XML 46 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 19. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation Against Ambac Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC, et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al. (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:19-cv-09193-PGG, transferred on October 4, 2019 from the 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 AAC, a former employee of AAC, 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 AAC) 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, 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. AAC and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on November 13, 2017. On July 17, 2018, the court granted AAC’s and the other defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint without prejudice. On December 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On February 15, 2019, AAC and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On September 26, 2019, the court issued a decision denying defendants’ motion to dismiss and sua sponte reconsidering its previous denial of defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”). On October 10, 2019, after the case was transferred to the SDNY, the defendants filed motions to vacate or reconsider the decision by the Northern District of California on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On March 31, 2021, the court granted defendants’ motions for reconsideration and, upon reconsideration, dismissed the claims against AAC and its former employee for breach of fiduciary duty and for aiding and abetting breach of AAC’s or its former employee’s fiduciary duty; dismissed two plaintiffs’ RICO claims against AAC and its former employee; and in all other respects denied defendants’ motions. Defendants served answers to the second amended complaint on April 21, 2021, asserting several affirmative defenses, including a defense for unclean hands focused on the plaintiffs’ failure to maintain the project properties and falsification of maintenance records. On May 24, 2021, plaintiffs moved to strike defendants’ unclean hands defenses. On September 14, 2021, Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave, to whom plaintiffs’ motion to strike was referred for a Report and Recommendation, issued an opinion and order denying plaintiffs’ motion. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, et al. v. Autonomy Master Fund Limited, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 19-ap-00291, filed May 2, 2019). On May 2, 2019, the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (the "Oversight Board"), together with the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for the Commonwealth (the "Committee") filed an adversary proceeding against certain parties that filed proofs of claim on account of general obligation bonds issued by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, including AAC. The complaint seeks declarations that the general obligation bonds are unsecured obligations and, in the alternative, seeks to avoid any security interests that holders of such bonds may have. On June 12, 2019, a group of general obligation bondholders moved to dismiss the complaint. On June 13, 2019, at the request of the Plaintiffs, the District Court stayed the case until September 1, 2019 as to all defendants; on July 24, 2019, the District Court referred this matter to mediation and ordered it stayed during the pendency of such mediation. AAC filed a statement of position and reservation of rights on February 5, 2020; certain other defendants filed motions to dismiss on this same date. On February 9, 2020, the Oversight Board announced that it intended to file, and to seek to confirm, an amended plan of adjustment (the “Commonwealth Plan”). On March 10, 2020, the District Court ordered that this case remain stayed while the Oversight Board attempted to confirm the Commonwealth Plan. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 19-ap-00363, filed May 20, 2019). On May 20, 2019, the Oversight Board, together with the Committee, as Plaintiffs, filed an adversary proceeding against certain parties that filed proofs of claim on account of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority ("PRHTA"), including AAC. The complaint seeks declarations that the PRHTA bonds are only secured by revenues on deposit with the PRHTA Fiscal Agent and that PRHTA bondholders have no security interest in any other property of PRHTA or the Commonwealth, and in the alternative, to the extent such other security interests exist, the complaint seeks to avoid other security interests that holders of PRHTA bonds may have. On June 14, 2019, at the request of the Plaintiffs, the District Court stayed the case until September 1, 2019 as to all defendants; on July 24, 2019, the District Court referred this matter to mediation and ordered it stayed during the pendency of such mediation. On December 19, 2019, the District Court ordered that this matter remain stayed pending further order of the District Court pursuant to the Oversight Board’s initiation of a separate adversary proceeding concerning PRHTA bonds (No. 20-ap-00005, discussed below). Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 20-ap-00003, filed Jan. 16, 2020). On January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board filed an adversary proceeding against monoline insurers insuring bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority (“PRIFA”) and the PRIFA bond trustee, all of which defendants filed proofs of claim against the Commonwealth relating to PRIFA bonds. The complaint seeks to disallow defendants’ proofs of claim against the Commonwealth in their entirety, including for lack of secured status. On February 27, 2020, defendants filed motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2020, the District Court stayed the motions to dismiss and authorized the Oversight Board to move for summary judgment, which motion defendants opposed. On May 5, 2021, monoline defendants Assured Guaranty Corporation, Assured Guaranty Municipal Corporation (“Assured”), and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (“National”) announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the treatment of bonds issued by PRHTA and the Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority (“PRCCDA”) (the “PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement”). On July 14, 2021, AAC and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (“FGIC”) reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the treatment of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority ("PRIFA") (the “PRIFA Settlement”), and as a result of that settlement, also joined the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRIFA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the settlement related to general obligation and PBA bonds (“GO/PBA Settlement”). On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. Following the filing of several revised versions of the Commonwealth Plan, the Court held a confirmation hearing in November 2021. On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan, as amended, and entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law related thereto. The Commonwealth Plan resolves the issues raised in this adversary proceeding. Following confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 1, 2022, Federación de Maestros de Puerto Rico, Inc., Grupo Magisterial Educadores(as) por la Democracia, Unidad, Cambio, Militancia y Organización Sindical, Inc., and Unión Nacional de Educadores y Trabajadores de la Educación, Inc. (collectively, the “Teachers’ Unions”) moved for a stay of the confirmation order while the appeal is pending, and on February 4, 2022, Asociación Puertorriqueña de la Judicatura, Inc. (“APJ”) and a number of credit unions (the “Credit Unions”) also filed motions for a stay pending appeal. On February 9 and February 11, 2022, a number of parties—including AAC—filed oppositions to the stay motions, requesting, in the alternative, that the appealing parties seeking a stay be required to post supersedeas bonds pending appeal. On February 11, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting APJ’s motion for voluntary dismissal of its appeal. The District Court has taken the remaining stay motions on submission. On February 17, 2022, the Oversight Board filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order, seeking review of the District Court’s finding regarding the nondischargeability of certain claims arising under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 20-ap-00004, filed Jan. 16, 2020). On January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board filed an adversary proceeding against monoline insurers insuring bonds issued by the PRCCDA and the PRCCDA bond trustee, all of which defendants filed proofs of claim against the Commonwealth relating to PRCCDA bonds. The complaint seeks to disallow defendants’ proofs of claim against the Commonwealth in their entirety, including for lack of secured status. On February 27, 2020, defendants filed motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2020, the District Court stayed the motions to dismiss and authorized the Oversight Board to move for summary judgment, which motion defendants opposed. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRCCDA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. Following the filing of several revised versions of the Commonwealth Plan, the Court held a confirmation hearing in November 2021. On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan, as amended, and entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law related thereto. The Commonwealth Plan resolves the issues raised in this adversary proceeding. Following confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 1 and 4, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions, APJ, and the Credit Unions moved for a stay of the confirmation order while this appeal is pending. On February 9 and February 11, 2022, a number of parties—including AAC—filed oppositions to the stay motions, requesting, in the alternative, that the appealing parties seeking a stay be required to post supersedeas bonds pending appeal. On February 11, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting APJ’s motion for voluntary dismissal of its appeal. The District Court has taken the remaining stay motions on submission. On February 17, 2022, the Oversight Board filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order, seeking review of the District Court’s finding regarding the nondischargeability of certain claims arising under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 20-ap-00005, filed Jan. 16, 2020). On January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board filed an adversary proceeding against monoline insurers insuring bonds issued by PRHTA, certain PRHTA bondholders, and the PRHTA fiscal agent for bondholders, all of which defendants filed proofs of claim against the Commonwealth relating to PRHTA bonds. The complaint seeks to disallow defendants’ proofs of claim against the Commonwealth in their entirety, including for lack of secured status. On February 27, 2020, defendants filed motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2020, the District Court stayed the motions to dismiss and authorized the Oversight Board to move for summary judgment, which motion defendants opposed. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRHTA fiscal agent jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. Following the filing of several revised versions of the Commonwealth Plan, the Court held a confirmation hearing in November 2021. On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan, as amended, and entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law related thereto. The Commonwealth Plan resolves the issues raised in this adversary proceeding. Following confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 1 and 4, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions, APJ, and the Credit Unions moved for a stay of the confirmation order while this appeal is pending. On February 9 and February 11, 2022, a number of parties—including AAC—filed oppositions to the stay motions, requesting, in the alternative, that the appealing parties seeking a stay be required to post supersedeas bonds pending appeal. On February 11, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting APJ’s motion for voluntary dismissal of its appeal. The District Court has taken the remaining stay motions on submission. On February 17, 2022, the Oversight Board filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order, seeking review of the District Court’s finding regarding the nondischargeability of certain claims arising under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 20-ap-00007, filed Jan. 16, 2020). On January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board and the Committee filed an adversary proceeding against monoline insurers insuring bonds issued by PRHTA, certain PRHTA bondholders, and the PRHTA fiscal agent for bondholders, all of which defendants filed proofs of claim against PRHTA relating to PRHTA bonds. The complaint seeks to disallow portions of defendants’ proofs of claim against the PRHTA, including for lack of secured status. On March 10, 2020, the District Court stayed this case. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRHTA fiscal agent jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. Following the filing of several revised versions of the Commonwealth Plan, the Court held a confirmation hearing in November 2021. On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan, as amended, and entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law related thereto. The Commonwealth Plan resolves the issues raised in this adversary proceeding. Following confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 1 and 4, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions, APJ, and the Credit Unions moved for a stay of the confirmation order while this appeal is pending. On February 9 and February 11, 2022, a number of parties—including AAC—filed oppositions to the stay motions, requesting, in the alternative, that the appealing parties seeking a stay be required to post supersedeas bonds pending appeal. On February 11, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting APJ’s motion for voluntary dismissal of its appeal. The District Court has taken the remaining stay motions on submission. On February 17, 2022, the Oversight Board filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order, seeking review of the District Court’s finding regarding the nondischargeability of certain claims arising under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. AmeriNational Community Services, LLC, et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 21-ap-00068, filed June 26, 2021). On June 26, 2021, AmeriNational Community Services, LLC, and Cantor-Katz Collateral Monitor LLC, as servicer and collateral monitor (respectively) for the GDB Debt Recovery Authority (the “DRA”), filed an adversary proceeding against AAC and other monoline insurers of PRHTA bonds, holders of, PRHTA bonds, and the PRHTA bond trustee. The complaint sought declaratory judgments regarding the DRA’s rights with respect to certain revenues pledged as collateral for PRHTA bonds, and asserted that the DRA is the only party with a right to collect from and a security interest in certain such revenues. On August 26, 2021, the monoline insurers filed their motion to dismiss the DRA parties’ complaint, as well as their answer and counterclaims. On October 19, 2021, the DRA parties filed a motion to dismiss the monolines’ counterclaims. On October 29, 2021, the District Court entered an order granting the monolines’ motion to dismiss all counts in the DRA parties’ complaint. On November 2, 2021, the monolines voluntarily withdrew their counterclaims without prejudice. On November 4, 2021, the District Court entered an amended judgment closing the adversary proceeding. On November 5, 2021, the Oversight Board filed a motion notifying the court of its settlement with the DRA parties. The stipulation attached to the motion provided, among other things, that the DRA parties would not take any appeals of the court’s order dismissing their complaint, and would support the Commonwealth Plan, the PRCCDA Title VI Qualifying Modification, and the forthcoming HTA Plan of Adjustment (the "PRHTA Plan"). NC Residuals Owners Trust, et al. v. Wilmington Trust Co., et al. (Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No. 2019-0880, filed Nov. 1, 2019). On November 1, 2019, AAC became aware of a new declaratory judgment action filed by certain residual equity interest holders (“NC Owners” or “Plaintiffs”) in fourteen National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts (the “Trusts”) against Wilmington Trust Company, the Owner Trustee for the Trusts; U.S. Bank National Association, the Indenture Trustee; GSS Data Services, Inc., the Administrator; and AAC. Through this action, Plaintiffs seek a number of judicial determinations. On January 21, 2020, the presiding Vice Chancellor entered an order consolidating the action with previously filed litigation relating to the Trusts. On February 13, 2020, AAC, the Owner Trustee, the Indenture Trustee, and other parties filed declaratory judgment counterclaims. Several parties, including Plaintiffs and AAC, filed motions for judgment on the pleadings in support of their requested judicial determinations. On August 27, 2020, the Vice Chancellor issued an opinion addressing all of the pending motions for judgment on the pleadings, which granted certain of the parties’ requested judicial determinations and denied others. He deferred judgment on still other declarations pending further factual development. On January 31, 2022, the Vice Chancellor entered a thirty-day stay to facilitate good-faith settlement discussions. AAC’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. AAC has periodically received various regulatory inquiries and requests for information with respect to investigations and inquiries that such regulators are conducting. AAC 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. From time to time, Ambac is subject to allegations concerning its corporate governance that may lead to litigation, including derivative litigation, and while the monetary impacts may not be material, the matters may distract management and the Board of Directors from their principal focus on Ambac's business, strategy and objectives. 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 either not applicable or 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. 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 to approve a proposed consent judgment that would have granted monetary damages and injunctive relief against the Trusts. AAC guaranteed certain securities issued by three of the Trusts and indirectly insures six other Trusts. On September 20, 2017, AAC filed a motion to intervene in the action, which motion was granted on October 19, 2018. Following discovery and briefing, on May 31, 2020, the District Court denied the CFPB’s motion to approve the proposed consent judgment. On March 19, 2020, Intervenor Transworld Systems Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On July 10, 2020, AAC and several other intervenors filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. On July 2, 2020, the CFPB submitted an application for entry of default against the Trusts. AAC and the Owner Trustee opposed the CFPB’s application. On March 26, 2021, the court granted intervenors’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also denied as moot the CFPB’s application for entry of default against the Trusts. The CFPB filed an amended complaint on April 30, 2021. On May 21, 2021, the Trusts and several intervenors, including AAC, moved to dismiss the CFPB’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On December 13, 2021, the court denied the Trusts' and intervenors' motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 23, 2021, the Trusts and several intervenors, including AAC, filed a motion seeking (i) an order certifying for interlocutory appeal the court’s December 13, 2021 order denying the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and (ii) a stay of the action pending resolution of any appeal. The motion is fully briefed and remains pending. On January 26, 2022, the Trusts and several intervenors, including AAC, answered the CFPB’s amended complaint, asserting several affirmative defenses and denying that the CFPB is entitled to relief from the Trusts. On February 11, 2022, the court certified its ruling on the motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and stayed the case pending appeal. The Trusts and several intervenors, including AAC, filed a petition for permission to appeal with the Third Circuit on February 21, 2022. 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. AAC guaranteed certain securities issued by three of the Trusts and indirectly insures certain securities in six other Trusts. The Owner Trustee of the Trusts, Wilmington Trust Company, WTC, citing irreconcilable differences with Plaintiffs, resigned from its role as Owner Trustee and moved on August 21, 2017 for appointment of a successor Owner Trustee. AAC 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. The court granted AAC’s motion to intervene on April 10, 2018 and AAC filed its complaint in intervention on April 16, 2018. On January 21, 2020, Vice Chancellor Slights entered an order consolidating the action with later-filed litigation pending in Delaware Chancery Court relating to the Trusts, including a declaratory judgment action in which AAC was named as a defendant, NC Residuals Owners Trust, et al. v. Wilmington Trust Co., et al. (Del. Ct. Ch., C.A. No. 2019-0880, filed Nov. 1, 2019). 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). AAC, 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 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). AAC 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. AAC 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. 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, AAC filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the Commonwealth’s Fiscal and Economic Growth Plan (the "FEGP") and a 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 August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRCCDA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC's joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. 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, AAC filed a complaint alleging that various moratorium laws and executive orders enacted by the Commonwealth to claw back funds from PRIFA, PRHTA, and 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. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRCCDA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC's joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be further stayed. 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, AAC 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 as a result 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, AAC 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 AAC-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 was permitted to continue, with AAC’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 to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 12, 2019, the Oversight Board and AAFAF moved to dismiss these appeals as equitably moot because the COFINA Plan has been consummated. On February 8, 2021, the First Circuit dismissed the appeals of the confirmation order. On November 17, 2021, the District Court denied as moot BNY's motion to transfer venue to the District of Puerto Rico and continued the stay of the action. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Public Buildings Authority (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:18-ap-00149, filed December 21, 2018). On December 21, 2018, the Oversight Board, together with the Committee, as Plaintiffs, filed a complaint against the Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority (“PBA”) seeking declaratory judgment that the leases between PBA and its lessees-many of whom are agencies and instrumentalities of the Commonwealth-are “disguised financings,” not true leases, and therefore should not be afforded administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. On March 12, 2019, AAC and other interested parties were permitted to intervene in order to argue that the PBA leases are valid leases, and are entitled to administrative expense treatment under the Bankruptcy Code. On June 16, 2019, the Oversight Board announced that it had entered into a plan support agreement ("PSA") with certain general obligation and PBA bondholders that includes a proposed resolution of claim objections to and issues surrounding both general obligation and PBA bonds, including a proposed settlement of this adversary proceeding. On July 24, 2019, the District Court referred this matter to mediation and ordered it stayed during the pendency of such mediation. On September 27, 2019, the Oversight Board filed a joint plan of adjustment and disclosure statement for the Commonwealth, PBA, and the Employees’ Retirement System for Puerto Rico. On February 9, 2020, the Oversight Board executed a new plan support agreement with additional creditors (the “Amended PSA”) and announced that it intended to file, and to seek to confirm, the Commonwealth Plan. On March 10, 2020, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed while the Oversight Board attempted to confirm the Commonwealth Plan. The Commonwealth Plan resolves this litigation. Following confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 1 and 4, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions, APJ, and the Credit Unions moved for a stay of the confirmation order while this appeal is pending. On February 9 and February 11, 2022, a number of parties—including AAC—filed oppositions to the stay motions, requesting, in the alternative, that the appealing parties seeking a stay be required to post supersedeas bonds pending appeal. On February 11, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting APJ’s motion for voluntary dismissal of its appeal. The District Court has taken the remaining stay motions on submission. On February 17, 2022, the Oversight Board filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order, seeking review of the District Court’s finding regarding the nondischargeability of certain claims arising under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Omnibus Objection of (I) Financial Oversight and Management Board, Acting Through its Special Claims Committee, and (II) Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 502 and Bankruptcy Rule 3007, to Claims Filed or Asserted by Holders of Certain Commonwealth General Obligation Bonds (Dkt. No. 4784, filed January 14, 2019) (“GO Bond Claim Objection”). On January 14, 2019, the Oversight Board and the Committee filed an omnibus claim objection in the Commonwealth’s Title III case challenging claims arising from certain general obligation bonds issued by the Commonwealth in 2012 and 2014 totaling approximately $6 billion, none of which are held or insured by AAC. The court subsequently ordered certain consolidated procedures permitting parties in interest an opportunity to participate in litigation of the objection. On April 11, 2019, AAC filed a notice of participation in support of the objection, advancing the argument, among other things, that the PBA leases are true leases, but the associated debt nonetheless should be included in the Commonwealth’s debt ceiling calculation such that the 2012 and 2014 general obligation bond issuances are null and void and claims arising therefrom should be disallowed. On June 16, 2019, the Oversight Board announced that it had entered into a PSA with certain general obligation and PBA bondholders that includes a proposed resolution of claim objections to and issues surrounding both general obligation and PBA bonds, including a proposed settlement of this omnibus claim objection. On June 25, 2019, the Oversight Board moved to stay proceedings related to this omnibus claim objection while it pursues confirmation of the plan contemplated in the PSA. On July 24, 2019, the District Court referred this matter to mediation and ordered it stayed during the pendency of such mediation. On February 5, 2020, certain parties filed motions to dismiss the claim objection. On February 9, 2020, the Oversight Board executed the Amended PSA and announced that it intended to file, and to seek to confirm, the Commonwealth Plan. Additional motions to dismiss were filed on February 19, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the District Court ordered that this matter remain stayed while the Oversight Board attempted to confirm the Commonwealth Plan. On July 19, 2020, the Committee filed a motion to lift the stay on this claim objection in light of the changes to the fiscal plan and likely changes to the Commonwealth Plan in light of COVID-19. On September 1, 2020, AAC filed a partial joinder to the Committee’s motion. On September 17, 2020, the District Court denied the Committee’s motion without prejudice, indicating that the stay likely would remain in place until at least March 2021. On October 1, 2020, the Committee moved the District Court to reconsider its denial of the Committee’s motion to lift the stay in light of materials released by the parties to the Amended PSA that the Committee argued demonstrate a lack of agreement between those parties. On October 5, 2020, the District Court denied the Committee’s motion for reconsideration. On October 16, 2020, the Committee appealed to the First Circuit the District Court’s order denying the Committee’s motion to lift the stay on its claim objection. On February 22, 2021, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal. Following the filing of several revised versions of the Commonwealth Plan, the Court held a confirmation hearing in November 2021. On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan, as amended, and entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law related thereto. The Commonwealth Plan resolves the GO Bond Claim Objection. Following confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 1 and 4, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions, APJ, and the Credit Unions moved for a stay of the confirmation order while this appeal is pending. On February 9 and February 11, 2022, a number of parties—including AAC—filed oppositions to the stay motions, requesting, in the alternative, that the appealing parties seeking a stay be required to post supersedeas bonds pending appeal. On February 11, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting APJ’s motion for voluntary dismissal of its appeal. The District Court has taken the remaining stay motions on submission. On February 17, 2022, the Oversight Board filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order, seeking review of the District Court’s finding regarding the nondischargeability of certain claims arising under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Ambac Assurance Corporation's Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion Concerning Application of the Automatic Stay to the Revenues Securing PRIFA Rum Tax Bonds (Dkt. No. 7176, filed May 30, 2019) (“PRIFA Stay Motion”). On May 30, 2019, AAC filed a motion seeking an order that the automatic stay does not apply to certain lawsuits AAC seeks to bring or to continue relating to bonds issued by PRIFA, or, in the alternative, for relief from the automatic stay to pursue such lawsuits or for adequate protection of AAC's collateral. On July 2, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on certain grounds. Briefing regarding additional grounds on which AAC and other movants seek stay relief concluded on August 5, 2020; on September 9, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on the additional grounds. On September 23, 2020, AAC and the other movants appealed this decision to the First Circuit. On March 3, 2021, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s opinions denying the motion to lift the stay. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRIFA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this motion as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this motion be stayed. The Commonwealth Plan and the PRIFA QM (defined below) resolve the PRIFA Stay Motion. Following confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 1 and 4, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions, APJ, and the Credit Unions moved for a stay of the confirmation order while this appeal is pending. On February 9 and February 11, 2022, a number of parties—including AAC—filed oppositions to the stay motions, requesting, in the alternative, that the appealing parties seeking a stay be required to post supersedeas bonds pending appeal. On February 11, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting APJ’s motion for voluntary dismissal of its appeal. The District Court has taken the remaining stay motions on submission. On February 17, 2022, the Oversight Board filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order, seeking review of the District Court’s finding regarding the nondischargeability of certain claims arising under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Motion of Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Municipal Corp., Ambac Assurance Corporation, National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation, and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company for Relief from the Automatic Stay, or, in the Alternative, Adequate Protection (Dkt. No. 10102, filed January 16, 2020) (“PRHTA Stay Motion”). Pursuant to an order of the District Court setting out an agreed schedule for litigation submitted by the Mediation Team, on January 16, 2020, AAC, together with Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Municipal Corp., National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation, and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company filed a motion seeking an order that the automatic stay does not apply to movants’ enforcement of the application of pledged revenues to the PRHTA bonds or the enforcement of movants’ liens on revenues pledged to such bonds, or, in the alternative, for adequate protection of movants’ interests in the revenues pledged to PRHTA bonds. On July 2, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on certain grounds. Briefing regarding additional grounds on which AAC and other movants seek stay relief concluded on August 5, 2020; on September 9, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on the additional grounds. On September 23, 2020, AAC and the other movants appealed this decision to the First Circuit. On March 3, 2021, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s opinions denying the motion to lift the stay. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On May 11, 2021, the Oversight Board, Assured, and National jointly moved to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. AAC and FGIC objected to the motion to stay on May 18, 2021, and briefing on the motion to stay concluded on May 21, 2021. On May 25, 2021, the District Court ordered this case stayed with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRHTA fiscal agent jointly moved to stay this motion as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this motion be stayed. The Commonwealth Plan resolves the PRHTA Stay Motion. Following confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 1 and 4, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions, APJ, and the Credit Unions moved for a stay of the confirmation order while this appeal is pending. On February 9 and February 11, 2022, a number of parties—including AAC—filed oppositions to the stay motions, requesting, in the alternative, that the appealing parties seeking a stay be required to post supersedeas bonds pending appeal. On February 11, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting APJ’s motion for voluntary dismissal of its appeal. The District Court has taken the remaining stay motions on submission. On February 17, 2022, the Oversight Board filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order, seeking review of the District Court’s finding regarding the nondischargeability of certain claims arising under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Ambac Assurance Corporation, Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Municipal Corp., and the Bank of New York Mellon’s Motion Concerning Application of the Automatic Stay to the Revenues Securing the CCDA Bonds (Dkt. No. 10104, filed January 16, 2020) (“PRCCDA Stay Motion”). Pursuant to an order of the District Court setting out an agreed schedule for litigation submitted by the Mediation Team, on January 16, 2020, AAC, together with Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Municipal Corp., and the PRCCDA bond trustee, filed a motion seeking an order either (i) that the automatic stay does not apply to movants’ enforcement of their rights to revenues pledged to PRCCDA bonds by bringing an enforcement action against PRCCDA; or, in the alternative, (ii) lifting the automatic stay to enable movants to pursue an enforcement action against PRCCDA; or, in the further alternative, (iii) ordering adequate protection of movants’ interests in the PRCCDA pledged to PRCCDA bonds. On July 2, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on certain grounds, but found that the movants had stated a colorable claim that a certain account was the “Transfer Account” on which movants hold a lien. Briefing regarding additional grounds on which AAC and other movants seek stay relief concluded on August 5, 2020; on September 9, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on the additional grounds, and found that a final determination on issues related to the identity of the Transfer Account would be made in the decision on the motions for summary judgment issued in the PRCCDA-related adversary proceeding, No. 20-ap-00004. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On May 11, 2021, the Oversight Board, Assured, and National jointly moved to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. AAC and FGIC objected to the motion to stay on May 18, 2021, and briefing on the motion to stay concluded on May 21, 2021. On May 25, 2021, the District Court ordered this case stayed with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRCCDA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this motion as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this motion be stayed. The Commonwealth Plan and the PRCCDA QM (defined below) resolve the PRCCDA Stay Motion. Following confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 1 and 4, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions, APJ, and the Credit Unions moved for a stay of the confirmation order while this appeal is pending. On February 9 and February 11, 2022, a number of parties—including AAC—filed oppositions to the stay motions, requesting, in the alternative, that the appealing parties seeking a stay be required to post supersedeas bonds pending appeal. On February 11, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting APJ’s motion for voluntary dismissal of its appeal. The District Court has taken the remaining stay motions on submission. On February 17, 2022, the Oversight Board filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order, seeking review of the District Court’s finding regarding the nondischargeability of certain claims arising under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Oriental Financial Services LLC; Popular Securities LLC; Raymond James & Associates, Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC; Samuel A. Ramirez & Co. Inc., Santander Securities LLC; UBS Financial Services Inc.; and UBS Securities LLC (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Court of First Instance, San Juan Superior Court, Case No. SJ-2020-CV-01505, filed February 19, 2020). On February 19, 2020, AAC filed a complaint in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Court of First Instance, San Juan Superior Court, against certain underwriters of Ambac-insured bonds issued by PRIFA and PRCCDA, with causes of action under the Puerto Rico civil law doctrines of actos propios and Unilateral Declaration of Will. AAC alleges defendants engaged in inequitable conduct in underwriting Ambac-insured bonds issued by PRIFA and PRCCDA, including failing to investigate and adequately disclose material information in the official statements for the bonds that defendants provided to AAC regarding systemic deficiencies in the Commonwealth’s financial reporting. AAC seeks damages in compensation for claims paid by AAC on its financial guaranty insurance policies insuring such bonds, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees. On March 20, 2020, defendants removed this case to the Title III Court. On April 20, 2020, AAC moved to remand the case back to the Court of First Instance. On July 29, 2020, the District Court granted AAC’s motion to remand the case to the Commonwealth court. AAC filed an amended complaint in the Commonwealth court on October 28, 2020. In the Amended Complaint, AAC added claims on bonds issued by the Commonwealth, PBA and PRHTA and added defendants that had underwritten these bonds. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on December 8 and 14, 2020. On July 30, 2021, the Commonwealth court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. AAC filed its appeal of the dismissal in the Commonwealth Court of Appeals on September 16, 2021. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Autopistas Metropolitanas de Puerto Rico, LLC (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 3:20-cv-01094, filed February 19, 2020). On February 19, 2020, AAC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, against Autopistas Metropolitanas de Puerto Rico, LLC (“Metropistas”), which holds a concession from PRHTA for two Puerto Rico highways, PR-5 and PR-22, in connection with a 10-year extension of the concession that was entered into in April 2016. The complaint includes claims for fraudulent conveyance and unjust enrichment, alleging that the consideration paid by Metropistas for the extension was less than reasonably equivalent value and most of the benefit of such payment was received by the Commonwealth instead of PRHTA. AAC also seeks a declaratory judgment that it has a valid and continuing lien on certain toll revenues that are being collected by Metropistas. On March 31, 2020, the Oversight Board filed a motion before the Title III Court seeking an order directing Ambac to withdraw its complaint. On April 20, 2020, the District Court ordered this case stayed pending briefing before the Title III Court on the Oversight Board’s motion to withdraw. On June 16, 2020, the Title III Court ordered AAC to withdraw its complaint. AAC withdrew its complaint on June 23, 2020, and noticed an appeal from the Title III Court’s order to withdraw on June 30, 2020. AAC’s opening appeal brief was filed before the First Circuit on October 19, 2020; briefing was completed on February 12, 2021, and oral argument was held on March 8, 2021. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, and Metropistas jointly moved to stay this appeal as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 4, 2021, the First Circuit ordered that this appeal be stayed. On January 25, 2022, the First Circuit granted the parties’ request for a continuation of the stay pending the consummation of certain transactions contemplated by the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 3:20-ap-00068, filed May 26, 2020). On May 26, 2020, AAC filed an adversary complaint before the Title III Court seeking (i) a declaration that titles I, II, and III of PROMESA are unconstitutional because they violate the Bankruptcy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (which requires all bankruptcy laws to be uniform) and (ii) dismissal of the pending Title III petitions. On August 17, 2020, the Oversight Board filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; on August 18, 2020, the Official Committee of Retired Employees of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “Retiree Committee”) and the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority (“AAFAF”) filed joinders to the motion to dismiss. The United States filed a memorandum of law in support of the constitutionality of PROMESA on October 2, 2020. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRCCDA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. The Commonwealth Plan resolves this litigation. Following confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 1 and 4, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions, APJ, and the Credit Unions moved for a stay of the confirmation order while this appeal is pending. On February 9 and February 11, 2022, a number of parties—including Ambac—filed oppositions to the stay motions, requesting, in the alternative, that the appealing parties seeking a stay be required to post supersedeas bonds pending appeal. On February 11, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting APJ’s motion for voluntary dismissal of its appeal. The District Court has taken the remaining stay motions on submission. On February 17, 2022, the Oversight Board filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order, seeking review of the District Court’s finding regarding the nondischargeability of certain claims arising under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Urgent Motion for Bridge Order, and Motion for Appointment as Trustees Under 11 U.S.C. § 926, of Ambac Assurance Corporation, Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (Dkt. No. 13708, filed July 17, 2020) (“PRHTA Trustee Motion”). On July 17, 2020, AAC, together with Assured Guaranty Corporation, Assured Guaranty Municipal Corporation, and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, filed a motion seeking appointment as trustees under Section 926 of the Bankruptcy Code to pursue certain avoidance actions on behalf of PRHTA against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The PRHTA Trustee Motion attached a proposed complaint detailing the avoidance claims that movants would pursue. On August 11, 2020, the District Court denied the PRHTA Trustee Motion; on August 24, 2020, movants noticed an appeal of the denial of the PRHTA Trustee Motion to the First Circuit. Movants’ opening brief before the First Circuit was filed on February 17, 2021. Briefing at the First Circuit concluded on June 4, 2021. On July 29, 2021, AAC, FGIC, Assured, and National jointly moved to dismiss the appeal at the First Circuit as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the PRIFA Settlement. On July 30, 2021, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Objection of Ambac Assurance Corporation, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 502 and Bankruptcy Rule 3007, to Claim Asserted by the Official Committee of Retired Employees of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Appointed in the Commonwealth’s Title III Case (Dkt. No. 16884, filed June 3, 2021) (“Pension Claim Objection”). On June 3, 2021, AAC filed a claim objection in the Commonwealth’s Title III case challenging the amount of the claim filed by the Retiree Committee against the Commonwealth, which asserted pension liabilities of at least $58.5 billion. AAC contended that this asserted pension liability was overstated by at least $9 billion, and sought disallowance of the Retiree Committee’s proof of claim to the extent of the overstatement. On June 17, 2021, the Oversight Board and the Retiree Committee each indicated an intention to move to terminate the Pension Claim Objection. The Oversight Board contended that AAC lacked standing to bring the Pension Claim Objection and that the objection is moot; the Retiree Committee contended that the Pension Claim Objection should be addressed at confirmation. AAC responded on June 21, 2021. On June 22, 2021, the District Court denied the Pension Claim Objection without prejudice, directing the parties to meet and confer on an appropriate schedule for litigating the issues underlying the Pension Claim Objection. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board and AAC jointly moved to stay this matter as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this matter be stayed. The Commonwealth Plan resolves this matter. Following confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 1 and 4, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions, APJ, and the Credit Unions moved for a stay of the confirmation order while this appeal is pending. On February 9 and February 11, 2022, a number of parties—including Ambac—filed oppositions to the stay motions, requesting, in the alternative, that the appealing parties seeking a stay be required to post supersedeas bonds pending appeal. On February 11, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting APJ’s motion for voluntary dismissal of its appeal. The District Court has taken the remaining stay motions on submission. On February 17, 2022, the Oversight Board filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order, seeking review of the District Court’s finding regarding the nondischargeability of certain claims arising under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In re Puerto Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 21-cv-1492) (the “PRIFA Title VI Proceedings”). On October 8, 2021, the Oversight Board filed its application for approval of the proposed Title VI Qualifying Modification for PRIFA (the “PRIFA QM”). The hearing to consider approval of the PRIFA QM was held on November 23, 2021. On January 20, 2022, the Court entered orders approving the PRIFA QM and directing the closure of the PRIFA Title VI Proceedings. In re Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 21-cv-1493) (the “PRCCDA Title VI Proceedings”). On October 8, 2021, the Oversight Board filed its application for approval of the proposed Title VI Qualifying Modification for PRCCDA (the “PRCCDA QM”). The hearing to consider approval of the PRCCDA QM was held on November 23, 2021. On January 20, 2022, the Court entered orders approving the PRCCDA QM and directing the closure of the PRCCDA Title VI Proceedings. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17- bk-03283), Monolines’ Reply to the Objection of the DRA Parties to the Seventh Amended Title III Joint Plan of Adjustment of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico et al. (Dkt. No. 18873, filed October 27, 2021). On July 30, 2021, the Oversight Board filed the Seventh Amended Title III Joint Plan of Adjustment of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico et al. (the “Seventh Amended Plan”) (Dkt. No. 17627). On October 8, 2021, the Oversight Board filed the Proposed Order and Judgment Confirming Seventh Amended Title III Joint Plan of Adjustment of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, et al. (the “Proposed Confirmation Order”) (Dkt. No 18447). On October 19, 2021, the GDB Debt Recovery Authority and Cantor-Katz Collateral Monitor LLC (together, the “DRA Parties”) filed their objection to the Seventh Amended Plan (Dkt. No. 18590). On October 27, 2021, AAC joined the Monolines in filing a reply in response to the DRA Parties’ objection to the Seventh Amended Plan. On November 5, 2021, the Oversight Board filed a motion notifying the court of its settlement with the DRA Parties. The motion requested that the court change the DRA Parties’ votes to reflect their acceptance of the plan and attached a stipulation providing, among other things, that the DRA Parties would withdraw their confirmation objections. On November 8, 2021, the District Court entered an order granting the motion requesting to change the DRA Parties’ votes, and the DRA Parties withdrew their plan objection and related filings. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17- bk-03283), Monolines’ Reply to Underwriter Defendants’ Objection to Plan and Proposed Confirmation Order (Dkt. No. 18871), filed October 27, 2021). On July 30, 2021, the Oversight Board filed the Seventh Amended Plan. On October 8, 2021, the Oversight Board filed the Proposed Confirmation Order. On October 19, 2021, certain banks, underwriters, and professionals involved in the underwriting of bonds issued or guaranteed by the Commonwealth and its instrumentalities (the “Underwriter Defendants”) filed their objection to the Seventh Amended Plan and Proposed Confirmation Order (Dkt. No. 18587). On October 27, 2021, AAC and FGIC filed their reply in response to the Underwriter Defendants’ objection. Following the filing of several revised versions of the Commonwealth Plan, the Court held a confirmation hearing in November 2021. On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan, as amended, and entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law related thereto. Following confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 1 and 4, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions, APJ, and the Credit Unions moved for a stay of the confirmation order while this appeal is pending. On February 9 and February 11, 2022, a number of parties—including Ambac—filed oppositions to the stay motions, requesting, in the alternative, that the appealing parties seeking a stay be required to post supersedeas bonds pending appeal. On February 11, 2022, the District Court entered an order granting APJ’s motion for voluntary dismissal of its appeal. The District Court has taken the remaining stay motions on submission. On February 17, 2022, the Oversight Board filed a notice of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order, seeking review of the District Court’s finding regarding the nondischargeability of certain claims arising under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17- bk-03567). 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. RMBS Litigation In connection with AAC’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, AAC 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). AAC 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 AAC’s claims for indemnification and limited AAC’s claim for breach of loan-level warranties to the repurchase protocol, but denied dismissal of AAC’s other contractual claims and fraudulent inducement claim. Discovery has been completed. AAC’s deadline to file a note of issue is April 28, 2022, and summary judgment motions are due on June 27, 2022. •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). AAC’s Second Amended Complaint, filed on May 28, 2013, asserted claims against Countrywide and Bank of America (as successor to Countrywide’s liabilities) for, among other things, breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. In August and October 2018, Defendants filed various pre-trial motions, including a motion seeking to limit the loans for which AAC may seek to recover damages. On December 30, 2018, the court denied all of these pre-trial motions in their entirety and Defendants appealed. On September 17, 2019, the First Department affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s rulings. As part of this decision, the First Department affirmed the denial of the motion seeking to limit the loans for which AAC may seek to recover damages. An appeal is currently pending at the New York Court of Appeals in an unrelated RMBS case involving a similar issue. On October 17, 2019, Countrywide filed a motion for leave to appeal certain issues to the New York Court of Appeals and for reargument or leave to appeal certain other issues. On January 16, 2020, the First Department recalled and vacated its September 17, 2019 decision and order and substituted a new decision and order. On the same date, the First Department denied Countrywide’s motion seeking leave to appeal, without prejudice to seeking such leave from the reissued decision and order. On January 30, 2020, Countrywide filed a new motion for leave to appeal the First Department’s denial of its motions, which AAC opposed. On June 11, 2020, the First Department denied Countrywide’s motion for leave to appeal. On January 14, 2020, the trial court granted AAC’s motion to supplement and amend certain of its expert reports. After supplemental expert discovery, on August 12, 2020, Countrywide filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment on, AAC’s fraud claim and on December 4, 2020, the Court granted Countrywide’s motion, resulting in dismissal of AAC's fraud claim. On May 11, 2021, the First Department affirmed the dismissal of AAC’s fraud claim. Trial of this matter is scheduled to commence on September 7, 2022. •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). AAC has asserted claims for material breach of contract and has requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties under the contracts. AAC 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 AAC’s claim for breaches of representations and warranties, but granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss AAC’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 AAC’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. On August 25, 2021, AAC filed a note of issue demanding a jury for its fraud claim and a bench trial for its breach-of-contract claim. On August 31, 2021, Nomura filed a jury demand for AAC’s breach-of-contract claim. On December 21, 2021, the parties filed motions for summary judgment. •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, AAC 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 AAC 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 AAC’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 AAC’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. On December 8, 2020, the court granted Countrywide’s motion to dismiss the complaint. AAC filed a notice of appeal from this decision on January 7, 2021. The court entered judgment in Countrywide’s favor on January 29, 2021 and AAC filed a notice of appeal from the judgment on February 2, 2021. On February 8, 2022, the decision granting the motion to dismiss was affirmed. •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). AAC asserted a claim for fraudulent inducement in connection with AAC’s issuance of insurance policies relating to eight residential mortgage-backed securitizations that are not the subject of AAC’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 has been completed, and AAC filed a note of issue on November 30, 2021. Countrywide filed a motion for summary judgment on February 18, 2022, which will be fully submitted on or about May 4, 2022. •Ambac Assurance Corporation v. U.S. Bank Nation al 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 AAC 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. AAC filed a motion to dismiss the Minnesota Action, which was denied on November 13, 2017, and the denial was affirmed on appeal. On September 6, 2018, U.S. Bank filed its Second Amended Petition, and AAC and certain other certificateholders objected to, or otherwise responded to, the petition. On January 14, 2022, U.S. Bank filed its Third Amended Petition. Trial is scheduled for May 2, 2022. On June 8, 2018, AAC filed the SDNY Action asserting claims arising out of U.S. Bank’s acceptance of the proposed settlement and treatment of trust recoveries. AAC asserted claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. On July 16, 2019, the court dismissed AAC's breach-of-contract and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims based on U.S. Bank's acceptance of the settlement; and dismissed AAC's declaratory judgment claims regarding the occurrence of an Event of Default and U.S. Bank's future distribution of trust recoveries through the waterfall. The court denied the motion to dismiss AAC's breach-of-contract claims based on U.S. Bank's past distribution of trust recoveries through the waterfall. On January 17, 2020, U.S. Bank moved for summary judgment regarding the remaining claim relating to distributions. On February 7, 2020, AAC cross-moved for summary judgment. On December 7, 2020, the court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Ambac’s repayment right in the trust waterfall, and granted Ambac’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the use of a write-up first method and the offsetting of recoveries against realized losses. On December 22, 2020, the court entered final judgment consistent with its prior decisions, and awarded AAC nominal damages. On January 12, 2021, AAC appealed that judgment. On December 20, 2021, Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. •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). AAC 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 AAC 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. Fact discovery and Phase 1 expert discovery have concluded, and the parties filed partial summary judgment motions on Phase 1 issues on November 9, 2021. Briefing on those motions has been completed. •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 2006-9”). 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 November 2, 2018, AAC and other interested persons filed notices of intention to appear and answers to DBNT’s petition. AAC sought a period of discovery before resolution on the merits. Discovery is now complete. Under the operative case schedule, merits briefing was completed on January 12, 2021. On April 21, 2021, AAC and another interested party sought leave to file a joint surreply in further opposition to DBNT’s petition. The court has not yet scheduled a hearing or oral argument.

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 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration