Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 11 — Commitments and Contingencies Contractual Commitments Our debt obligations have approximate maturities of $122.7 million in 2015 (of which $79.3 million related to the unwind of CDO III in July), $221.7 million in 2016, $346.3 million in 2017, $228.3 million in 2018, $12.7 million in 2019 and $273.7 million thereafter. In accordance with certain loans and investments, we have outstanding unfunded commitments of $16.0 million as of June 30, 2015 that we are obligated to fund as the borrowers meet certain requirements. Of this total, we have $4.4 million in restricted cash which was available to fund all of the unfunded commitments for loans financed by our CDO and CLO vehicles. Specific requirements include, but are not limited to, property renovations, building construction, and building conversions based on criteria met by the borrower in accordance with the loan agreements. Litigation We currently are neither subject to any material litigation nor, to management’s knowledge, is any material litigation currently threatened against us other than the following: On June 15, 2011, three related lawsuits were filed by the Extended Stay Litigation Trust (the “Trust”), a post-bankruptcy litigation trust alleged to have standing to pursue claims that previously had been held by Extended Stay, Inc. and the Homestead Village L.L.C. family of companies (together “ESI”) (formerly Chapter 11 debtors, together the “Debtors”) that have emerged from bankruptcy. Two of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, and the third in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. There were 73 defendants in the three lawsuits, including 55 corporate and partnership entities and 18 individuals. A subsidiary of ours and certain other entities that are affiliates of ours are included as defendants. The New York State Court action has been removed to the Bankruptcy Court. Our affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the three lawsuits. The lawsuits all allege, as a factual basis and background certain facts surrounding the June 2007 leveraged buyout of ESI from affiliates of Blackstone Capital. Our subsidiary, Arbor ESH II, LLC, had a $115.0 million investment in the Series A1 Preferred Units of a holding company of Extended Stay, Inc. The New York State Court action and one of the two federal court actions name as defendants, Arbor ESH II, LLC, Arbor Commercial Mortgage, LLC and ABT-ESI LLC, an entity in which we have a membership interest, among the broad group of defendants. These two actions were commenced by substantially identical complaints. The defendants are alleged in these complaints, among other things, to have breached fiduciary and contractual duties by causing or allowing the Debtors to pay illegal dividends or other improper distributions of value at a time when the Debtors were insolvent. These two complaints also allege that the defendants aided and abetted, induced, or participated in breaches of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment (“Fiduciary Duty Claims”) and name a director of ours, and a former general counsel of Arbor Commercial Mortgage, LLC, each of whom had served on the Board of Directors of ESI for a period of time. We are defending these two defendants and paying the costs of such defense. On the basis of the foregoing allegations, the Trust has asserted claims under a number of common law theories, seeking the return of assets transferred by the Debtors prior to the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing. In the third action, filed in Bankruptcy Court, the same plaintiff, the Trust, has named Arbor Commercial Mortgage, LLC and ABT-ESI LLC, together with a number of other defendants and asserts claims, including constructive and fraudulent conveyance claims under state and federal statutes, as well as a claim under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act. On June 28, 2013, the Trust filed a motion to amend the lawsuits, to, among other things, (i) consolidate the lawsuits into one lawsuit, (ii) remove 47 defendants, none of whom are related to us, from the lawsuits so that there are 26 remaining defendants, including 16 corporate and partnership entities and 10 individuals, and (iii) reduce the counts within the lawsuits from over 100 down to 17. The remaining counts in the amended complaint against our affiliates are principally state law claims for breach of fiduciary duties, waste, unlawful dividends and unjust enrichment, and claims under the Bankruptcy Code for avoidance and recovery actions, among others. The bankruptcy court granted the motion and the amended complaint has been filed. The amended complaint seeks approximately $139.0 million in the aggregate from director designees, portions of which are also sought from our affiliates as well as from unaffiliated defendants. We have moved to dismiss the referenced actions and intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted therein. During a status conference held on March 18, 2014, the Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss and adjourned the case pending a ruling. We have not made a loss accrual for this litigation because we believe that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and an amount cannot be reasonably estimated.

Note 11 — Commitments and Contingencies

Contractual Commitments

Our debt obligations have approximate maturities of $122.7 million in 2015 (of which $79.3 million related to the unwind of CDO III in July), $221.7 million in 2016, $346.3 million in 2017, $228.3 million in 2018, $12.7 million in 2019 and $273.7 million thereafter.

In accordance with certain loans and investments, we have outstanding unfunded commitments of $16.0 million as of June 30, 2015 that we are obligated to fund as the borrowers meet certain requirements. Of this total, we have $4.4 million in restricted cash which was available to fund all of the unfunded commitments for loans financed by our CDO and CLO vehicles. Specific requirements include, but are not limited to, property renovations, building construction, and building conversions based on criteria met by the borrower in accordance with the loan agreements.

Litigation

We currently are neither subject to any material litigation nor, to management’s knowledge, is any material litigation currently threatened against us other than the following:

On June 15, 2011, three related lawsuits were filed by the Extended Stay Litigation Trust (the “Trust”), a post-bankruptcy litigation trust alleged to have standing to pursue claims that previously had been held by Extended Stay, Inc. and the Homestead Village L.L.C. family of companies (together “ESI”) (formerly Chapter 11 debtors, together the “Debtors”) that have emerged from bankruptcy. Two of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, and the third in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. There were 73 defendants in the three lawsuits, including 55 corporate and partnership entities and 18 individuals. A subsidiary of ours and certain other entities that are affiliates of ours are included as defendants. The New York State Court action has been removed to the Bankruptcy Court. Our affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the three lawsuits.

The lawsuits all allege, as a factual basis and background certain facts surrounding the June 2007 leveraged buyout of ESI from affiliates of Blackstone Capital. Our subsidiary, Arbor ESH II, LLC, had a $115.0 million investment in the Series A1 Preferred Units of a holding company of Extended Stay, Inc. The New York State Court action and one of the two federal court actions name as defendants, Arbor ESH II, LLC, Arbor Commercial Mortgage, LLC and ABT-ESI LLC, an entity in which we have a membership interest, among the broad group of defendants. These two actions were commenced by substantially identical complaints. The defendants are alleged in these complaints, among other things, to have breached fiduciary and contractual duties by causing or allowing the Debtors to pay illegal dividends or other improper distributions of value at a time when the Debtors were insolvent. These two complaints also allege that the defendants aided and abetted, induced, or participated in breaches of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment (“Fiduciary Duty Claims”) and name a director of ours, and a former general counsel of Arbor Commercial Mortgage, LLC, each of whom had served on the Board of Directors of ESI for a period of time. We are defending these two defendants and paying the costs of such defense. On the basis of the foregoing allegations, the Trust has asserted claims under a number of common law theories, seeking the return of assets transferred by the Debtors prior to the Debtors’ bankruptcy filing.

In the third action, filed in Bankruptcy Court, the same plaintiff, the Trust, has named Arbor Commercial Mortgage, LLC and ABT-ESI LLC, together with a number of other defendants and asserts claims, including constructive and fraudulent conveyance claims under state and federal statutes, as well as a claim under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act.

On June 28, 2013, the Trust filed a motion to amend the lawsuits, to, among other things, (i) consolidate the lawsuits into one lawsuit, (ii) remove 47 defendants, none of whom are related to us, from the lawsuits so that there are 26 remaining defendants, including 16 corporate and partnership entities and 10 individuals, and (iii) reduce the counts within the lawsuits from over 100 down to 17. The remaining counts in the amended complaint against our affiliates are principally state law claims for breach of fiduciary duties, waste, unlawful dividends and unjust enrichment, and claims under the Bankruptcy Code for avoidance and recovery actions, among others. The bankruptcy court granted the motion and the amended complaint has been filed. The amended complaint seeks approximately $139.0 million in the aggregate from director designees, portions of which are also sought from our affiliates as well as from unaffiliated defendants. We have moved to dismiss the referenced actions and intend to vigorously defend against the claims asserted therein. During a status conference held on March 18, 2014, the Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss and adjourned the case pending a ruling.

We have not made a loss accrual for this litigation because we believe that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred and an amount cannot be reasonably estimated.