XML 43 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.10.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 16. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Ambac is responsible for leases on the rental of office space. The executive office of Ambac is located in New York City under a lease agreement that was modified and extended in 2015 to allow Ambac to remain in the same office space through September 2019 and on one floor through the end of 2029. Ambac will relocate its executive office in the third quarter of 2019 and in January 2019, has entered into a sublease agreement at One World Trade Center, New York. In January 2019, Ambac has sublet the remaining space at One State Street Plaza through its expiration date of 2029. Rent payments under the One State Street Plaza lease made through September 2019 will result in the periodic reduction of junior surplus notes that were previously issued to the landlord, beginning in January 2016. Ambac leases additional space for its data center, disaster recovery site and for its international location under lease agreements that expire periodically through October 2020. 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:
2019 |  | $ | 5,651 |
2020 |  | 2,101 |
2021 |  | 1,562 |
2022 |  | 1,565 |
2023 |  | 1,568 |
Thereafter |  | 10,167 |
Total |  | $ | 22,614 |
Ambac rent expense for the aforementioned leases amounted to $2,466, $2,717 and $3,008 for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively. Litigation Against Ambac Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC, et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al. (United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Case No. 17-cv-04992-BLF, filed August 28, 2017). Plaintiffs, the corporate developers of various military housing projects, filed an amended complaint on October 27, 2017 against Ambac Assurance, a former employee of Ambac Assurance, and certain unaffiliated persons and entities, asserting claims for (i) violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 1962(c) and 1962(d) (civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and conspiracy to commit civil RICO), (ii) breach of fiduciary duty, (iii) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, (iv) fraudulent misrepresentation, (v) fraudulent concealment and (vi) conspiracy to commit fraud. The claims relate to bonds and debt certificates (insured by Ambac Assurance) that were issued to finance the renovation and construction of housing at certain military bases. Plaintiffs allege that defendants secretly conspired to overcharge plaintiffs for the financing of the projects and directed the excess profits to themselves. Plaintiffs allege defendants generated these excess profits by supposedly charging inflated interest rates, manipulating “shadow ratings,” charging unnecessary fees, rigging the Guaranteed Investment Contract (“GIC”) bidding process, and hiding evidence of their alleged wrongdoing. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages, disgorgement of profits and fees, punitive damages, trebled damages and attorneys’ fees. Ambac and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on November 13, 2017. On July 17, 2018, the court granted Ambac Assurance’s and the other defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint without prejudice. On December 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. Ambac and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on February 15, 2019. Ambac Assurance’s estimates of projected losses for RMBS transactions consider, among other things, the RMBS transactions’ payment waterfall structure, including the application of interest and principal payments and recoveries, and depend in part on our interpretations of contracts and other bases of our legal rights. From time to time, bond trustees and other transaction participants have employed different contractual interpretations and have commenced, or threatened to commence, litigation to resolve these differences. It is not possible to predict whether additional disputes will arise, nor the outcomes of any potential litigation. It is possible that there could be unfavorable outcomes in this or other disputes or proceedings and that our interpretations may prove to be incorrect, which could lead to changes to our estimate of loss reserves. 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. The Company is involved from time to time in various routine legal proceedings, including proceedings related to litigation with present or former employees. Although the Company’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 litigation against the Company 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 litigation matters the Company 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. 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 above 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 or Joined 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. Puerto Rico: Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., and Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Alejandro Garcia Padilla, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico No. 3:16-cv-01037, filed January 7, 2016). Ambac Assurance, along with co-plaintiffs Assured Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief to protect its rights against the illegal clawback of certain revenue by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Defendants moved to dismiss on January 29, 2016. On October 4, 2016, the court denied the Defendants’ motions to dismiss. On October 14, 2016, Defendants filed a Notice of Automatic Stay, asserting that Plaintiffs’ claims have been rendered moot and further asserting that the case was automatically stayed under section 405 of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act ("PROMESA"). On October 28, 2016, Plaintiffs informed the court that neither party was currently challenging the stay, and expressly reserved their right to seek to lift the stay at any time. Plaintiffs also objected to Defendants’ assertion that the case should be dismissed as moot. PROMESA’s litigation stay expired on May 2, 2017. On May 3, 2017, the Financial Oversight and Management Board for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “Oversight Board”) filed a petition to adjust the Commonwealth’s debts under Title III of PROMESA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against the Commonwealth. On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 16-cv-1893, filed May 10, 2016). Ambac Assurance filed a complaint against the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority ("PRHTA") on May 10, 2016, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract in connection with PRHTA’s extension of an existing toll road concession agreement. The complaint alleges that it was inappropriate for PRHTA to enter into the extension agreement in its current state of financial distress because PRHTA has no control over, and is unlikely to receive, the proceeds of the transaction. Ambac Assurance also filed related motions seeking the appointment of a provisional receiver for PRHTA and expedited discovery. On May 21, 2017, the Oversight Board filed a petition to adjust PRHTA’s debts under Title III of PROMESA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against PRHTA. On May 24, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. Lex Claims, LLC et al. v. Alejandro Garcia Padilla et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 16-2374, filed July 20, 2016). On October 7, 2016, certain General Obligation bondholder Plaintiffs in an action to which Ambac Assurance was not then a party filed a motion for leave to amend an existing complaint, adding the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation ("COFINA"), COFINA’s executive director, and the trustee for the COFINA bonds as Defendants, and asserting numerous claims that challenged the legal validity of the COFINA structure and seek injunctive relief requiring the sales and use tax proceeds securing COFINA’s bonds to be transferred to the Puerto Rico Treasury. On February 17, 2017, the court permitted Ambac Assurance to intervene. On May 3, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and on May 5, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of COFINA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against the Commonwealth and COFINA (respectively). On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. On October 19, 2018, the Oversight Board filed (i) a disclosure statement and a plan of adjustment for COFINA (the “COFINA Plan”) in the COFINA Title III case incorporating a resolution of the dispute between the Commonwealth and COFINA concerning entitlement to sales and use taxes (the “Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute”), and (ii) a motion under Bankruptcy Rule 9019 in the Commonwealth Title III case for approval of the settlement of the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute (the “9019 Motion”). On February 4, 2019 the District Court granted the 9019 Motion and confirmed the COFINA Plan, which resolves the dispute in this case. The COFINA Plan became effective on February 12, 2019. Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 17-1567, filed May 2, 2017). On May 2, 2017, Ambac Assurance filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the Commonwealth’s Fiscal and Economic Growth Plan (the "FEGP") and a recently enacted statute called the “Fiscal Plan Compliance Law” are unconstitutional and unlawful because they violate the Contracts, Takings, and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, are preempted by PROMESA, and are unlawful transfers of property from COFINA to the Commonwealth in violation of PROMESA. On May 3, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and on May 5, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of COFINA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against COFINA. On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. On February 4, 2019, the District Court granted the 9019 Motion and confirmed the COFINA Plan. The COFINA Plan became effective on February 12, 2019. Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order. Ambac Assurance anticipates that this case will be voluntarily dismissed in the near future given the effectiveness of the COFINA Plan. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 17-1568, filed May 2, 2017). On May 2, 2017, Ambac Assurance filed a complaint alleging that various moratorium laws and executive orders enacted by the Commonwealth to claw back funds from the Puerto Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority ("PRIFA"), PRHTA, and Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority ("PRCCDA") bonds violate the Contracts, Takings, and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, are preempted by PROMESA, and unlawfully transfer PRHTA, PRCCDA, and PRIFA property to the Commonwealth. On May 3, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and on May 21, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of PRHTA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against the Commonwealth and PRHTA (respectively). On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. U.S. Department of Treasury et al. (United States District Court, District of Columbia, No. 17-809, filed May 2, 2017). On May 2, 2017, Ambac Assurance filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Treasury and Steven Mnuchin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, alleging that Puerto Rico’s ongoing diversion of rum taxes from PRIFA violates the Contracts, Takings, and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and seeking an equitable lien on all rum taxes possessed by the U.S. Treasury, and an injunction preventing their transfer to the Commonwealth. On May 3, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. On May 24, 2017, the Oversight Board filed a statement requesting that the court take notice of the stay resulting from the Commonwealth’s Title III filing. On May 25, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case pending the final disposition of the Title III proceedings. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Bank of New York Mellon (United States District Court, Southern District of New York. No. 1:17-cv-03804, filed May 2, 2017). On May 2, 2017, Ambac Assurance filed a complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against the trustee for the COFINA bonds, Bank of New York Mellon ("BNY"), alleging breach of fiduciary, contractual, and other duties for failing to adequately and appropriately protect the holders of certain Ambac Assurance-insured senior COFINA bonds. On May 19, 2017, BNY filed a notice of removal of this action from New York state court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On May 30, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico entered an order in an adversary proceeding brought by BNY (No. 1:17-ap-00133) staying this litigation pending further order of the court. The COFINA Plan became effective on February 12, 2019, and, pursuant to the District Court’s confirmation order, this litigation is permitted to continue, with Ambac’s claims against BNYM being limited to those for gross negligence, willful misconduct and intentional fraud. Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order. Bank of New York Mellon v. COFINA, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-ap-00133, filed May 16, 2017). On May 16, 2017, BNY filed an interpleader action styled as an adversary proceeding against COFINA and certain creditors of COFINA, including Ambac Assurance, that have made competing claims of entitlement to funds held by BNY in order to determine the parties’ respective entitlements to the funds. BNY also sought a release of liability in association with the COFINA funds in its possession.. On September 27, 2018, the court terminated competing motions for summary judgment without prejudice in light of the pending agreement in principle between the agent for COFINA and the agent for the Commonwealth in adversary proceeding no. 1:17-ap-00257 (the “Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute,” discussed below). On October 19, 2018, the Oversight Board filed (i) a disclosure statement and the COFINA Plan in the COFINA Title III case incorporating a resolution of the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute, and (ii) the 9019 Motion in the Commonwealth Title III case for approval of the settlement of the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute. On February 4, 2019 the District Court granted the 9019 Motion and confirmed the COFINA Plan, which resolves the dispute in this case. The COFINA Plan became effective on February 12, 2019. Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order. On February 20, 2019, on the joint motion of BNY and COFINA, the District Court dismissed this case with prejudice. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-ap-00159, filed June 8, 2017). On June 8, 2017, Ambac Assurance filed an adversary complaint in the Commonwealth’s Title III case against the Commonwealth, PRHTA, the Oversight Board, AAFAF, and other Commonwealth government officers. Ambac Assurance challenges the Commonwealth’s clawback of funds from the PRIFA, PRHTA, and PRCCDA bonds under the Contracts, Takings, and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and under PROMESA. The complaint further seeks a declaration that revenues pledged to the PRHTA bonds are “special revenues” under Sections 922 and 928 of the Bankruptcy Code, and an injunction compelling Defendants to remit the pledged special revenues to PRHTA for payment of the PRHTA bonds. On July 7, 2017, Ambac Assurance filed an amended complaint that added an additional claim for relief: a declaration that the funds held in the PRHTA reserve accounts are property of the PRHTA bondholders. On July 28, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss Ambac Assurance’s complaint, which Ambac Assurance opposed. On February 27, 2018, the District Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On March 9, 2018, Ambac Assurance appealed this ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held before the First Circuit on January 15, 2019. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Whyte (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-ap-00257, filed September 8, 2017) (the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute). On August 10, 2017, the court approved a stipulation between the Oversight Board, the Commonwealth, COFINA, and certain creditor parties, including Ambac Assurance, to resolve the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute regarding entitlement to sales and use taxes. The stipulation provided that separate agents for COFINA and the Commonwealth would litigate the dispute while preserving the ability of interested parties, to participate in the litigation. On September 8, 2017, the Commonwealth Agent filed an adversary proceeding against the COFINA Agent challenging the COFINA structure on various grounds. The Commonwealth Agent filed a revised complaint on October 25, 2017, making technical corrections to the original complaint. Ambac Assurance made a motion to intervene in this action, which the court granted on November 21, 2017. The Commonwealth Agent filed an amended complaint on January 16, 2018, largely re-stating its original causes of action to fall within the parameters of the dispute set by the court. After extensive motion practice, on September 27, 2018, the court terminated competing summary judgment motions without prejudice in light of a pending agreement in principle between the Commonwealth Agent and COFINA Agent. On October 19, 2018, the Oversight Board filed (i) a disclosure statement and the COFINA Plan in the COFINA Title III case incorporating a resolution of the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute, and (ii) a the 9019 Motion in the Commonwealth Title III case for approval of the settlement of the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute. On February 4, 2019, the District Court granted the 9019 Motion and confirmed the COFINA Plan, which resolves the dispute in this case. The COFINA Plan became effective on February 12, 2019. Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order. Student Loans Exposure: CFPB v. Nat’l Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust (United States District Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 1:17-cv-01323, filed September 18, 2017). The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) filed a complaint against fifteen National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts, regarding alleged improprieties and deficiencies in servicing practices. Simultaneous with the filing of its complaint, CFPB also filed a motion for entry of a proposed consent judgment that would grant monetary damages and injunctive relief against the Trusts. Ambac Assurance guaranteed certain securities issued by three of the Trusts and indirectly insures six other Trusts. Ambac Assurance filed a motion to intervene in the action on September 20, 2017. On September 20, 2018, the case was reassigned to a new judge, who invited additional letter submissions from the parties. Ambac Assurance submitted a letter on September 28, 2018, reiterating its request to intervene in the action. The CFPB also submitted a letter, which asserted that the court can resolve the outstanding intervention motions on the papers. In additional submissions, the CFPB and a firm purporting to represent the Defendant Trusts argued that the court should resolve a dispute relating to the payment of counsel fees out of Trust assets, so that the Trusts can secure representation for the case. On October 19, 2018, the court granted Ambac’s motion to intervene. On November 29, 2018, following submissions from the parties regarding the CFPB’s motion for entry of the proposed consent judgment and regarding discovery necessary to respond to the motion, the court set a bifurcated discovery and briefing schedule. Discovery is now proceeding as to certain threshold issues, to be followed by briefing on the CFPB’s motion to approve the consent judgment. Nat’l Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust v. Pa. Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) (Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No. 12111-VCS, filed March 21, 2016). Plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of fifteen National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts filed a lawsuit against PHEAA, a servicer of loans in the Trusts, alleging improprieties and deficiencies in servicing practices and seeking an order compelling PHEAA to submit to an emergency audit. PHEAA submitted papers contesting the validity of certain transfers to Plaintiffs of beneficial ownership interests in the Trusts. In addition, the Owner Trustee of the Trusts, Wilmington Trust Company, WTC, citing irreconcilable differences with Plaintiffs, has resigned from its role as Owner Trustee and moved for appointment of a successor Owner Trustee. On October 9, 2017, the court directed the parties to meet and confer to develop a process for selecting an interim Owner Trustee. Ambac Assurance guaranteed certain securities issued by three of the Trusts and indirectly insures certain securities in six other Trusts. Ambac Assurance filed a motion to intervene in the action on October 23, 2017, for the limited purpose of being heard regarding the appointment of a successor Owner Trustee and regarding WTC’s contractual commitment and obligation to remain in that role until such appointment is made. On October 30, 2017, the court denied without prejudice a stipulation filed by Plaintiffs and WTC purporting to address the Owner Trustee issue, and instructed that all interested parties be given notice and an opportunity to participate in discussions to formulate a process for selecting a successor Owner Trustee. On November 7, 2017, the court ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor and confirmed the validity of the ownership transfers that PHEAA had disputed. On January 12, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for injunctive or declaratory relief requiring WTC, as Owner Trustee, and GSS Data Services, Inc., as Administrator, to resume processing for payment bills submitted by lawyers purporting to act on the Trusts’ behalf. At a hearing on April 3, 2018, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice and on April 16, 2018 entered an order memorializing its oral ruling. The court also granted Ambac Assurance’s motion to intervene on April 10, 2018 and Ambac Assurance filed its complaint in intervention on April 16, 2018. On June 15, 2018, the Owner Trustee filed a stipulation and proposed order addressing the selection of a Successor Owner Trustee. Among other provisions, the stipulation calls for the appointment of a Special Master to adjudicate disputes regarding Owner Instructions, and raises the annual expense caps that apply to the Owner Trustee and Indenture Trustee. The court heard arguments on the stipulation on September 21, 2018, ruled that a Special Master would be appointed, and invited the parties to submit a revised stipulation and proposed order to conform to the court’s rulings at the hearing. After considering competing draft orders submitted by the Owner Trustee and Plaintiffs, on November 14, 2018, the court issued an order appointing Hon. Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. as Special Master and granting him authority to resolve non-dispositive disputes among the parties, including disputes concerning instructions to the Owner Trustee. RMBS Litigation: 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 various lawsuits:
• | 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, Case No. 651217/2012, filed April 16, 2012). Ambac Assurance has asserted claims for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, indemnification, reimbursement and has requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts. On July 18, 2013 the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss (filed on July 13, 2012). The court dismissed Ambac Assurance’s claims for indemnification and limited Ambac Assurance’s claim for breach of loan-level warranties to the repurchase protocol, but denied dismissal of Ambac Assurance’s other contractual claims and fraudulent inducement claim. Discovery is ongoing.
• | 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, Case No. 651612/2010, filed on September 28, 2010). Ambac Assurance’s Second Amended Complaint, filed on May 28, 2013, asserted claims against Countrywide and Bank of America (as successor to Countrywide’s liabilities) for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, indemnification and reimbursement, and breach of representations and warranties. Ambac Assurance also requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts. On May 1, 2015, the parties filed motions for partial summary judgment regarding Ambac Assurance’s claims against Countrywide (primary-liability claims) and its secondary-liability claims against Bank of America. In decisions issued on October 27, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ respective summary judgment motions regarding Ambac Assurance’s claims against Countrywide and granted Ambac Assurance’s motion for partial summary judgment on its secondary-liability claims against Bank of America and denied Bank of America’s motion for summary judgment regarding this claim. Each party appealed certain aspects of the court’s decisions to the New York Appellate Division, First Department. On May 16, 2017, the First Department issued rulings in both appeals, reversing a number of rulings that the trial court had made and affirming other rulings. On June 15, 2017, Ambac Assurance sought leave from the First Department to appeal certain rulings in its May 16, 2017 decision to the Court of Appeals, which the First Department granted on July 25, 2017. On June 27, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied Ambac Assurance’s appeal and affirmed the rulings of the First Department. Defendants filed certain pre-trial motions on August 22, 2018 seeking to (1) strike Ambac Assurance’s jury demand for its fraudulent inducement claim; (2) strike Ambac Assurance’s jury demand for its successor liability claim; (3) bifurcate the trials for Ambac Assurance’s primary and successor liability claims; (4) limit the loans for which Ambac Assurance may seek to recover damages; and (5) preclude Ambac Assurance from using sampling to prove liability or damages for breach of contract. On October 2, 2018 Countrywide moved to dismiss Ambac Assurance’s fraudulent-inducement claim as duplicative of its contract claim. On December 30, 2018, the court denied all six of Defendants’ pre-trial motions in their entirety. Defendants filed notices of appeal of the court's December 30, 2018 decisions. On January 24, 2019, the court ordered that trial be put off until the First Department resolves Defendants’ appeals from the court’s denial of their pre-trial motions, on the condition that the appeals are perfected for the May 2019 Term at the First Department. Defendants filed their opening appeal briefs in the First Department on February 19, 2019.
• | Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc. and Nomura Holding America Inc. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Case No. 651359/2013, filed on April 15, 2013). Ambac Assurance has asserted claims for material breach of contract and has requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties under the contracts. Ambac Assurance also asserted alter ego claims against Nomura Holding America, Inc. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 12, 2013. On September 22, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which added (in addition to the claims previously asserted) a claim for fraudulent inducement. On October 31, 2014 defendants filed a motion to strike the amended complaint and on November 10, 2014 also filed a motion to dismiss the fraudulent-inducement claim. On June 3, 2015, the court denied defendants’ July 2013 motion to dismiss Ambac Assurance’s claim for breaches of representations and warranties, but granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Ambac Assurance’s claims for breach of the repurchase protocol and for alter ego liability against Nomura Holding. On December 29, 2016, the court denied Nomura’s motion to strike Ambac Assurance’s amended complaint and its motion to dismiss the fraudulent-inducement claim. Nomura appealed the June 2015 decision to the extent it denied its motion to dismiss, filing its opening appellate brief on March 23, 2017. On December 7, 2017, the First Department affirmed the trial court’s June 3, 2015 decision. Discovery is ongoing.
• | Ambac Assurance Corporation and the Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Case No. 652321/2015, filed on June 30, 2015). On June 30, 2015, Ambac Assurance and the Segregated Account filed a Summons with Notice in New York Supreme Court (the “2015 New York Action”), asserting claims identical to claims they asserted in a litigation filed on December 30, 2014 in Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County, Case No 14 CV 3511 (the “Wisconsin Action”). Specifically, in each action Ambac Assurance asserted a claim for fraudulent inducement in connection with its issuance of insurance policies relating to five residential mortgage-backed securitizations that are not the subject of Ambac Assurance’s previously filed lawsuit against the same defendant. On July 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the 2015 New York Action and a motion to stay the 2015 New York Action pending appeal and litigation of the Wisconsin Action. Countrywide opposed plaintiffs’ motion to stay and on August 10, 2015, Countrywide filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 20, 2016, the court granted Ambac Assurance’s motion to stay and held Countrywide’s motion to dismiss in abeyance pending resolution of the Wisconsin Action. Following the dismissal of the Wisconsin Action on March 13, 2018, the court in the 2015 New York Action vacated its stay on March 30, 2018, and restored Countrywide’s motion to dismiss to the calendar. The parties submitted supplemental letter briefs on April 11, 2018 addressing newly-issued relevant authority.
• | Ambac Assurance Corporation and the Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Securities Corp., Countrywide Financial Corp., and Bank of America Corp. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Case No. 653979/2014, filed on December 30, 2014). Ambac Assurance asserted a claim for fraudulent inducement in connection with Ambac Assurance’s issuance of insurance policies relating to eight residential mortgage-backed securitizations that are not the subject of Ambac Assurance’s previously filed lawsuits against the same defendants. On February 20, 2015, the Countrywide defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which Bank of America joined on February 23, 2015. On December 20, 2016, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. Discovery is ongoing.
• | Ambac Assurance Corporation v. U.S. Bank National Association (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Docket No. 18-cv-5182 (LGS), filed June 8, 2018 (the “SDNY Action”)); In the matter of HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-10 (Minnesota state court, Docket No. 27-TR-CV-17-32 (the “Minnesota Action”)). These two actions relate to U.S. Bank National Association’s (“U.S. Bank”) acceptance of a proposed settlement in a separate litigation that U.S. Bank is prosecuting, as trustee, related to the Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2005-10 (“Harborview 2005-10”), a residential mortgage-backed securitization for which Ambac Assurance issued an insurance policy. On March 6, 2017, U.S. Bank filed a petition commencing the Minnesota Action, a trust instruction proceeding in Minnesota state court concerning the proposed settlement, and on June 12, 2017, U.S. Bank filed an amended petition. Ambac Assurance filed a motion to dismiss the Minnesota Action. On November 13, 2017, the court denied Ambac Assurance’s motion to dismiss the Minnesota Action. On February 7, 2018, Ambac Assurance appealed this decision, and on September 4, 2018, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision. On September 17, 2018, Ambac Assurance filed a petition for review with the Minnesota Supreme Court, which was denied on November 13, 2018. On February 11, 2019, Ambac Assurance filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. On September 6, 2018, the court granted U.S. Bank's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Petition seeking approval of its acceptance of a proposed settlement to settle the separate litigation being prosecuted by U.S. Bank, as Trustee. On September 6, 2018, U.S. Bank filed its Second Amended Petition, and Ambac Assurance and certain other certificateholders objected to, or otherwise responded to, the petition. Discovery in the Minnesota Action is ongoing. On June 8, 2018, Ambac Assurance filed the SDNY Action asserting claims arising out of U.S. Bank’s acceptance of the proposed settlement and treatment of trust recoveries. Ambac Assurance asserts claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. On November 20, 2018, U.S. Bank filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which Ambac Assurance opposed on December 18, 2018. The motion remains pending. Discovery in the SDNY Action is stayed.
• | Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. U.S. Bank National Association (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Docket No. 17-cv-02614, filed April 11, 2017). Ambac Assurance has asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory judgment, and violation of the Streit Act in connection with defendant’s failure to enforce rights and remedies and defendant’s treatment of trust recoveries, as trustee of five residential mortgage-backed securitizations for which Ambac Assurance issued insurance policies. On September 15, 2017, U.S. Bank filed a motion to dismiss. On June 29, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the breach-of-fiduciary duty claim in part as duplicative of the breach-of-contract claim; dismissed the breach-of-contract claim as untimely only to the extent that it was premised on U.S. Bank's obligation to certify that mortgage documents were properly delivered to the Trusts; dismissed the Streit Act claims; and otherwise denied the motion to dismiss. Discovery is ongoing.
• | In re application of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee of the Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-9 (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, No. 654208/2018), filed August 23, 2018 (the “Trust Instruction Proceeding”). This action relates to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s (“DBNT”) proposed settlement of claims related to the Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2006-9 (“Harborview 2006-09”). On August 23, 2018, DBNT filed a Petition commencing the Trust Instruction Proceeding, seeking judicial instruction pursuant to CPLR Article 77, inter alia, to accept the proposed settlement with respect of claims relating to Harborview 2006-9. On September 6, 2018, the court entered an Order to Show Cause, setting out procedures for DBNT to give notice of the proceedings and for interested persons to appear. On November 2, 2018, Ambac Assurance and other interested persons filed notices of intention to appear and answers to DBNT’s petition, and on November 29, 2018 various parties filed responses to answers. In its answer, Ambac Assurance opposed DBNT’s request for an order instructing it to accept the proposed settlement on the basis that DBNT breached its obligations by failing to investigate and enforce breaches of representations and warranties in Harborview 2006-09, failing to immediately reject the proposed settlement, and instituting an inadequate certificateholder approval process. Ambac sought a period of discovery before resolution on the merits.
Other Litigation U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“Citigroup”) (United States District Court Southern District of New York, Docket No. 11-CV-7387, filed in October 2011). This suit related to a collateralized debt obligation transaction arranged by Citigroup where Ambac Credit Products, LLC (insured by Ambac Assurance) provided credit protection through a credit default swap to a bank counterparty that was exposed to the transaction. The SEC and Citigroup reached a settlement of this action for $285,000. The presiding judge approved the settlement in August of 2014. A fair fund has been established to distribute the $285,000 (plus $2,550 received from a related proceeding). RCB Fund Services (the “Distribution Agent”) has been appointed as distribution agent for the fund and has invited investor participants in the CDO transaction to provide information regarding their investments in the CDO transaction. Ambac Assurance filed a submission with the requested information on February 28, 2018. The Distribution Agent, in consultation with the SEC, is to develop a distribution plan for the fair fund, which will be filed with the Court and will be subject to a comment period. The SEC filed a status report on August 13, 2018 to update the court on the process relating to the distribution plan. The Distribution Agent stated that it intended to complete its review of the submissions it received from investors by the end of 2018. Following completion of its review, the Distribution Agent will formulate a plan of distribution, which will then be reviewed by the SEC prior to being filed with the court. The submission states that Distribution Agent expects to file the plan of distribution and distribute the funds in the first quarter of 2019. There is no guarantee that there will actually be a first quarter 2019 distribution as it depends on whether any objections are filed to the plan of distribution and court approval. While there can be no assurance as what the distribution plan will provide, or the timing or substance of what the court will decide, Ambac Assurance expects to receive a significant portion of the settlement funds. Ambac has not recorded any receivable for its estimated portion of these settlement funds. NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al., (United States District Court for Southern District of New York, No. 1:08-cv-10783-LAP) and Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. et al. (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 10 Civ. 4429-LAP). In this class action, Plaintiffs alleged that the offering documents for various residential mortgage-backed securities sold by Goldman Sachs entities in 2007 and 2008 contained false and misleading statements. The parties to the litigation reached a negotiated settlement for $272,000. The settlement class approved by the court included all persons who prior to December 11, 2008 purchased or otherwise acquired any of the securities at issue in the actions and were damaged thereby. Ambac Assurance and its subsidiaries purchased or otherwise acquired certain securities at issue in the class action and were thereby included in the settlement class. Ambac submitted a claim form and in November 2018 received a distribution of approximately $26,721.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration