Commitments and Contingencies

On June 26, 2008, we filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, naming IndyMac Bank (“IndyMac”), Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”), Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (“FGIC”), Ambac Assurance Corporation (“Ambac”) and MBIA Insurance Corporation (“MBIA”) as defendants. The suit involved three of our pool policies covering second-lien mortgages entered into in late 2006 and early 2007, with respect to loans originated by IndyMac. We were in a second loss position behind IndyMac and in front of three defendant financial guaranty companies. We alleged that the representations and warranties made to us to induce us to issue the policies were materially false, and that as a result, the policies should be void. The total amount of our claim liability for all three pool policies was approximately $77 million and represented the aggregate risk in force related to these policies. In March 2009, FGIC, Ambac, and MBIA served us with demands to arbitrate certain issues relating to the same three pool policies that were the subject of our declaratory judgment complaint. In July 2009, the court declined to dismiss our declaratory judgment action, but stayed the action to permit the arbitrations to proceed first. As previously disclosed, between August 2009 and June 2011, we settled our disputes with Ambac, Deutsche Bank, MBIA and FGIC with respect to all three of the pool policies. In the aggregate, we settled our $77 million of total claim liability under the three pool policies for approximately $44 million. Following these settlements, in July 2011, the declaratory judgment action against IndyMac, Ambac, MBIA, FGIC and Deutsche Bank, and the arbitrations commenced by Ambac, MBIA and FGIC were dismissed with prejudice.

On August 13, 2010, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. ("AHMSI") filed a complaint against Radian Guaranty in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, on its own behalf and as servicer for certain RMBS insured by Radian Guaranty under27 separate bulk primary mortgage insurance policies. AHMSI contends that in 2008, it mistakenly sent cancellation notices to Radian Guaranty for certain loans covered under these policies, and that Radian Guaranty wrongfully refused to reinstate coverage for these loans after AHMSI discovered the error. We believe that approximately 271 loans were affected by this error. According to AHMSI, Radian Guaranty's refusal to reinstate coverage was in breach of its contractual duties under the policies and in bad faith. AHMSI is seeking money damages and injunctive relief requiring Radian Guaranty to reinstate full coverage on all loans insured under the policies. On October 18, 2010, Radian Guaranty filed a motion to dismiss this case, which the court granted on December 16, 2010, stating that AHMSI failed to establish that it is the real party in interest. On January 5, 2011, AHMSI filed an amended complaint that included the trustees of the securities as additional plaintiffs to the complaint. On May 31, 2011, Radian answered the amended complaint and, subsequently, filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that, among other things, it is not in breach of its contractual duties. Radian also filed, and the court subsequently dismissed, a third party complaint against Sand Canyon Corporation, the servicer who allegedly made the error that led to the cancellation of the certificates of insurance, seeking indemnity and/or contribution.

On August 1, 2011, Radian Guaranty filed a lawsuit against Quicken Loans Inc. ("Quicken") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Radian Guaranty's complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that it properly rescinded mortgage insurance coverage under Radian Guaranty's master policy and delegated underwriting endorsement for approximately140 home mortgage loans originated by Quicken based upon deficiencies and improprieties in the underwriting process. On August 24, 2011, Quicken filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 12, 2011, Radian Guaranty filed a response to Quicken's motion to dismiss, and on September 29, 2011, Quicken filed its reply.

On December 9, 2011, an action titled Samp v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The defendants are JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., its affiliates (collectively, “JPMorgan”), and several mortgage insurers, including Radian Guaranty. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of borrowers whose loans supposedly were referred to mortgage insurers by JPMorgan in exchange for reinsurance agreements between the mortgage insurers and JPMorgan's captive reinsurer. Plaintiffs assert violations of Real Estate Settlement Practices Act of 1974 ("RESPA"). The mortgage insurer defendants have demanded that the plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss from the lawsuit any mortgage insurer, such as Radian Guaranty, that did not insure any of the plaintiffs' loans. If that demand is not met, Radian Guaranty and others of the mortgage insurers intend to move to dismiss the claims against them.

On December 30, 2011, a putative class action under RESPA titled White v. PNC Financial Services Group was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The facts of this case are substantially similar to those of the Samp case discussed above; however, in this case, Radian Guaranty has insured the loan of one of the plaintiffs. Radian Guaranty intends to move to dismiss the complaint on a number of grounds.

The elevated levels of our rate of rescissions and denials have led to an increased risk of litigation by lenders and policyholders challenging our right to rescind coverage or deny claims. Under our master insurance policy, any suit or action arising from any right of the insured under the policy must be commenced within two years after such right first arose and within three years for certain other policies, including certain pool insurance policies. Recently, we have faced an increasing number of challenges from certain lender customers regarding our insurance rescissions and claim denials, which have resulted in some reversals of our decisions regarding rescissions or denials. We are currently in discussions with these customers regarding rescissions or denials, which if not resolved, could result in arbitration or additional judicial proceedings. Although we believe that our rescissions and denials are justified under our policies, if we are not successful in defending the rescissions or denials in any potential legal actions, we may need to reassume the risk on, and increase loss reserves for, those policies or pay additional claims. See Note 10 for further information.

In addition to the above litigation, 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 believe, 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 position and results of operations.

Securities regulations became effective in 2005 that impose enhanced disclosure requirements on issuers of ABS (including mortgage-backed securities ("MBS"). To allow our customers to comply with these regulations, 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 $166.8 million of remaining credit exposure as of December 31, 2011.

On March 1, 2011, 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.

As part of the non-investment grade component of our investment portfolio, we had unfunded commitments of $9.6 million at December 31, 2011, 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 an outsourced underwriting service to its customers known as contract underwriting. 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. Recently, we limited the recourse available to our contract underwriting customers to apply only to those loans that we are simultaneously underwriting for compliance with secondary market compliance and for potential mortgage insurance. In 2011, we paid losses related to contract underwriting remedies of approximately $7.2 million. Rising mortgage interest rates or further economic uncertainty may expose the mortgage insurance business to an increase in such costs. In 2011, our provision for contract underwriting expenses was approximately $9.3 million and our reserve for contract underwriting obligations at December 31, 2011, was $4.5 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.

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 $9.0 million, of which $3.4 million has not been recorded as of December 31, 2011. The remaining cost for these agreements is expected to be recorded by the second quarter of 2013.

We lease office space for use in our operations. The lease agreements, which expire periodically through August 2017, contain provisions for scheduled periodic rent increases. Net rental expense in connection with these leases totaled $5.0 million in 2011, $4.9 million in 2010, and $7.5 million in 2009. The commitment for non-cancelable operating leases in future years is as follows:



(In thousands)
2012	$	12,619
2013	12,518
2014	12,313
2015	10,144
2016	4,296
Thereafter	3,006
	$	54,896

The commitment for non-cancelable operating leases in future years has not been reduced by future minimum sublease rental payments aggregating approximately $13.5 million at December 31, 2011.