XML 29 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT ﻿
v2.3.0.11

Commitments And Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments And Contingencies |
Commitments And Contingencies | (12) Commitments and Contingencies Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (defined herein as "Ambac" or "Ambac Financial Group") and certain of its present or former officers or directors have been named in lawsuits that allege violations of the federal securities laws and/or state law. Various putative class action suits alleging violations of the federal securities laws have been filed against Ambac and certain of its present or former directors and officers. These suits include four class actions filed in January and February of 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that were consolidated on May 9, 2008 under the caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 08 CV 411. On July 25, 2008, another suit, Painting Industry Insurance and Annuity Funds v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al., case No. 08 CV 6602, was filed in the United States District for the Southern District of New York. On or about August 22, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action. The consolidated amended complaint includes the allegations presented by the original four class actions, the allegations presented by the Painting Industry action, and additional allegations. The consolidated amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of Ambac's common stock from October 25, 2006 to April 22, 2008, on behalf of purchasers of Ambac's "DISCS", issued in February of 2007, and on behalf of purchasers of equity units and common stock in Ambac's March 2008 offerings. The suit names as defendants Ambac, the underwriters for the three offerings, Ambac's independent Certified Public Accountants and certain present and former directors and officers of Ambac. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Ambac's business and financial results and guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions and that the Registration Statements pursuant to which the three offerings were made contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of the securities laws. On August 27, 2009, Ambac and the individual defendants named in the consolidated securities action moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On February 22, 2010, the Court dismissed the claims arising out of the March 2008 equity units and common stock offering (resulting in the dismissal of Ambac's independent Certified Public Accountants from the action), and otherwise denied the motions to dismiss. On April 15, 2010, the Court ordered a Discovery Plan and Proposed Pretrial Schedule, pursuant to which discovery was scheduled to commence on May 10, 2010, with dispositive motions due by December 2, 2011. On December 9, 2010, Ambac and the present or former officers or directors who are defendants in these actions entered into a memorandum of understanding with Plaintiffs with respect to settlement. And, as discussed in more detail below, on May 6, 2011, Ambac and the present or former officers or directors who are defendants in these actions entered in a stipulation of settlement to settle the claims asserted in these actions. On December 24, 2008, a complaint in a putative class action entitled Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et al., asserting alleged violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ambac, one former officer and director and one former officer, Case No. 08 CV 11241. An amended complaint was subsequently filed on January 20, 2009. This action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Structured Repackaged Asset-Backed Trust Securities, Callable Class A Certificates, Series 2007-1, STRATS(SM) Trust for Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities 2007-1 ("STRATS") from June 29, 2007 through April 22, 2008. The STRATS are asset-backed securities that were allegedly issued by a subsidiary of Wachovia Corporation and are allegedly collateralized solely by Ambac's DISCS. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Ambac's business and financial results and Ambac's guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions, in violation of the securities laws. On April 15, 2009, Ambac and the individual defendants named in Tolin moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 23, 2009, the Court initially denied defendants' motion to dismiss, but later recalled that decision and requested further briefing from parties in the case before it rendered a decision on the motion to dismiss. The additional briefing was completed on March 5, 2010, and oral argument on the motion to dismiss was heard on August 4, 2010. On December 9, 2010, Ambac and the former officer and director and the former officer who are defendants in this action entered into a memorandum of understanding with Plaintiffs with respect to settlement. And, as discussed in more detail below, on May 6, 2011, Ambac and the former officer and director and the former officer who are defendants in this action entered into a stipulation of settlement to settle the claims asserted in this action. Various shareholder derivative actions have been filed against certain present or former officers or directors of Ambac, and against Ambac as a nominal defendant. These suits, which are brought purportedly on behalf of Ambac, are in many ways similar and allege violations of law for conduct occurring between October 2005 and the dates of suit regarding, among other things, Ambac's guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions, Ambac's public disclosures regarding such guarantees and Ambac's financial condition, and certain defendants' alleged insider trading on non-public information. The suits include (i) three actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that have been consolidated under the caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 08 CV 854; on June 30, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint that asserts violations of state and federal law, including breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and violations of the federal securities laws; on August 8, 2008, Ambac and the individual defendants named in the consolidated Southern District of New York derivative action moved to dismiss that action for want of demand and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; on December 11, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 17, 2008; on June 2, 2009 defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint; on November 22, 2010, the Court dismissed the consolidated derivative action without prejudice to its renewal when and if the automatic stay provided by the Bankruptcy Code is lifted (ii) two actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery that have been consolidated under the caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Shareholders Derivative Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 3521; on May 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint that asserts claims including breaches of fiduciary duties, waste, reckless and gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment; on December 30, 2008, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants' motion to stay the Delaware shareholder derivative action in favor of the Southern District of New York Consolidated Derivative Action; plaintiffs in the Delaware action subsequently moved to intervene in the Southern District of New York derivative action and on May 12, 2009, the motion to intervene was denied; and (iii) two actions filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, that have been consolidated under the caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Consolidated Index No. 650050/2008E; on September 22, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint that asserts claims including breaches of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, and waste; on January 5, 2010, the New York Supreme Court granted defendants motion to stay the New York Supreme Court action in favor of the Southern District of New York Consolidated Derivative Action; one of the actions consolidated in the New York Supreme Court actions is currently listed on the Court's docket as dismissed, the other action remains listed as stayed. Pursuant to the terms of a memorandum of understanding entered into on December 9, 2010, on May 6, 2011, Ambac and all of its present or former officers or directors who are defendants in the Securities Class Actions or the Derivative Actions, entered into a stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation") with the lead plaintiffs in In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation and the named plaintiffs in Tolin v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. for settlement of both of the Securities Class Actions. The Stipulation provides that the claims of the putative plaintiff classes, among other claims, will be settled for a cash payment of $27,100. Certain of the insurance carriers who provided directors and officers' liability coverage to Ambac's present and former officers and directors for the period July 2007-July 2009 have agreed to pay $24,600 of the settlement, pursuant to a separate agreement entered into between Ambac, the present or former officers or directors who are defendants in the Securities Class Actions or the Derivative Actions, and those insurance carriers. Ambac has agreed to pay $2,500 of the settlement and previously deposited that amount into an escrow account (classified as Restricted Cash on the Consolidated Balance Sheet since these amounts are held in escrow). Lead and named plaintiffs in the Securities Class Actions, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the settlement class, have agreed to releases of claims against, among others, Ambac and the present or former officers or directors who are parties to the Stipulation. The settlement provided for in the Stipulation is subject to various conditions, including, among others, approval by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and approval by the bankruptcy court of Ambac's entry into the settlement and of certain releases and bar orders that would release and bar claims (among others) by or on behalf of Ambac, including by any shareholder or creditor of Ambac purportedly acting derivatively on behalf of Ambac, against present or former officers or directors of Ambac that were, could have been, might have been or might be in the future asserted in any of the Securities Actions or any of the Derivative Actions. The Stipulation further provides that nothing in the Stipulation shall be deemed an admission by any defendant of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing. The above description of terms of the Stipulation is qualified in its entirety by reference to the text of the Stipulation, which was filed in In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation on May 6, 2011. On May 19, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order lifting the automatic stay pursuant to section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code to permit inter alia the settling parties to seek preliminary approval of the settlement in the District Court. On June 14, 2011, the District Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On July 19, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtor's motion pursuant to section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and bankruptcy rule 9019 approving the Stipulation and related agreements and the Debtor's entry into the Stipulation and related agreements and performance of all of its obligations thereunder. The Bankruptcy Court's order also approved certain releases and bars that will, upon the effective date of the settlement, release and bar claims (among others) by or on behalf of Ambac, including by any shareholder or creditor of Ambac purportedly acting derivatively on behalf of Ambac, against present or former officers or directors of Ambac that were, could have been, might have been or might be in the future asserted in any of the Securities Actions or any of the Derivative Actions. On July 25, 2011, the Debtor sought by Notice of Presentment to enter an amended order pursuant to section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and bankruptcy rule 9019. Certain objections have been filed on behalf of putative shareholders who are or were plaintiffs in the derivative actions in the Delaware Court of Chancery or the Southern District of New York, and a hearing before the Bankruptcy Court has been scheduled for August 10, 2011. A settlement fairness hearing in the District Court is currently scheduled for September 28, 2011. On December 14, 2009, a purchaser of Ambac's DISCS filed an individual action entitled Judy Ehrenreich v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et al., asserting alleged violations of the federal securities laws, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, against Ambac and one former officer, Case No. 09 CV 10173. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Ambac's plans to meet certain investment agreement collateral requirements as well as materially false and misleading statements regarding Ambac's valuation of certain of its investment securities. On March 9, 2010, Ambac and the former officer moved to dismiss. On November 10, 2010, Ambac filed a "Notice of Bankruptcy" in the action, advising the Court of its position that in light of Ambac's filing for bankruptcy, as of November 8, 2010, any new or further action against Ambac is stayed pursuant to section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. On March 28, 2011, the Court entered an order staying the action. Karthikeyan v. Veera v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et al., (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 10 CV 4191, filed on or about May 24, 2010, and amended on September 7, 2010). Plaintiff, a former employee and participant in Ambac's Saving Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), asserts violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and names as defendants the Plan Administrative Committee, the Plan Investment Committee, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Ambac, and a number of current and former officers of Ambac. This action is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons, excluding defendants and their immediate families, who were participants in the Plan from October 1, 2006 through July 2, 2008 and whose Plan accounts included an investment in Ambac stock. The complaint alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties by defendants in respect of the continued offering of Ambac stock as an investment option for the Plan and the failure to provide complete and accurate information to Plan participants regarding Ambac's financial condition. This ERISA action seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, a constructive trust for amounts by which the fiduciaries allegedly benefited as a result of their breaches, and attorneys' fees. On October 20, 2010, all of the defendants named in the amended complaint moved to dismiss all of the claims in the amended complaint. In an Opinion and Order issued January 6, 2011, the Court denied the motion to dismiss, but held that the defendants had no "affirmative duty under ERISA to disclose information about the company's financial condition to plan participants." On January 18, 2011, Ambac filed an adversary complaint in the Bankruptcy Court against Plaintiff, seeking declaratory relief to confirm the applicability of the automatic stay under Bankruptcy Code section 362(a) to plaintiff's claims or, alternatively, for injunctive relief under section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code to preclude plaintiff from prosecuting his claims pending the effective date of a chapter 11 plan or further order of the Bankruptcy Court. On February 11, 2011, Ambac filed a motion in the adversary proceeding for summary judgment declaring that the protections of the automatic stay apply or should be extended to the claims in the ERISA action and for injunctive relief. Following a hearing on Ambac's motion on March 4, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting Ambac's motion, holding that the automatic stay applied to the ERISA action, but also granted Plaintiff relief from the stay to pursue limited discovery during the extended exclusivity period in Ambac's Chapter 11 case. On July 15, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a motion for additional relief from the automatic stay. The Bankruptcy Court denied the Plaintiff's motion on July 20, 2011 ordering that the automatic stay shall continue to apply to the ERISA action but granting Plaintiff limited relief from the automatic stay in order to permit Plaintiff to participate in mediation, which is currently scheduled for September 2, 2011. County of Alameda et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, filed on or about October 13, 2010) ("Alameda Complaint"); Contra Costa County et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, filed on or about October 13, 2010) ("Contra Costa Complaint"); The Olympic Club v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, filed on or about October 13, 2010) ("Olympic Club Complaint"). The Contra Costa Complaint is brought on behalf of five California municipal entities and the non-profit Jewish Community Center of San Francisco. The Alameda Complaint is brought on behalf of nineteen California municipal entities. The Olympic Club Complaint is brought on behalf of the non-profit Olympic Club. The three actions make similar allegations against Ambac Assurance, various other financial guarantee insurance companies and employees thereof (collectively with Ambac Assurance, the "Bond Insurer Defendants"), and, in the case of the Contra Costa Complaint and the Olympic Club Complaint, the major credit rating agencies (the "Rating Agencies"). The actions allege that (1) Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants colluded with the Rating Agencies to perpetuate a "dual rating system" pursuant to which the Rating Agencies rated the debt obligations of municipal issuers differently from corporate debt obligations, thereby keeping municipal ratings artificially low relative to corporate ratings; (2) Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants issued false and misleading financial statements which failed to disclose the extent of the insurers' respective exposures to mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations; and (3) as a result of these actions, plaintiffs incurred higher interest costs and bond insurance premiums in respect of their respective bond issues. Ambac Financial Group was originally a defendant in each of these actions, but on November 22, 2010, Ambac Financial Group was dismissed without prejudice as a defendant by the plaintiffs in each of these actions. Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants filed a demurrer seeking the dismissal of each of these complaints on September 17, 2010. The demurrer was fully briefed by November 19, 2010. Oral argument on the demurrer was held on July 6 and 7, 2011. The Superior Court of California sustained the demurrer in part, dismissing the causes of actions for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment with prejudice and dismissing the claim for fraud without prejudice, allowing the Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaints for that cause of action. The demurrers were otherwise overruled. Amended complaints were scheduled to be filed by August 8, 2011. NPS LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation (United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, filed on July 8, 2008). This action was brought by NPS LLC ("NPS"), the owner of Gillette Stadium, the home stadium of the New England Patriots, with respect to the termination of a financial guarantee insurance policy issued by Ambac Assurance with respect to auction rate bonds issued by NPS in 2006. Due to well-documented disruption of the auction rate securities market, the interest rate on the bonds floated to high levels and NPS therefore refinanced the bonds in a fixed rate financing without Ambac Assurance's involvement. Pursuant to the insurance agreement between NPS and Ambac Assurance, NPS is obligated to pay a "make whole" premium to Ambac Assurance equal to the present value of the installment premiums that Ambac Assurance would have earned through 2017 if the bonds had not been redeemed (approximately $2,700). NPS alleged that it is not liable to pay the "make whole" premium because Ambac Assurance misrepresented its financial condition at the time the bonds were issued and that the alleged misrepresentations induced NPS to enter into the insurance agreement, thereby causing NPS to incur additional interest costs in connection with the bonds. NPS also alleged that Ambac Assurance was liable to NPS for the additional interest costs incurred by NPS which resulted from the disruption of the auction rate securities market. On February 25, 2010, the court granted Ambac Assurance's motion for summary judgment as to all of NPS's claims and Ambac Assurance's counterclaim for the "make whole" premium and interest and costs. The parties are awaiting a determination by the court of the amount of Ambac Assurance's legal fees that NPS will be required to pay. NPS has stated that it intends to appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of Ambac Assurance. City of Phoenix v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (United States District Court, District of Arizona, filed on or about March 11, 2010). This action is brought by the City of Phoenix against Ambac Assurance and other financial guarantee insurance companies. The complaint alleges that the defendants sought to perpetuate the Rating Agencies' "dual rating system", and that the perpetuation of the "dual rating system" enabled the defendants to unfairly discriminate against the City of Phoenix in the pricing of bond insurance premiums. Pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order, discovery is scheduled to be completed by October 3, 2011, with dispositive motions due by November 1, 2011. Water Works Board of the City of Birmingham v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. and Ambac Assurance Corporation (United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, filed on November 10, 2009). This action alleged breach of contract, misrepresentation, deceit, suppression of truth and negligence. Plaintiff claims that, in connection with plaintiff's purchase of a debt service reserve fund surety bond from Ambac Assurance in March 2007 with respect to its bond issue, Ambac Assurance misrepresented the stability of its "AAA" financial strength ratings and subsequently breached a covenant to maintain its "AAA" ratings, thereby causing loss to plaintiff when it was required to replace the Ambac Assurance surety bond upon the downgrade of Ambac Assurance's ratings. On April 1, 2010, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss all claims. The plaintiff has appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On January 25, 2011, the Circuit Court stayed the appeal in light of Ambac's pending bankruptcy proceedings. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Adelanto Public Utility Authority (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, filed on June 1, 2009). Ambac Assurance commenced this action to recover $4,524 from the defendant on account of Ambac Assurance's payment under a swap termination surety bond. The defendant has counterclaimed (as amended on June 12, 2010), alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of California insurance statutes, fraud and promissory estoppel. Defendant claims that, in connection with defendant's purchase of a bond insurance policy with respect to its variable rate bond issue in September 2005, Ambac Assurance misrepresented the stability of its "AAA" financial strength ratings and subsequently breached an implied covenant by underwriting risky structured obligations that ultimately led to the loss of the "AAA" ratings. Ambac Assurance has moved to dismiss all of the defendant's counterclaims and that motion has been fully briefed. Ambac Assurance has periodically received various regulatory inquiries and requests for information with respect to investigations and inquiries that such regulators are conducting. Ambac Assurance has complied with all such inquiries and requests for information. On March 24, 2010, Ambac Assurance established a segregated account and allocated to such segregated account certain financial guaranty insurance policies and other contingent liabilities, certain claims and other rights and certain equity interests in subsidiaries. An insurance rehabilitation proceeding was commenced with respect to the segregated account in the Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County (the "Rehabilitation Court") on March 24, 2010 by the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Wisconsin (the "Commissioner") and the Rehabilitation Court entered an order of rehabilitation for the Segregated Account, appointing the Commissioner as rehabilitator, and entered orders enjoining certain actions that could have an adverse effect on the financial position of the Segregated Account. Various third parties have filed motions or objections in the Rehabilitation Court and/or moved to intervene in the rehabilitation proceedings. On January 24, 2011, the Rehabilitation Court issued its Decision and Final Order Confirming the rehabilitator's Plan of Rehabilitation, with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (the "Confirmation Order"). Notices of appeal from the Confirmation Order were filed by various parties, including policyholders. Such appeals are pending. Ambac Assurance's CDS portfolio experienced significant losses. The majority of these CDS contracts are on a "pay as you go" basis, and we believe that they are properly characterized as notional principal contracts for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Generally, losses on notional principal contracts are ordinary losses. However, the federal income tax treatment of credit default swaps is an unsettled area of the tax law. In 2010, the Internal Revenue Service opened an examination into certain issues related to Ambac Assurance's tax accounting methods with respect to such CDS contracts and Ambac Assurance's related characterization of such losses as ordinary losses. As discussed above, Ambac Assurance believes these contracts are properly characterized as notional principal contracts. However, on May 4, 2011, as a result of its examination, the IRS issued to Ambac Notices of Proposed Adjustment asserting that these contracts should be characterized as capital assets or as generating capital losses. On June 3, 2011, Ambac notified the IRS that it disagreed with the proposed adjustments. On May 4, 2011 the IRS filed a proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Court in the amount of $807,244 relating to the tax treatment of the CDS contracts. Ambac filed its opposition to the proof of claim on June 14, 2011. The IRS has until September 8, 2011 to file a response to Ambac's opposition to the proof of claim. If the IRS is successful in its claim, Ambac Assurance would be subject to both a substantial reduction in its net operating loss carryforwards and would suffer a material assessment for federal income taxes up to an estimated amount of $807,244. On November 9, 2010, Ambac filed and served a complaint against the IRS for a declaratory judgment relating to the tax refunds. On the same date, Ambac and the IRS agreed to a stipulation on the record that provides that the IRS would give notice at least 5 business days prior to taking any action against Ambac's nondebtor subsidiaries in the consolidated tax group that would violate the State Court Injunction, whether or not in effect. The stipulation permits the status quo to be maintained from November 9, 2010 until a hearing on the preliminary injunction under Bankruptcy Code section 105(a) barring assessment and collection of the 2003 through 2008 tax refunds by the IRS against Ambac's nondebtor subsidiaries in the consolidated tax group. On January 14, 2011, the IRS filed its Answer and opposition to Ambac's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. As of this date, no hearing on such Motion has been scheduled. On January 13, 2011, the IRS filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("USDC SDNY") to withdraw the Adversary Proceeding from the Bankruptcy Court to the USDC SDNY. Ambac has opposed such motion and no hearing on the motion has been scheduled. On February 1, 2011, Ambac filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court for Pretrial Conference and for Authorization to Implement Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures. The Bankruptcy Court on March 2, 2011 ordered the process of non-binding mediation to begin on or about May 1, 2011 and to conclude no later than on or about September 6, 2011. Mediation was held in New York on July 6, 7 and 8, 2011. Mediation is scheduled to continue in New York on August 16-19, 2011. The Bankruptcy Court also approved a scheduling order which, pursuant to further stipulation of the parties, requires all discovery in the Adversary proceeding to be completed by September 23, 2011; dispositive motions to be filed by September 23, 2011, and trial to be scheduled, thereafter, pursuant to further order of the Court. The IRS has also sought to assert legal rights against Ambac Assurance, as joint and several obligor in respect of any assessment for federal income taxes against the consolidated Ambac tax group. On December 8, 2010, the IRS removed the Wisconsin rehabilitation proceeding involving the Segregated Account to the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (the "District Court"). On December 17, 2010, the IRS filed a motion in the District Court to dissolve the supplemental injunction that had been entered by the Rehabilitation Court on November 8, 2010 to prevent certain actions by the IRS that could have an adverse effect on the financial position of the Segregated Account. The Commissioner moved to remand the proceeding back to the Rehabilitation Court, and on January 14, 2011, that motion was granted by the District Court, which found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The IRS has appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On January 20, 2011, the Seventh Circuit ordered the IRS to show cause why its appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, which led to additional briefing. On February 9, 2011, the IRS filed a complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction in the District Court seeking, inter alia, to enjoin enforcement of the injunction issued by the Rehabilitation Court and the Confirmation Order against the IRS. The District Court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on February 18, 2011, and the IRS filed a notice of appeal on February 22, 2011. The appeals at the Seventh Circuit are pending. Ambac is involved from time to time in various routine legal proceedings, including proceedings related to litigation with present or former employees. Although Ambac's litigation with present or former employees is routine and incidental to the conduct of its business, such litigation can result in large monetary awards when a civil jury is allowed to determine compensatory and/or punitive damages for, among other things, termination of employment that is wrongful or in violation of implied contracts. In the ordinary course of their businesses, certain of Ambac's subsidiaries assert claims in legal proceedings against third parties to recover losses already paid and/or mitigate future losses. The amounts recovered and/or losses avoided which may result from these proceedings is uncertain, although recoveries and/or losses avoided in any one or more of these proceedings during any quarter or fiscal year could be material to Ambac's results of operations in that quarter or fiscal year. In connection with Ambac's efforts to seek redress for breaches of representations and warranties and fraud related to the information provided by both the underwriters and the sponsors of various transactions and for failure to comply with the obligation by the sponsors to repurchase ineligible loans, Ambac Assurance has filed the following lawsuits:
| • |  | Ambac Assurance Corporation v. EMC Mortgage LLC (formerly known as EMC Mortgage Corporation), J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. (formerly known as Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.), and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed February 17, 2011). This case is the continuation of a case that was originally filed on November 5, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York but that was dismissed from federal court after Ambac Assurance was granted leave to amend its complaint to add certain new claims (but not others) and a new party, which deprived the federal court of jurisdiction over the litigation. After the decision by the federal judge, dated February 8, 2011, Ambac Assurance re-filed the suit in New York state court on February 17, 2011. On July 18, 2011, Ambac Assurance filed a First Amended Complaint in its state-court litigation. In its state-court action, Ambac Assurance asserts claims for breach of contract, indemnification and reimbursement against EMC, as well as claims of fraudulent conduct by EMC and J. P. Morgan Securities Inc. In its First Amended Complaint, Ambac Assurance asserts an additional claim for breach of contract against EMC and a claim for successor liability against a new defendant, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. EMC has appealed certain aspects of the federal judge's decision, and oral argument on EMC's appeal is scheduled for September 2011. In addition, EMC and J. P. Morgan Securities Inc. had moved for a stay of the state-court litigation pending its federal appeal. That motion was denied.
| • |  | Ambac Assurance Corporation and the Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed on January 12, 2010). Ambac Assurance alleged breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, indemnification, reimbursement and requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts, as well as damages. On July 8, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Ambac Assurance opposed the motion and the Court held oral argument on October 12, 2010. In a decision dated April 7, 2011, the Court granted the defendants' motion in part dismissing only Ambac Assurance's cause of action for fraudulent inducement and striking Ambac Assurance's claim for consequential damages and jury demand. The Court otherwise denied the defendants' motion. On April 25, 2011, Ambac Assurance filed a notice of appeal of that decision and on May 6, 2011, the defendants filed a notice of cross-appeal. On May 9, 2011, Ambac Assurance filed a motion for leave to reargue the Court's April 7 decision. Supplemental briefing on the motion to re-argue is to be completed by the end of August and oral argument is currently scheduled for September 13, 2011.
| • |  | Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Countrywide Securities Corp., Countrywide Financial Corp. (a.k.a. Bank of America Home Loans) and Bank of America Corp. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed on September 28, 2010). Ambac Assurance has alleged breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, indemnification and reimbursement, breach of representations and warranties and has requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts as well as damages and has asserted a successor liability claim against Bank of America. The defendants answered the Complaint on December 10, 2010.
It is not reasonably possible to predict whether additional suits will be filed or whether additional inquiries or requests for information will be made, and it is also not possible to predict the outcome of litigation, inquiries or requests for information. It is possible that there could be unfavorable outcomes in these or other proceedings. Legal accruals for certain litigation matters discussed above which are probable and reasonably estimable, and management's estimated range of loss for such matters, are not material to the operating results or financial position of the Company. For the remaining litigation matters that do not meet the "probable and reasonably estimable" accrual threshold and where no loss estimates have been provided above, management is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from unfavorable outcomes but, under some circumstances, adverse results in any such proceedings could be material to our business, operations, financial position, profitability or cash flows. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses to the claims filed against it in these lawsuits and, to the extent that these actions proceed, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously; however, the Company is not able to predict the outcomes of these actions.

X
- Definition Commitments and Contingencies + Details
Name: | abk_CommitmentsAndContingenciesAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | abk
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration