NOVC Novation Companies Inc (CE)

Note 1. Condensed Consolidated Financial Statement Presentation

Description of Operations – Novation Companies, Inc. and its subsidiaries (the “Company,” “Novation,” “we,” or “us”), through Healthcare Staffing, Inc. ("HCS"), our wholly-owned subsidiary acquired on July 27, 2017, provides outsourced health care staffing and related services in the State of Georgia. We also previously owned a portfolio of mortgage securities which generated earnings to support on-going financial obligations through the end of 2018. The mortgage securities were sold during 2018 for a total of $13 million. Our common stock, par value $0.01 per share, is traded on the OTC Pink marketplace of the OTC Markets Group, Inc. under the symbol “NOVC”.

Liquidity and Going Concern – During the three months ended March 31, 2019 , the Company incurred a net loss of $ 1.9 million and generated negative operating cash flow of $ 2.1 million. As of March 31, 2019 , the Company had an overall shareholders deficit of $ 64.8 million, an aggregate of $ 5.2 million in cash and cash equivalents and total liabilities of $ 92.2 million. Of the $ 5.2 million in cash, $ 1.0 million is held by the Company's subsidiary NovaStar Mortgage LLC ("NMLLC"). This cash is available only to pay general creditors and expenses of NMLLC. The Company also has a significant on-going obligation to pay interest under its senior notes agreement at LIBOR plus 3.5% per annum, payable quarterly in arrears until maturity on March 30, 2033.  With the increases in LIBOR, the last interest payment on long-term debt was $1.3 million.  

After engaging major investment firms to evaluate the marketplace for its mortgage securities, the Company executed trades to sell all of its mortgage securities during 2018. These sales generated $13.0 million in cash proceeds for the Company. For the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company recorded $12.9 million in gains in other income in the Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income (Loss) related to the sale of these securities. However, the Company will no longer have any future cash flows from these securities since they were sold.  In addition, while HCS has demonstrated that it can provide positive cash flow sufficient to support HCS operations, it does not generate enough cash flow to make the senior note payments. Management continues to work toward expanding HCS’s customer base by increasing revenue from existing customers and targeting new customers that have not previously been served by HCS.

As a result of the foregoing, the Company's cash position is not forecasted to be sufficient to cover current and on-going obligations within one year from May 13, 2019  , which gives rise to substantial doubt regarding the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.  Management is exploring its options to mitigate the conditions or events that raise substantial doubt. The Company has been in discussions with the senior note holders to renegotiate terms of its borrowing arrangements in order to lower the quarterly interest payments, which would allow HCS additional time to expand its operations and increase revenue.  However, there is no assurance that these negotiations will be successful. As a result, we have not been able to alleviate the substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

Condensed Consolidated Financial Statement Presentation – The Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). The preparation of condensed consolidated financial statements requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the condensed consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of income and expense during the period. The Company uses estimates and judgments in assessing the recoverability of its long-lived assets, impairments, and accounting for income taxes, including the determination of the timing of the establishment or release of the valuation allowance related to the deferred tax asset balances and reserves for uncertain tax positions. While these condensed consolidated financial statements and footnotes reflect the best estimates and judgments of management at the time, actual results could differ significantly from those estimates.

The Company's condensed consolidated financial statements are unaudited. In the opinion of management, all necessary adjustments have been made, which were of a normal and recurring nature, for a fair presentation of the condensed consolidated financial statements. The Company's condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations included herein and the consolidated financial statements of the Company and the notes thereto included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 (the " 2018 Form 10-K").

Recent Accounting Pronouncements Adopted in 2019  -  In February 2016, the FASB established Topic 842, Leases , by issuing Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2016-02, which requires lessees to recognize leases on-balance sheet and disclose key information about leasing arrangements. Topic 842 was subsequently amended by ASU No. 2018-01, Land Easement Practical Expedient for Transition to Topic 842; ASU No. 2018-10, Codification Improvements to Topic 842, Leases; and ASU No. 2018-11, Targeted Improvements. The new standard establishes a right-of-use (ROU) model that requires a lessee to recognize a ROU asset and lease liability on the balance sheet for all leases with a term longer than 12 months. Leases will be classified as finance or operating, with classification affecting the pattern and expense recognition in the income statement.  The Company adopted ASU No. 2016-02 using the modified retrospective method. See Note 6 to the condensed consolidated financial statements for further details.

Note 2. Reorganization

On July 20, 2016, (the "Bankruptcy Petition Date"), Novation and three of its subsidiaries, NMLLC, NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation and 2114 Central LLC (collectively, the “Debtors”), filed voluntary petitions (the "Bankruptcy Petitions") for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland (the "Bankruptcy Court"). The Company and one of its subsidiaries subsequently filed with the Bankruptcy Court, and amended, a plan of reorganization for the resolution of the outstanding claims against and interests pursuant to Section 1121(a) of the Bankruptcy Code (as amended as supplemented, the “Plan”) and a related disclosure statement. The Bankruptcy Court entered an order on June 12, 2017, confirming the Plan (the “Confirmation Order”) solely with respect to the Company, which provided that the effective date of the Plan will occur when all conditions precedent to effectiveness, as set forth in the Plan, have been satisfied or waived. Two of the conditions to the effectiveness of the Plan were (i) the closing of the Company’s acquisition (the “HCS Acquisition”) of all of the capital stock of HCS and (ii) the restructuring of the Company’s then outstanding senior notes. The HCS Acquisition and the note restructuring were completed on July 27, 2017 and the Company filed a Notice of Occurrence of Effective Date of the Plan with the Bankruptcy Court. Under the Plan, holders of existing equity interests in the Company (i.e., the common stock) retained their interests. On September 25, 2017, the bankruptcy case of 2114 Central, LLC was dismissed by order of the Bankruptcy Court. Thereafter, on December 22, 2017, NMLLC filed with the Bankruptcy Court a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization, and on December 26, 2017 filed a related disclosure statement. The Bankruptcy Court entered an order on February 16, 2018 approving the disclosure statement, as revised. On April 11, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed NMLLC’s plan of reorganization. This plan allows NMLLC to exit bankruptcy, but prohibits the use of NMLLC assets for anything other than for the payment of NMLLC obligations. On April 19, 2019, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Motion for Final Decrees for Novation and NMLLC.

The Company incurred significant costs in 2016 and 2017 associated with our reorganization and the Chapter 11 proceedings. These costs are expensed as incurred, and have decreased significantly since 2017.  Reorganization expenses for the three months ended  March 31, 2019 and  March 31, 2018 were $0.03 million and $0.1 million, respectively.

Note 3. Revenue; Accounts and Unbilled Receivables

Staffing services include the augmentation of customers' workforce with our contingent employees performing services under the customer's supervision, which provides our customers with a source of flexible labor at a competitive cost. Customer contracts are typically annual contracts but may be terminated upon 60 days' notice for any reason.

The Company recognizes revenue when control of the promised services is transferred to customers and for the amount that reflects the consideration we are entitled to receive in exchange for those services. Furthermore, revenue is recognized over time based on a fixed amount for each hour of staffing service provided as our customers benefit from our services and as we provide them.

Performance Obligations — A performance obligation is a promise in a contract to transfer a distinct good or service to the customer. A contract’s transaction price is allocated to each distinct performance obligation and recognized as revenue when, or as, the performance obligation is satisfied. The Company’s customer contracts have a single performance obligation to transfer the individual goods or services, and it is not separately identifiable from other promises in the contracts and is, therefore, not distinct. Performance obligations are satisfied at the point in time the HCS employees work on behalf of the customer. Contract costs include compensation, benefits and overhead when appropriate. Because of the nature of the contracts and the fact that revenue is earned at the time the employee works for the customer, no contract estimates are necessary.

Contract Balances — The timing of revenue recognition, billings and cash collections results in accounts receivable and unbilled receivables (the "contract assets"). The Company bills customers generally every other week based on the work performed during the two-week period ended the week prior to billing. Generally, billing occurs after revenue recognition, resulting in contract assets. The Company does not receive advances or deposits from its customers.

Disaggregation of Revenue — All revenue is generated from customers that provide healthcare services in Georgia. The following is a disaggregation of the Company’s revenue, unaudited, in thousands, into categories that best depict how the nature, amount, timing, and uncertainty of revenues and cash flows are affected by economic factors.

Accounts and unbilled receivables are summarized as follows, in thousands:

As of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018 , management has determined no allowance for doubtful accounts is necessary. During the three months ended  March 31, 2019 , 50% of service fee income was generated from three customers. For the three months ended March 31, 2018 , 34%  of service fee income was generated from two  customers. As of March 31, 2019  and  March 31, 2018 , 48%  and  43% of accounts receivables and unbilled receivables were due from three  customers, respectively. At  March 31, 2019  and  March 31, 2018 , 95%  and  92% of accounts receivables and unbilled receivables were due from 14 Community Service Board customers, respectively.

Note 4. Marketable Securities

Prior to 2018, the Company originated, purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage securities. As a result of those activities, the Company held mortgage securities that were a source of its earnings and cash flow. These mortgage securities consisted entirely of the Company's investment in the interest-only and overcollateralization bonds issued by securitization trusts sponsored by the Company. Maturities of these retained mortgage securities depend on repayment characteristics, performance and other experience of the underlying financial instruments. During 2018, the Company sold all but 33 non-performing mortgage securities. These sales generated proceeds of $13.0 million and realized gains of $12.9 million recognized, included in other income in the Company's consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income (loss). Of the 33 mortgage securities retained, the Company determined that these securities have no fair value. There were other-than-temporary impairments relating to available-for-sale securities in 2018 of $0.3 million.

As part of the mortgage securitization process, the Company owned the mortgage servicing rights on the mortgage loans in each securitization deal. These servicing rights were sold to a third party on October 12, 2007 as documented in the Servicing Rights Transfer Agreement by and between Saxon Mortgage Services as purchaser and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. as seller, which was discussed in the Company's third quarter 2007 report on Form 10-Q. As part of this transaction, the Company retained the clean-up call rights for most of the securitization deals. The Company attempted to sell the clean-up call rights with the securities sold in 2018.  However, no bids were received for the clean-up call rights and the Company determined these clean-up call rights have no fair value.  

See Note 9 to the condensed consolidated financial statements for details on the Company's fair value methodology.

Note 6. Leases

We adopted ASU No. 2016-02—Leases (Topic 842), as amended, as of January 1, 2019, using the modified retrospective approach. The modified retrospective approach provides a method for recording existing leases at adoption and in comparative periods that approximates the results of a full retrospective approach. The Company elected to adopt the ‘package of practical expedients’, which permitted the Company not to reassess under the new standard our prior conclusions about lease identification, lease classification and initial direct costs, the practical expedients pertaining to land easements, the use-of hindsight, the short-term lease recognition exemption for all leases that qualified, and the practical expedient to not separate lease and non-lease components for all leases other than leases of real estate.

Adoption of the new standard resulted in the recording of an additional net operating lease right-of-use asset and operating lease liability of approximately $ 0.2 million each, as of January 1, 2019. The difference between the additional lease assets and lease liabilities was recorded as an adjustment to retained earnings. The standard did not materially impact our consolidated net earnings and had no impact on cash flows.  The Company does not have any finance leases. 

Our leases consist primarily of office space. Leases with an initial term of 12 months or less, and leases which are on a month-to-month basis, are not recorded on the balance sheet.  For these leases we recognize lease expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

Most leases include one or more options to renew, with renewal terms that can extend the lease term from one to three years or more. The exercise of lease renewal options is at our discretion. Our lease agreements do not contain any variable lease payments, residual value guarantees or restrictive covenants. The components of lease expense for the three months ended March 31, 2019  totaled $ 0.04 million.

As our leases do not provide an implicit interest rate, we use our incremental current borrowing rate in determining the present value of lease payments.

Maturities of lease liabilities were as follows (in thousands):

Other information related to the Company's operating leases was as follows (in thousands):

Note 7. Borrowings

Revolving Credit Agreement —  As of   December 31, 2018 , HCS had $ 1.9  million outstanding under a Revolving Credit and Security Agreement (the “White Oak Credit Agreement”) between HCS and White Oak Global Advisors, LLC ("White Oak'), which provided HCS with a line of credit of up to $5,000,000. The White Oak Credit Agreement was originally with Federal National Payables, Inc. (d/b/a Federal National Commercial Credit) (“FNCC”), which White Oak acquired in February 2018. Availability under the White Oak Credit Agreement was based on a formula tied to HCS’s eligible accounts receivable. Borrowings bore interest at the prime rate plus 1.25%. The initial term of the White Oak Credit Agreement expired on November 17, 2018, but was renewed automatically for a consecutive one-year term per the provisions of the White Oak Credit Agreement. The obligations of HCS under the White Oak Credit Agreement were secured by HCS’s inventory and accounts receivable. The White Oak Credit Agreement provided for customary origination and collateral monitoring fees payable to White Oak during its term, customary representations, warranties and affirmative and negative covenants, including but not limited to financial covenants and contained customary events of default, including but not limited to payment defaults, cross defaults with certain other indebtedness, breaches of covenants and bankruptcy events. In the case of an event of default, White Oak was able to, among other remedies, have accelerated payment of all obligations under the White Oak Credit Agreement. In connection with the White Oak Credit Agreement, the Company executed a guaranty in favor of White Oak guaranteeing all of HCS’s obligations under the White Oak Credit Agreement. HCS terminated the White Oak Credit Agreement in February 2019 and the Company fully repaid the all the outstanding obligations at that time.   

Note Refinancing and 2017 Notes — The Company has $85.9 million in aggregate borrowings outstanding under three senior secured promissory notes (the "2017 Notes"). The unpaid principal amounts of the 2017 Notes bear interest at a variable rate equal to LIBOR plus 3.5% per annum, payable quarterly in arrears until maturity on March 30, 2033. The 2017 Notes generally rank senior in right of payment to any existing or future subordinated indebtedness of the Credit Parties, as defined below. The Company may at any time upon 30 days’ notice to the Noteholders redeem all or part of the 2017 Notes at a redemption price equal to 101% of the principal amount redeemed plus any accrued and unpaid interest thereon. The 2017 Notes were entered into on July 27, 2017 as a result of a refinancing of the Company's then outstanding senior notes with the same aggregate principal amount. The refinancing was completed through the execution of the Senior Secured Note Purchase Agreement, dated as of the same date (the “Note Purchase Agreement”), with NHI and HCS as guarantors (together with the Company, collectively, the “Credit Parties”).

The Note Purchase Agreement contains customary affirmative and negative covenants, including but not limited to certain financial covenants. The Note Purchase Agreement also contains customary events of default, including but not limited to payment defaults, cross defaults with certain other indebtedness, breaches of covenants and bankruptcy events. In the case of an event of default, the Noteholders may, among other remedies, accelerate the payment of all obligations under the Note Purchase Agreement and the 2017 Notes. The Credit Parties entered into a Pledge and Security Agreement, dated as of the same date, pursuant to which each of the Credit Parties granted a first priority lien generally covering all of its assets, other than accounts receivable and inventory, for the benefit of the Noteholders, to secure the obligations under the Note Purchase Agreement and the 2017 Notes.

Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies

Contingencies — Prior to 2016, the Company originated, purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage securities. The Company has received indemnification and loan repurchase demands with respect to alleged violations of representations and warranties (“defects”) and with respect to other alleged misrepresentations and contractual commitments made in loan sale and securitization agreements. These demands have been received substantially beginning in 2006 and have continued into recent years. Prior to the Company ceasing the origination of loans in its mortgage lending business, it sold loans to securitization trusts and other third parties and agreed to repurchase loans with material defects and to otherwise indemnify parties to these transactions. Beginning in 1997 and ending in 2007, affiliates of the Company sold loans to securitization trusts and third parties with the potential of such obligations. The aggregate original principal balance of these loans was $43.1 billion at the time of sale or securitization. The remaining principal balance of these loans is not available as these loans are serviced by third parties and may have been refinanced, sold or liquidated. Claims to repurchase loans or to indemnify under securitization documents have not been acknowledged as valid by the Company. In some cases, claims were made against affiliates of the Company that have ceased operations and have no or limited assets. The Company has not repurchased any loans or made any such indemnification payments since 2010.

Historically, repurchases of loans or indemnification of losses where a loan defect has been alleged have been insignificant and any future losses for alleged loan defects have not been deemed to be probable or reasonably estimable; therefore, the Company has recorded no reserves related to these claims. The Company does not use internal groupings for purposes of determining the status of these loans. The Company is unable to develop an estimate of the maximum potential amount of future payments related to repurchase demands because the Company does not have access to information relating to loans sold and securitized and the number or amount of claims deemed probable of assertion is not known nor is it reasonably estimated. Further, the validity of claims received remains questionable. Also, considering that the Company completed its last sale or securitization of loans during 2007, the Company believes that it will be difficult for a claimant to successfully validate any additional repurchase demands. Management does not expect that the potential impact of claims will be material to the condensed consolidated financial statements.

Pending Litigation — The Company is a party to various legal proceedings. Except as set forth below, these proceedings are of an ordinary and routine nature. Any legal fees associated with these proceedings are expensed as incurred.

Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of any legal proceeding, in the opinion of management, other than the active proceedings described in detail below, proceedings and actions against the Company should not, individually, or in the aggregate, have a material effect on the Company’s financial condition, operations and liquidity. Furthermore, due to the uncertainty of any potential loss as a result of pending litigation and due to the Company's belief that an adverse ruling is not probable, the Company has not accrued a loss contingency related to the following matters in its condensed consolidated financial statements. However, a material outcome in one or more of the active proceedings described below could have a material impact on the results of operations in a particular quarter or fiscal year. 

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation (“NMFC”) and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. ("NMI"), wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company (“affiliated defendants”) and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and the purported class members. On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. Plaintiff filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Appellate Court"). On March 1, 2013, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the Appellate Court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. On April 23, 2013 plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not invested, and on February 5, 2015, the lower court granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier dismissal. On March 8, 2017, the affiliated defendants and all other parties executed an agreement to settle the action, with the contribution of the affiliated defendants to the settlement fund being paid by their insurance carriers. The court certified a settlement class and granted preliminary approval to the settlement on May 10, 2017.  One member of the settlement class objected to the settlement and sought a stay of the final settlement approval hearing on the ground that it did not receive notice of the settlement and had no opportunity to timely opt out of the class.  After the court rejected the motion for a stay, the objector filed an appeal and requested a stay of the district court proceedings pending disposition of the appeal. The court of appeals denied the temporary stay of the district court proceedings and on October 19, 2018 dismissed the appeal as moot.  Following the court of appeals’ denial of the objector’s petition for rehearing, the district court on March 7, 2019 held a fairness hearing.  On March 8, 2019, the district court issued a memorandum and order approving the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate, and dismissing the action with prejudice.  Following entry of judgment, the objector filed a notice of appeal on March 26, 2019.  Assuming the settlement approval becomes final, which is expected, the Company will incur no loss.  The Company believes that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses to the case and, if the settlement approval does not become final, expects them to defend the case vigorously. 

On June 20, 2011, the National Credit Union Administration Board, as liquidating agent of U.S. Central Federal Credit Union, filed an action against NMFC and numerous other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, claiming that the defendants issued or underwrote residential mortgage-backed securities pursuant to allegedly false or misleading registration statements, prospectuses, and/or prospectus supplements. On August 24, 2012, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint making essentially the same claims against NMFC. NMFC filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint which was denied on September 12, 2013. The defendants claimed the case should be dismissed based upon a statute of limitations and sought an appeal of the court's denial of this defense. An interlocutory appeal of this issue was allowed, and on August 27, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (the "Tenth Circuit") affirmed the lower court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims as being time barred; the Tenth Circuit held that the Extender Statute, 12 U.S.C. §1787(b)(14) applied to plaintiff’s claims. On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court (the "Supreme Court") granted a petition of NMFC and its co-defendants for certiorari, vacated the ruling of the Tenth Circuit, and remanded the case back to that court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 134 S. Ct. 2175 (2014). On August 19, 2014, the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its prior decision, and on October 2, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was denied. On March 22, 2016, NMFC filed motions for summary judgment, and plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Those motions remain pending. Given that plaintiff did not file a timely proof of claim in NMFC’s bankruptcy case, the Company believes it is likely that the case will be dismissed. The Company believes that NMFC has meritorious defenses to the case and expects it to defend the case vigorously in the event it proceeds.

On February 28, 2013, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as conservator for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and purportedly on behalf of the Trustee of the NovaStar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2007-1 (the “Trust”), a securitization trust in which the Company retains a residual interest, filed a summons with notice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County against the Company and NMI. The notice provides that this is a breach of contract action with respect to certain, unspecified mortgage loans and defendants’ failure to repurchase such loans under the applicable agreements. Plaintiff alleges that defendants, from the closing date of the transaction that created the Trust, were aware of the breach of the representations and warranties made and failed to give notice of and cure such breaches, and due to the failure of defendants to cure any breach, notice to defendants would have been futile. The summons with notice was not served until June 28, 2013. By letter dated June 24, 2013, the Trustee of the Trust forwarded a notice from Freddie Mac alleging breaches of representations and warranties with respect to 43 loans, as more fully set forth in included documentation. The 43 loans had an aggregate, original principal balance of about $6.5 million. On August 19, 2013, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, filed a complaint identifying alleged breaches of representations and warranties with respect to seven loans that were included in the earlier list of 43 loans. Plaintiff also generally alleged a trust-wide breach of representations and warranties by defendants with respect to loans sold and transferred to the trust. Plaintiff seeks specific performance of repurchase obligations; compensatory, consequential, recessionary and equitable damages for breach of contract; specific performance and damages for anticipatory breach of contract; indemnification (indemnification against NMI only) and damages for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On October 9, 2013, the Company and NMI filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.

This motion to dismiss was withdrawn after plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 28, 2014, and on March 4, 2014, the Company and NMI filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. By a Decision/Order dated November 30, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court dismissed all claims except for plaintiff’s claim for damages for breach of contract, to the extent that claim is based on the Company’s and NMI’s alleged failure to notify plaintiff of allegedly defective loans, and plaintiff’s claim for indemnification. The court denied the motion to dismiss these claims without prejudice to the Company’s and NMI’s right to file a new motion to dismiss in conformity with procedures to be established in coordinated proceedings before the court addressing similar claims against numerous defendants. Briefing of the indemnification issue was completed.

The parties have reached a settlement of this matter.  On October 25, 2018, the bankruptcy court overseeing the Company's bankruptcy case entered an order approving the settlement, and on November 19, 2018, the New York State Court "so ordered" a Stipulation of Voluntary Discontinuance terminating the case.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the required upfront payment of $0.3 million was made on March 1, 2019.  The settlement also requires equal quarterly installments over a three years period, which total an additional $0.3 million.  Based on the probability of all contingencies associated with the settlement being satisfied, the Company recorded an expense in the second quarter of 2018 in the Reorganization Items, net expense line item of the income statement and the short and long-term liability totals in the applicable Accrued Settlement Claims lines per the balance sheet.

DB Structured Products, Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Greenwich Capital Derivatives, Inc., RBS Acceptance Inc., RBS Financial Products Inc., RBS Securities Inc., The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, Wachovia Investment Holdings, LLC, Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC (collectively, the “Indemnity Claimants”) filed proofs of claim in the Company’s bankruptcy case asserting the right to be indemnified by the Company for, and/or to receive contribution from the company in respect of, certain liabilities incurred as a result of their roles in the issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities sponsored by the Company.  The Company filed an objection in the bankruptcy case seeking to disallow and expunge the Indemnity Claimants’ proofs of claim.  The Indemnity Claimants’ claims were not discharged by the confirmation of the Company’s plan of reorganization, and the bankruptcy court has not ruled on the Company’s objection to those claims.

The parties have reached a settlement in this matter, which was approved by the court on November 29, 2018.  This settlement includes an upfront payment of $0.5 million, which was paid on December 21, 2018.  In addition, the settlement provides for equal quarterly installments over a three years period, which total an additional $0.4 million.  Based on the probability of this settlement receiving court approval, the Company recorded an expense during the second quarter of 2018 in the Reorganization Items, net expense line item of the income statement and the short and long-term liability totals in the applicable Accrued Settlement Claims lines per the balance sheet.

Note 9. Fair Value Accounting

Fair Value Measurements — The Company's valuation techniques are based upon observable and unobservable inputs. Observable inputs reflect market data obtained from independent sources, while unobservable inputs reflect the Company's market assumptions. These two types of inputs create the following fair value hierarchy:

The following table provides the estimated fair value of financial instruments and presents amounts that have been determined using available market information and appropriate valuation methodologies. However, considerable judgment is required to interpret market data to develop the estimates of fair value. Accordingly, the estimates presented herein are not necessarily indicative of the amounts that could be realized in a current market exchange. The use of different market assumptions or estimation methodologies could have a material impact on the estimated fair value amounts. The fair value of short-term financial assets and liabilities, such as service fees receivable, notes receivable, and accounts payable and accrued expenses are not included in the following table as their carrying value approximates their fair value.

The estimated fair values of the Company's financial instruments are (in thousands): 

The equity securities are valued based on quoted market prices and are included in other current assets on the condensed consolidated balance sheets. The senior notes in the table above are not measured at fair value in the condensed consolidated balance sheets but are required to be disclosed at fair value.  The fair value of the senior notes has been estimated using Level 3 methodologies, based on significant unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity, such as discounted cash flow calculations based on internal cash flow forecasts. No assets or liabilities have been transferred between levels during any period presented.

Senior Notes — The fair value is estimated by discounting future projected cash flows using a discount rate commensurate with the risks involved. The interest rate on the senior notes is three-month LIBOR plus 3.5% per annum until maturity in March 2033. The three-month LIBOR used in the analysis was projected using a forward interest rate curve.

Note 10. Income Taxes

Prior to 2017, the Company concluded that it was no longer more likely than not that it would realize a portion of its deferred tax assets. Therefore, as of March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018 , the Company maintained a full valuation allowance against its net deferred tax assets of $ 164.4 million and $ 164.0 million , respectively. The Company's determination of the realizable deferred tax assets requires the exercise of significant judgment, based in part on business plans and expectations about future outcomes. In the event the actual results differ from these estimates in future periods, the Company may need to adjust the valuation allowance, which could materially impact our financial position and results of operations. The Company will continue to assess the need for a valuation allowance in future periods. Because of the full valuation allowance, the Company's effective tax rate is expected to be near 0% and therefore the income tax expense is not material for any period presented.

As of March 31, 2019 , the Company had a federal NOL of approximately $ 729.6 million, i ncluding $ 250.3 million in losses on mortgage securities that have not been recognized for income tax purposes. The federal NOL may be carried forward to offset future taxable income, subject to applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (the "Code"). If not used, these NOLs will expire in years  2025 through 2037 . Due to tax reform enacted in 2017, NOLs created after 2017 carry forward indefinitely. The  2018 tax return has not been filed as of the date of this report, however the estimated federal NOL that does not expire included in the total above is $ 19.9 million. States may vary in their treatment of post 2017 NOLs. The Company has state NOL carryforwards arising from both combined and separate filings from as early as 2004. The state NOL carryforwards may expire as early as  2024 and as late as 2037 .