COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
NOTE 26 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
From time to time, the Company may become involved in litigation on various matters, including disputes arising out of loans in the Company's portfolio and agreements to purchase or sell assets. Given the nature of the Company's business activities, the Company considers these matters to be routine and in the ordinary conduct of its business. The resolution of these matters may result in adverse judgments, fines, penalties, injunctions and other relief against the Company as well as monetary payments or other agreements and obligations. Alternately, the Company may engage in settlement discussions on certain matters in order to avoid the additional costs of engaging in litigation.
In September 2015, Daren Levin filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased Company common stock between March 2, 2015 and August 4, 2015. On November 24, 2015, the Court appointed Douglas Drees as the lead plaintiff in the action, and thereafter entered a stipulation and order directing the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint. On February 12, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging that the Company and certain of its officers and directors materially misrepresented certain risks of the Company’s commercial loan portfolio and its processes and controls for assessing the quality of its portfolio. Based on these allegations, the amended complaint asserts claims for violation of the securities laws and seeks a variety of relief, including unspecified monetary damages as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.  The Company believes the amended complaint is without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.
In December 2015, Josh Reaves filed a shareholder derivative suit in the Supreme Court of New York alleging that the directors and certain officers of the Company breached their fiduciary duties by causing the Company to misrepresent certain risks of the Company’s commercial loan portfolio, by failing to employ adequate internal and financial controls at the Company, and by failing to disclose and causing the Company to fail to disclose the alleged internal control deficiencies. The Complaint, which has not yet been served on the Company, purports to seek relief on behalf of the Company for unspecified damages as well as costs and attorneys’ fees. The Company believes that the Plaintiff, who failed to make a pre-suit demand on the Board, lacks standing to assert claims derivatively on behalf of the Company and intends to respond accordingly in the event that it is served.
PCM is a party to various claims and legal proceedings at various times. If they believe that a loss arising from any of these matters is probable and can be reasonably estimated, the loss is recorded. Some of these claims may relate to claims for repurchases or indemnifications on loans that PCM has sold to investors.  Such claims are included in the reserve for mortgage repurchases and indemnifications. There was no additional accrual for litigation outcomes at December 31, 2015 and 2014.
On May 13, 2014, ResCap Liquidating Trust (“ResCap”) as successor to Residential Funding Company, LLC (“RFC”), filed an adversary proceeding against PCM in United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York.  ResCap has sued some 90 sellers of residential mortgage loans for alleged breaches of warranty in various loans sold to RFC.  RFC contends that such breaches caused it damages from loan losses and liability to other transferees of the loans.  The case remains pending and has been consolidated with other cases for discovery and pre-trial purposes.  PCM intends to defend the action vigorously.
Loans on one-to-four family residential mortgages originated by PCM are sold to various financial institutions and governmental entities with representations and warranties that are usual and customary for the industry. In the event of a breach of any of the representations and warranties related to a loan sold, PCM may be required to indemnify the investor against future losses, repurchase the mortgage loan or reimburse the investor for actual losses incurred (referred to as “make whole payments”).  The maximum exposure to credit loss in the event of an indemnification or loan repurchase would be the unpaid principal balance of the loan along with any premium paid by the investor when the loan was purchased, accrued but unpaid interest and other minor cost reimbursements.  This maximum exposure is at least partially mitigated by the value of the collateral underlying the mortgage loan.
As of December 31, 2015, outstanding demands for indemnification, repurchase or make whole payments totaled approximately $20.5 million, of which a substantial portion related to loans sold to four investors prior to 2011.  Furthermore, a significant portion of these demands are involved in litigation with the investor.
Unfunded commitments on the Company's originated CRE loans generally fall into two categories: (1) pre-approved capital improvement projects; and (2) new or additional construction costs subject, in each case, to the borrower meeting specified criteria. Upon completion of the improvements or construction, the Company would receive additional interest income on the advanced amount.
Except as previously discussed, the Company is unaware of any contingencies arising from such routine litigation that would require accrual or additional disclosure in the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2015.