15.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Under the Bankruptcy Code, the filing of our petition on November 8, 2010 automatically stayed most actions against Ambac. Substantially all of Ambac’s pre-petition liabilities are addressed under the Reorganization Plan, if not otherwise addressed pursuant to orders of the Bankruptcy Court.

Ambac is responsible for leases on the rental of office space. The lease agreements, the initial terms of which expire periodically through December 2015, contain provisions for scheduled periodic rent increases and are accounted for as operating leases. An estimate of future net minimum lease payments in each of the next five years ending December 31, and the periods thereafter, is as follows:


	Amount
2013	$	5,215
2014		5,188
2015		5,142
2016		—
2017		—
All later years		—

	$	15,545

Rent expense for the aforementioned leases amounted to $5,252 and $6,980 for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

The Segregated Account and Wisconsin Rehabilitation Proceeding

On March 24, 2010, Ambac Assurance established a segregated account (the “Segregated Account”) and allocated to the 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 (the “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 condition of the Segregated Account.

Various third parties have filed motions or objections in the Rehabilitation Court and/or moved to intervene in the Rehabilitation Proceeding. 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.

On November 10, 2011, the Rehabilitation Court issued an order authorizing the Commissioner, as Rehabilitator, and the Segregated Account to proceed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Mediation Agreement and its related agreements and to carry out all transactions necessary to effectuate those agreements. Notices of appeal from this order were filed by the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and a group describing itself as the “RMBS Policyholders,” which claims to own or manage funds that own residential mortgage-backed securities insured by Ambac Assurance. On March 1, 2013, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals entered an order dismissing this appeal for lack of standing.

On June 4, 2012, the Rehabilitation Court issued an order authorizing the Rehabilitator and the Segregated Account to make interim cash payments on permitted policy claims. Also, on June 4, 2012, the Rehabilitation Court issued an order approving Ambac Assurance’s purchase of $789,179 of principal amount of surplus notes at a price of $188,446 pursuant to the exercise of call options that were issued as part of the 2010 Bank Group Settlement (“Surplus Notes Order”). Fannie Mae objected to the Motion to Approve the Purchase of the Surplus Notes and filed both a Petition for Leave to Appeal the Surplus Notes Order and a Notice of Appeal. On March 7, 2013, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals denied Fannie Mae’s Petition for Leave to Appeal and extended Fannie Mae’s time to respond to the Commissioner’s pending motion to dismiss Fannie Mae’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction and lack of standing to March 25, 2013.

On August 17, 2012, the Rehabilitator filed two motions with the Rehabilitation Court relating to policies allocated to the Segregated Account and issued in connection with residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”). The first motion (the “Injunction Scope Motion”) sought to confirm the scope of the relief issued by the Rehabilitation Court under its March 24, 2010 Order for Temporary Injunctive Relief, as supplemented by its November 8, 2010 Order for Temporary Supplemental Injunctive Relief and made permanent by its January 24, 2011 Decision and Final Order Confirming the Rehabilitator’s Plan of Rehabilitation (the “Injunction”). On September 12, 2012, the Rehabilitation Court approved by order the Injunction Scope Motion, confirming that one of the effects of the Injunction is, among other things, to prevent Ambac Assurance and the Segregated Account from losing any rights to obtain relief for counterparties’ breaches of the transaction documents relating to RMBS and to prohibit counterparties to such transaction documents from taking any actions to prevent or attempt to prevent Ambac Assurance and/or the Segregated Account from exercising or enforcing any rights (including the right to demand repurchases of certain non-compliant loans), interests and/or claims pursuant to these transaction documents due to the existence of the rehabilitation proceedings and/or the occurrence of any acts taken or not taken or authorized to be taken pursuant thereto. The second motion (the “RMBS Settlement Motion”) sought the Rehabilitation Court’s approval of the process that the Rehabilitator intends to use in connection with possible settlements of existing and potential claims and lawsuits of the Segregated Account and/or Ambac Assurance in connection with Segregated Account policies relating to RMBS (“RMBS Remediation Claims”). On October 5, 2012, the Rehabilitation Court approved by order the RMBS Settlement Motion, confirming, among other things, that the Rehabilitator and the Segregated Account are authorized to enter into and effectuate settlements of RMBS Remediation Claims without requiring Rehabilitation Court prior approval, in accordance with the Rehabilitator’s broad powers and discretion under Wisconsin insurance statutes. The time to appeal the Court’s September 12th and October 5th orders has expired and no appeals have been taken.

Tax Treatment of Ambac Assurance’s CDS Portfolio

Ambac Assurance’s portfolio of credit default swaps (“CDS”) 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 CDS is an unsettled area of the tax law. In 2010, the IRS 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 (the “IRS Claim”). Ambac filed its opposition to the proof of claim on June 14, 2011. 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 commenced an adversary proceeding and filed and served a complaint against the IRS for a declaratory judgment relating to the tax refunds which resulted from the losses on the CDS portfolio. 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 non-debtor subsidiaries in the consolidated tax group that would violate the injunction entered by the Rehabilitation Court, whether or not such injunction is 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 non-debtor 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. Mediation was held over the course of several months. The Bankruptcy Court also approved a scheduling order that, pursuant to further stipulation of the parties, required all discovery in the adversary proceeding to be completed by November 2, 2011, dispositive motions to be filed by November 4, 2011, and trial to be scheduled, thereafter, pursuant to further order of the Court. On October 12, 2011, Ambac filed a motion for an order (a) determining that the IRS Claim shall be estimated pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 502(c), and (b) setting procedures and a hearing date for such estimation including the determination pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 505(a) of, among other things, (i) the appropriate method to account for Ambac’s losses on its post-2004 CDS contracts and (ii) whether (A) an ownership change, within the meaning of section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Tax Code”), with respect to Ambac Assurance, or (B) any event that results in neither Ambac Assurance nor any entity that succeeds to the tax attributes of Ambac Assurance being characterized as an includible corporation with the affiliated group of corporations of which Ambac (or any successor thereto) is the common parent, within the meaning of the Tax Code, occurred during the 2010 taxable year as a result of the transactions consummated pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, dated as of June 7, 2010, by and among Ambac Assurance, Ambac Credit Products LLC (“ACP”), Ambac and counterparties to credit default swaps with ACP that were guaranteed by Ambac Assurance, or for any other reason [Docket No. 362] (the “IRS Claim Estimation Motion”). The IRS Claim Estimation Motion was scheduled for hearing on December 13, 2011, but was adjourned pending settlement discussions with the United States.

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 tax group. On December 8, 2010, the IRS removed the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Proceedings 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 a supplemental injunction (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 condition of the Segregated Account. The Wisconsin Insurance 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 February 9, 2011, the IRS filed a complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction in the District Court seeking, among other things, to enjoin enforcement against the IRS of the Supplemental Injunction and the Confirmation Order. 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. On August 22, 2011 the Seventh Circuit granted a motion by the IRS to consolidate the two appeals. Briefing on the consolidated appeals concluded on January 24, 2012, but oral argument has not been scheduled. The parties have jointly asked the Seventh Circuit not to schedule oral argument in light of the written settlement offer submitted to the IRS and the Department of Justice, Tax Division, which is described below.

On February 24, 2012, Ambac, the Creditors’ Committee, Ambac Assurance, the Segregated Account, OCI, and the Rehabilitator submitted to the IRS and the Department of Justice, Tax Division a proposal (the “Offer Letter”) to settle the IRS Dispute and related proceedings which includes the following terms: (i) a payment by Ambac Assurance and/or the Segregated Account of $100,000; (ii) a payment by Ambac of $1,900; (iii) the Ambac Consolidated Group will relinquish its claim to all loss carry-forwards resulting from losses on credit default swap contracts and arising on or before December 31, 2010 to the extent such loss carry-forwards exceed $3,400,000; and (iv) the IRS will be paid 12.5% of any payment to Ambac by Ambac Assurance associated with NOL Usage Tier C and the IRS will be paid 17.5% of any payment to Ambac by Ambac Assurance associated with NOL Usage Tier D (the “IRS Settlement”). Finality of the settlement will require the satisfaction of certain conditions and the approval of the United States, the Bankruptcy Court and the Rehabilitation Court. On June 14, 2012, the Rehabilitation Court entered an order authorizing the Rehabilitator and the Segregated Account to proceed with the IRS Settlement. In December 2012 Ambac was informed that the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation (the “Joint Committee”) completed its review of the terms of the IRS Settlement as set forth in the Offer Letter and that the Joint Committee has no objection to the Offer and will issue a response of “no adverse criticism” subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions, including (a) execution of closing documentation acceptable to the United States, Ambac and the other parties to the IRS Settlement, and (b) execution of a supplemental Offer Letter relating to the timing of payments by Ambac and Ambac Assurance and/or the Segregated Account of the settlement consideration discussed above. Consummation of the IRS Settlement also requires the approval of the Bankruptcy Court. If the IRS Settlement is approved by the Bankruptcy Court and following execution of the closing documentation and payment of the settlement consideration by Ambac and Ambac Assurance and/or the Segregated Account, the IRS and Ambac shall dismiss with prejudice the adversary proceeding pending in Bankruptcy Court and the motion to withdraw the reference, presently pending before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. There can be no assurance that the IRS Settlement will be finalized on the terms described above, if at all, or as to the timing of any such settlement.

As a result of the progress made toward a settlement framework, remaining discovery in the case was put on hold pending the parties’ further reports to the Bankruptcy Court.

Pursuant to the terms of the Offer Letter, on April 24, 2012 Ambac submitted to the IRS a private letter ruling (“PLR”) request seeking, in part, a favorable ruling with respect to the application of sections 382 and 269 of the Internal Revenue Code to Ambac’s Reorganization Plan. The IRS Settlement is conditioned on the IRS issuing a favorable ruling on the PLR request. On October 25, 2012, the IRS issued such a ruling to Ambac. The IRS ruling concludes that, although Ambac will experience an “ownership change” for purposes of section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code under the Reorganization Plan, the ownership change will not subject the Ambac group’s NOLs to the limitation of section 382(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and such NOLs will be computed in accordance with sections 382(l)(5)(B) and (C) of the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS ruling also concludes that, so long as Ambac Assurance remains a member of the Ambac consolidated tax group and continues its activities in the financial guarantee and financial products services business, the Ambac group will be considered to conduct a significant active trade or business for purposes of the applicable provisions of section 269 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Litigation Filed Against Ambac

All conditions to the effectiveness of the settlement and/or release of the claims in the following litigations have been met, all of the following litigations have been dismissed, the time for any appeals has expired and the settlement and/or release of the claims in the following litigations are now final and effective:

•

In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 08 CV 411, consisting of five class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that were consolidated or designated as related;

•

Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 08 CV 11241, filed on December 24, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York;

•

In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 08 CV 854, consisting of three derivative actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that were consolidated;

•

In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Shareholders Derivative Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 3521, consisting of two derivative actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery that were consolidated; and

•

In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Consolidated Index No. 650050/2008E, consisting of two derivative actions filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, that were consolidated.

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 Savings Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), asserted violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and named 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 and directors of Ambac. This action was 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 alleged, 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 sought, 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 June 8, 2012, Plaintiff informed the court that the parties had agreed to a proposed settlement of the action. On July 11, 2012, the parties filed the settlement agreement and an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the court, and at the Court’s request, on August 2, 2012, submitted a revised preliminary approval order and notice to the Court. The Court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On September 14, 2012, Plaintiff filed motions to approve the settlement, settlement class certification and plan of allocation and for an award of attorney fees, expense reimbursement, and case contribution. A fairness hearing was held on November 14, 2012, and the next day, the court issued a final order granting approval of the settlement. The time to appeal the court’s November 15, 2012 judgment has expired.

County of Alameda et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, second amended complaint filed on or about August 23, 2011) (“Alameda Complaint”); Contra Costa County et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, third amended complaint filed on or about October 21, 2011) (“Contra Costa Complaint”); The Olympic Club v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, fourth amended complaint filed on or about October 21, 2011) (“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 and 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 dismissal of the current amended complaints on September 21, 2011, which was denied on October 20, 2011. On December 2, 2011, Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants filed a special motion to strike the current amended complaints under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute (Calif. Code of Civ. Proc. Section 425.16). A hearing on the motion was held on March 23, 2012. On May 1, 2012, the Court ruled that the complaints were governed by the Anti-SLAPP statute to the extent they alleged conspiracy to influence the rating agencies’ rating methodologies, but not to the extent that the complaints alleged false or misleading statements or nondisclosures. The parties submitted briefs to the court to determine whether the conspiracy branch of the complaint can proceed given the requirement of the Anti-SLAPP statute that plaintiff show a probability of success on the merits.

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 relating 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. Fact discovery has been completed, and expert reports have been exchanged.

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.

Broadbill Partners LP et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed November 8, 2012). Plaintiffs, alleged owners of Ambac Assurance preferred stock, commenced litigation against Ambac Assurance asserting claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, resulting trust and rescission related to Ambac Assurance’s exercise in or about December 2008 of rights under put option agreements with certain trusts. Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the improper exercise of such rights, Ambac Assurance received approximately $800,000 in trust assets from the trusts in exchange for nearly worthless shares of Ambac Assurance preferred stock, which were thereafter delivered to the holders of the securities issued by the trusts. Plaintiffs seek damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, rescission and attorney’s fees. Ambac Assurance filed a motion to dismiss on January 15, 2013. The court has not yet decided the motion.

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.

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.

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 against Ambac 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 Ambac is defending 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.

Litigation Filed by Ambac

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.

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 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. On November 14, 2011, the court dismissed the defendant’s amended counterclaim in its entirety upon the motion of Ambac Assurance, and discovery commenced in December 2011. Both parties moved for summary judgment at the conclusion of discovery. On January 11, 2013 the court granted Ambac Assurance’s motion for summary judgment and denied defendant’s motion. At a March 13, 2013 conference, the court requested that the parties prepare submissions regarding the amount of damages and fees Ambac Assurance is entitled to recover.

In connection with Ambac Assurance’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. The Defendants filed their answer to the First Amended Complaint on August 30, 2011, and the parties are currently engaged in discovery.

•

Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of 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 March 30, 2012 and amended on August 14, 2012). Ambac Assurance alleges claims for fraudulent inducement and breaches of contract against EMC and J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., as well as claims against JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. as EMC’s successor in interest, arising from the defendants’ misrepresentations and breaches of contractual warranties regarding certain transactions that are not the subject of Ambac Assurance’s previously filed lawsuit against the same defendants (described above). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 28, 2012, which Ambac Assurance opposed on October 26, 2012. The motion was briefed on November 30, 2012 and oral argument was held on February 21, 2013. The court has not yet decided the motion.

•

Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. First Franklin Financial Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc., and Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed April 16, 2012). Ambac Assurance alleges breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, indemnification, reimbursement and requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts, as well as damages. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 13, 2012, which Ambac opposed on September 21, 2012. The motion was fully briefed on October 26, 2012. The court has not yet decided the motion.

•

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 March 1, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation discontinuing the litigation with prejudice.

•

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 filed an Amended Complaint on September 8, 2011. Ambac Assurance has alleged breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, indemnification and reimbursement, and breach of representations and warranties, requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts, as well as damages, and asserted a successor liability claim against Bank of America. The defendants answered the Amended Complaint on or about November 3, 2011. Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been set.

•

Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Capital One, N.A., as successor by merger to Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed on October 24, 2012). Ambac Assurance alleges claims for breach of contract, indemnification, reimbursement and requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts, as well as damages. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 6, 2013, which Ambac Assurance opposed in a brief filed on February 20, 2013. The motion was fully briefed and filed on March 5, 2013. The court held oral argument on March 7, 2013 and has not yet decided the motion.