s motion to enforce the judgment. On April 27, 2009, FRC filed a cross-complaint against Mr. Faigin in the California Superior Court for breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty, representing conflicting interests and indemnification; and the Company is seeking $4.6 million in damages. On June 9, 2009, the California Superior Court dismissed the cross-complaint pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute. FRC appealed the dismissal of this cross-complaint and on August 30, 2011, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the dismissal of FRC’s cross-complaint causes of action against Mr. Faigin for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidence. The Company intends to pursue these actions to recover damages it suffered as a result of these breaches. A trial is currently scheduled for January 2014. Colburn Matter. On December 8, 2009, Gwyneth Colburn, the former Executive Vice President for Fremont’s Commercial Real Estate group, filed a complaint in the California Superior Court against FIL and unnamed defendants for breach of contract related to a management continuity agreement (“MCA”) executed in August 2003, and extended in August 2007, and, separately, filed a proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Proceedings. In the California Superior Court action, Ms. Colburn contends she is owed $3.2 million, while in the Bankruptcy Proceedings, Ms. Colburn filed a $2.6 million proof of claim. On August 9, 2011, the California Superior Court entered a judgment granting the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing the complaint. On September 22, 2011, Ms. Colburn filed a Notice of Appeal from this dismissal. Appellate briefs from both parties have been filed. On February 12, 2013, the California Federal Bankruptcy Court denied the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Ms. Colburn’s proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Proceedings remains outstanding and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. A trial is currently scheduled for January 2014. Walker Matter. On June 10, 2011, Kyle Walker, the former Chief Executive Officer and President of FIL, filed a complaint in the California Superior Court against the Company and unnamed defendants for breach of contract, certain California Labor Code violations and breach of fiduciary duty related to his MCA executed in August 2003, and extended in August 2006, and, separately, a proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Proceedings. In the California Superior Court action, Mr. Walker contends he is owed $4.6 million, while in the Bankruptcy Proceedings, Mr. Walker filed a $2.5 million proof of claim. On August 26, 2011, Mr. Walker dismissed his complaint, without prejudice, against the Company as successor in interest to Fremont, but not as a successor in interest to FIL. On September 19, 2012, the Company obtained the California Superior Court’s final ruling granting the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment and on October 26, 2012, the judgment was entered. On November 29, 2012, Mr. Walker moved for a new trial, based on the Court of Appeal’s ruling in the Faigin matter. On January 8, 2013, the California Superior Court granted Mr. Walker’s motion for a new trial. On February 5, 2013, the Company filed an appeal of the California Superior Court’s order granting Mr. Walker a new trial. On February 12, 2013, the California Federal Bankruptcy Court denied the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Mr. Walker’s proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Proceedings remains outstanding and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. A trial is currently scheduled for January 2014. RMBS Defense, Indemnity and Contribution Matters. The Company has received demands for defense, indemnity and contribution from defendants in various residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) actions. These demands arise from actions in which the Company is not a named defendant and from actions from which the Company has been dismissed after originally being named as a defendant. The demands relate to home mortgages originated by FIL that were then packaged and sold as RMBS. The Company has rejected each of these demands as it is the Company’s position that the demanding parties are being sued for conduct not chargeable to the Company. There is no assurance that the Company will not be named as defendants in additional RMBS related litigation or receive additional demands for defense, indemnity and contribution. It is the Company’s intention to vigorously defend any claims seeking defense, indemnity or contribution, but the Company cannot presently predict whether such claims will be brought or what the outcome would be. Subpoenas for Information and Documents. In addition to the above-described RMBS litigation, the Company has received and responded to a number of subpoenas for information from federal authorities and other third parties in civil litigation matters in which the Company is not a defendant, but which concern home mortgage transactions involving the Company’s origination and sale of whole loans, and certain RMBS offerings. Unpaid Claims. As of June 30, 2013, there remained two open claims filed with the California Federal Bankruptcy Court, comprised of the Colburn and Walker claims totaling $5.1 million, as described above.

NOTE 16 — 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 maybe, 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 such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. The estimated loss is based upon currently available information and is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions, and known and unknown uncertainties. The matters underlying the estimated loss may change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from the current estimate. Therefore, an estimate of loss represents what the Company believes to be an estimate of 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, would have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations 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 proceedings summarized below include material matters that were resolved or concluded since December 31, 2012, as well as ongoing matters that may have an adverse effect on our business and future financial results.

Final Bankruptcy Decree. On April 15, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California (the “California Federal Bankruptcy Court”) granted the Company’s motion for a final decree, and issued a final decree in the Company’s Bankruptcy Proceedings. The California Federal Bankruptcy Court retained jurisdiction to preside over claims described below in the Colburn and Walker matters. Upon the California Federal Bankruptcy Court entering the final orders in each of the Colburn and Walker claims, the Bankruptcy Proceedings will be closed.

Faigin Matter. On January 15, 2009, Alan Faigin, a former General Counsel of Fremont, filed a complaint against Fremont Reorganizing Corporation (“FRC”) in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (the “California Superior Court”). On February 3, 2010, Mr. Faigin filed an amended complaint alleging wrongful termination, breach of his employment agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and violation of various California labor codes, among other allegations under a “joint employer” theory. In February 2010, a jury found for Mr. Faigin and awarded him damages in the amount of approximately $1.4 million, which Fremont recorded as an accrued liability in the first quarter of 2010. The Company appealed the California Superior Court decision to the California Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”), which affirmed the lower court decision, and to the California Supreme Court. On February 21, 2013, the California Supreme Court notified counsel for the Company that it would not review the Faigin matter, affirming the Court of Appeal decision and judgment. On April 4, 2013, Mr. Faigin filed a motion for an order releasing funds deposited with the California Superior Court to enforce the judgment. In response, the Company filed a Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment while the Company’s claims against Mr. Faigin, discussed below, are litigated. On May 17, 2013, the judge granted the Company’s Motion to Stay Execution of Judgment and denied Mr. Faigin’s motion to enforce the judgment.

On April 27, 2009, FRC filed a cross-complaint against Mr. Faigin in the California Superior Court for breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty, representing conflicting interests and indemnification; and the Company is seeking $4.6 million in damages. On June 9, 2009, the California Superior Court dismissed the cross-complaint pursuant to California’s anti-SLAPP statute. FRC appealed the dismissal of this cross-complaint and on August 30, 2011, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the dismissal of FRC’s cross-complaint causes of action against Mr. Faigin for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of confidence. The Company intends to pursue these actions to recover damages it suffered as a result of these breaches. A trial is currently scheduled for January 2014.

Colburn Matter. On December 8, 2009, Gwyneth Colburn, the former Executive Vice President for Fremont’s Commercial Real Estate group, filed a complaint in the California Superior Court against FIL and unnamed defendants for breach of contract related to a management continuity agreement (“MCA”) executed in August 2003, and extended in August 2007, and, separately, filed a proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Proceedings. In the California Superior Court action, Ms. Colburn contends she is owed $3.2 million, while in the Bankruptcy Proceedings, Ms. Colburn filed a $2.6 million proof of claim.

On August 9, 2011, the California Superior Court entered a judgment granting the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing the complaint. On September 22, 2011, Ms. Colburn filed a Notice of Appeal from this dismissal. Appellate briefs from both parties have been filed.

On February 12, 2013, the California Federal Bankruptcy Court denied the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Ms. Colburn’s proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Proceedings remains outstanding and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. A trial is currently scheduled for January 2014.

Walker Matter. On June 10, 2011, Kyle Walker, the former Chief Executive Officer and President of FIL, filed a complaint in the California Superior Court against the Company and unnamed defendants for breach of contract, certain California Labor Code violations and breach of fiduciary duty related to his MCA executed in August 2003, and extended in August 2006, and, separately, a proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Proceedings. In the California Superior Court action, Mr. Walker contends he is owed $4.6 million, while in the Bankruptcy Proceedings, Mr. Walker filed a $2.5 million proof of claim.

On August 26, 2011, Mr. Walker dismissed his complaint, without prejudice, against the Company as successor in interest to Fremont, but not as a successor in interest to FIL. On September 19, 2012, the Company obtained the California Superior Court’s final ruling granting the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment and on October 26, 2012, the judgment was entered. On November 29, 2012, Mr. Walker moved for a new trial, based on the Court of Appeal’s ruling in the Faigin matter. On January 8, 2013, the California Superior Court granted Mr. Walker’s motion for a new trial. On February 5, 2013, the Company filed an appeal of the California Superior Court’s order granting Mr. Walker a new trial.

On February 12, 2013, the California Federal Bankruptcy Court denied the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Mr. Walker’s proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Proceedings remains outstanding and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. A trial is currently scheduled for January 2014.

RMBS Defense, Indemnity and Contribution Matters. The Company has received demands for defense, indemnity and contribution from defendants in various residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) actions. These demands arise from actions in which the Company is not a named defendant and from actions from which the Company has been dismissed after originally being named as a defendant. The demands relate to home mortgages originated by FIL that were then packaged and sold as RMBS. The Company has rejected each of these demands as it is the Company’s position that the demanding parties are being sued for conduct not chargeable to the Company. There is no assurance that the Company will not be named as defendants in additional RMBS related litigation or receive additional demands for defense, indemnity and contribution. It is the Company’s intention to vigorously defend any claims seeking defense, indemnity or contribution, but the Company cannot presently predict whether such claims will be brought or what the outcome would be.

Subpoenas for Information and Documents. In addition to the above-described RMBS litigation, the Company has received and responded to a number of subpoenas for information from federal authorities and other third parties in civil litigation matters in which the Company is not a defendant, but which concern home mortgage transactions involving the Company’s origination and sale of whole loans, and certain RMBS offerings.

Unpaid Claims. As of June 30, 2013, there remained two open claims filed with the California Federal Bankruptcy Court, comprised of the Colburn and Walker claims totaling $5.1 million, as described above.