Note 14. Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Commitments

At June 30, 2013, we were obligated under four non-cancelable operating leases with expiration dates through 2021 for $12 million. In the second quarter of 2013, a new lease for our Denver-based operations became effective. We do not have a 2013 rent obligation for this lease due to an abatement period through the first quarter of 2014. The total rent obligation through 2020 is $1.9 million. During the second quarter of 2013, we also entered into an amendment to this lease to expand the original premises. The 2013 rent obligation related to this amendment is $88 thousand, and the total rent obligation through 2021 is $2 million. Operating lease expense was less than $1 million for both the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012.

The following table presents our future lease commitments at June 30, 2013.

Future Lease Commitments by Year


(In Thousands)	June 30, 2013
2013 (six months)	$	975
2014		2,294
2015		2,302
2016		2,056
2017		2,111
2018 and thereafter		2,384

Total	$	12,122

Leasehold improvements for our offices are amortized into expense over the lease term. There were $12 thousand of unamortized leasehold improvements at June 30, 2013. For the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, we recognized a negligible amount of leasehold amortization.

Loss Contingencies — Litigation

On or about December 23, 2009, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (the “FHLB-Seattle”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of Washington (case number 09-2-46348-4 SEA) against Redwood Trust, Inc., our subsidiary, Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc. (“SRF”), Morgan Stanley & Co., and Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc. (collectively, the “FHLB-Seattle Defendants”) alleging that the FHLB-Seattle Defendants made false or misleading statements in offering materials for a mortgage pass-through certificate (the “Seattle Certificate”) issued in the Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2005-4 securitization transaction (the “2005-4 RMBS”) and purchased by the FHLB-Seattle. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the alleged misstatements concern the (1) loan-to-value ratio of mortgage loans and the appraisals of the properties that secured loans supporting the 2005-4 RMBS, (2) occupancy status of the properties, (3) standards used to underwrite the loans, and (4) ratings assigned to the Seattle Certificate. The FHLB-Seattle alleges claims under the Securities Act of Washington (Section 21.20.005, et seq.) and seeks to rescind the purchase of the Seattle Certificate and to collect interest on the original purchase price at the statutory interest rate of 8% per annum from the date of original purchase (net of interest received) as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. The Seattle Certificate was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $133 million, and, as of June 30, 2013, the FHLB-Seattle has received approximately $113.0 million of principal and $11.0 million of interest payments in respect of the Seattle Certificate. The claims were subsequently dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction as to Redwood Trust and SRF. Redwood agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2005-4 RMBS for certain losses and expenses they might incur as a result of claims made against them relating to this RMBS, including, without limitation, certain legal expenses. The FHLB-Seattle’s claims against the underwriters of this RMBS were not dismissed and remain pending. Regardless of the outcome of this litigation, Redwood could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

On or about July 15, 2010, The Charles Schwab Corporation (“Schwab”) filed a complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in San Francisco (case number CGC-10-501610) against SRF and 26 other defendants (collectively, the “Schwab Defendants”) alleging that the Schwab Defendants made false or misleading statements in offering materials for various residential mortgage-backed securities sold or issued by the Schwab Defendants. With respect to SRF, Schwab alleges that SRF made false or misleading statements in offering materials for a mortgage pass-through certificate (the “Schwab Certificate”) issued in the 2005-4 RMBS and purchased by Schwab. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the misstatements for the 2005-4 RMBS concern the (1) loan-to-value ratio of mortgage loans and the appraisals of the properties that secured loans supporting the 2005-4 RMBS, (2) occupancy status of the properties, (3) standards used to underwrite the loans, and (4) ratings assigned to the Schwab Certificate. Schwab alleges a claim for negligent misrepresentation under California state law and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Schwab Certificate was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $14.8 million, and, as of June 30, 2013, Schwab has received approximately $12.6 million of principal and $1.3 million of interest payments in respect of the Schwab Certificate. SRF has denied Schwab’s allegations. This case is in early stages of discovery, and no trial date has been set. We believe that this case is without merit, and we intend to defend the action vigorously. Redwood agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2005-4 RMBS, which underwriters are also named defendants in this action, for certain losses and expenses they might incur as a result of claims made against them relating to this RMBS, including, without limitation, certain legal expenses. Regardless of the outcome of this litigation, Redwood could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

On or about October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago (“FHLB-Chicago”) filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (case number 10-CH-45033) against SRF and more than 45 other named defendants (collectively, the “FHLB-Chicago Defendants”) alleging that the FHLB-Chicago Defendants made false or misleading statements in offering materials for various RMBS sold or issued by the FHLB-Chicago Defendants or entities controlled by them. FHLB-Chicago subsequently amended the complaint to name Redwood Trust, Inc. and another one of our subsidiaries, RWT Holdings, Inc., as defendants. With respect to Redwood Trust, Inc., RWT Holdings, Inc., and SRF, the FHLB-Chicago alleges that SRF, Redwood Trust, Inc., and RWT Holdings, Inc. made false or misleading statements in the offering materials for two mortgage pass-through certificates (the “Chicago Certificates”) issued in the Sequoia Mortgage Trust 2006-1 securitization transaction (the “2006-1 RMBS”) and purchased by the FHLB-Chicago. The complaint alleges that the alleged misstatements concern, among other things, the (1) loan-to-value ratio of mortgage loans and the appraisals of the properties that secured loans supporting the 2006-1 RMBS, (2) occupancy status of the properties, (3) standards used to underwrite the loans, (4) ratings assigned to the Chicago Certificates, and (5) due diligence performed on these mortgage loans. The FHLB-Chicago alleges claims under Illinois Securities Law (815 ILCS Sections 5/12(F)-(H)) and North Carolina Securities Law (N.C.G.S.A. §78A-8(2) & §78A-56(a)) as well as a claim for negligent misrepresentation under Illinois common law. On some of the causes of action, the FHLB-Chicago seeks to rescind the purchase of the Chicago Certificates and to collect interest on the original purchase prices at the statutory interest rate of 10% per annum from the dates of original purchase (net of interest received). On one cause of action, the FHLB-Chicago seeks unspecified damages. The FHLB-Chicago also seeks attorneys’ fees and costs. The first of the Chicago Certificates was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $105 million and, at June 30, 2013, the FHLB Chicago has received approximately $70.3 million of principal and $23.8 million of interest payments in respect of this Chicago Certificate. The second of the Chicago Certificates was issued with an original principal amount of approximately $379 million and, at June 30, 2013, the FHLB Chicago has received approximately $251.8 million of principal and $79.9 million of interest payments in respect of this Chicago Certificate. SRF, Redwood Trust, Inc., and RWT Holdings, Inc. have denied FHLB-Chicago’s allegations. This case is in early stages of discovery, and no trial date has been set. We believe that this case is without merit, and we intend to defend the action vigorously. Redwood agreed to indemnify the underwriters of the 2006-1 RMBS, which underwriters are also named defendants in this action, for certain losses and expenses they might incur as a result of claims made against them relating to this RMBS, including, without limitation, certain legal expenses. Regardless of the outcome of this litigation, Redwood could incur a loss as a result of these indemnities.

We cannot determine the outcome of any of the above-referenced litigation matters at this time or predict the results with certainty. We cannot be certain that any of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in any future period, and any loss or expense related to any of this litigation could have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In accordance with FASB guidance on accounting for contingencies, we review the need for any loss contingency reserves and establish reserves when, in the opinion of management, it is probable that a matter would result in a liability, and the amount of loss, if any, can be reasonably estimated. Additionally, we record receivables for insurance recoveries relating to litigation-related losses and expenses if and when such amounts are covered by insurance and recovery of such losses or expenses are due. If, with respect to a matter, it is not both probable to result in liability and the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated (as is the case for each of the above-referenced litigation matters), FASB guidance on accounting for contingencies provides that an estimate of possible loss or range of loss be disclosed unless such an estimate cannot be made. There are numerous factors that make it difficult to meaningfully estimate possible loss or range of loss at this stage of these litigation matters, including that: we are no longer a party to the FHLB-Seattle matter, the proceedings to which we are a party are in relatively early stages with no trial dates set, there are significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, information obtained or rulings made during the lawsuits could affect the methodology for calculation of the available remedies, our belief that these litigations are without merit, and our intent to defend these actions vigorously. In addition, with respect to claims where damages are the requested relief, no amount of loss or damages has been specified. We also may have additional rights and/or obligations pursuant to indemnity agreements, representations and warranties, and other contractual provisions with other parties relating to these litigation matters. These rights and obligations could offset or increase our potential losses. We are unable at this time to estimate the potential amount of any such offset or loss.

Although we believe the above-referenced litigation matters are without merit and we intend to defend vigorously the actions to which we are a party, in the ordinary course of any litigation matter, including the above-referenced matters, we may engage in formal or informal settlement communications. While we have not had any settlement discussions in the above-referenced matters that cause us to determine that a material loss is probable or be able to estimate an amount or range of material loss liability, future settlement discussions relating to these matters could result in our concluding to establish loss contingency reserves or make additional disclosures regarding an estimate of possible loss or range of loss with respect to one or more of these matters. Any settlement agreements could have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.