XML 38 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The following commitments and contingencies provide an update of those discussed in Note 19: Commitments and Contingencies in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included Part II, Item 8 in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, and should be read in conjunction with the complete descriptions provided in the aforementioned Form 10-K. 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. (After the case was transferred to the SDNY, the court 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 allowed plaintiffs' claims to go forward.) On April 6, 2022, certain co-defendants filed a motion to sever the plaintiffs’ claims and to dismiss all claims except for claims asserted by the Monterey Bay plaintiffs. 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 13, 2019, the District Court stayed the case; the case remained stayed until early 2020. On March 10, 2020, the District Court again ordered that this case remain stayed while the Oversight Board attempted to confirm the a plan of adjustment for the Commonwealth (as amended, the “Commonwealth Plan”). On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan. The Commonwealth Plan resolves the issues raised in this adversary proceeding. Several parties appealed the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit, including a number of teachers’ unions (the “Teachers’ Unions”), a number of credit unions (the “Credit Unions”), Suiza Dairy Corporation (“Suiza”), the Oversight Board, and certain individual creditors. On April 26, 2022, the First Circuit rejected the Teachers’ Unions’ challenges to the Commonwealth Plan and affirmed the confirmation order; on May 10, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions petitioned for rehearing en banc. All other appeals remain pending. On May 9, 2022, the Court dismissed this adversary proceeding, subject to a request for reinstatement if and when the First Circuit’s dispositions of the appeals concerning the confirmation order are final. 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 August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed on the joint motion of the parties as a result of an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the treatment of PRIFA bonds (the “PRIFA Settlement”), an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the treatment of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“PRHTA”) and the Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority (“PRCCDA”) (the “PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement”), and the settlement related to general obligation and PBA bonds (“GO/PBA Settlement”). On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan. The Commonwealth Plan resolves the issues raised in this adversary proceeding. Several parties appealed the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit, including the Teachers’ Unions, the Credit Unions, Suiza, the Oversight Board, and certain individual creditors. On April 26, 2022, the First Circuit rejected the Teachers’ Unions’ challenges to the Commonwealth Plan and affirmed the confirmation order; on May 10, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions petitioned for rehearing en banc. All other appeals remain pending. 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 August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed on the joint motion of the parties as a result of the PRIFA Settlement, the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement, and the GO/PBA Settlement. On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan. The Commonwealth Plan resolves the issues raised in this adversary proceeding. Several parties appealed the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit, including the Teachers’ Unions, the Credit Unions, Suiza, the Oversight Board, and certain individual creditors. On April 26, 2022, the First Circuit rejected the Teachers’ Unions’ challenges to the Commonwealth Plan and affirmed the confirmation order; on May 10, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions petitioned for rehearing en banc. All other appeals remain pending. 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 August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed on the joint motion of the parties as a result of the PRIFA Settlement, the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement, and the GO/PBA Settlement. On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan. The Commonwealth Plan resolves the issues raised in this adversary proceeding. Several parties appealed the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit, including the Teachers’ Unions, the Credit Unions, Suiza, the Oversight Board, and certain individual creditors. On April 26, 2022, the First Circuit rejected the Teachers’ Unions’ challenges to the Commonwealth Plan and affirmed the confirmation order; on May 10, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions petitioned for rehearing en banc. All other appeals remain pending. 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 August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed on the joint motion of the parties as a result of the PRIFA Settlement, the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement, and the GO/PBA Settlement. On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan. On April 14, 2022, the Oversight Board filed a notice that this case has not been resolved by the Commonwealth Plan and should remain pending. On May 2, 2022, the Oversight Board filed a disclosure statement (the “PRHTA DS”) and plan of adjustment (the “PRHTA POA”) for PRHTA; if confirmed, the PRHTA POA would resolve this litigation. A hearing on approval of the PRHTA DS is scheduled for June 17, 2022. 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 April 1, 2022, the Vice Chancellor entered another 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. Puerto Rico 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 July 24, 2019, the District Court stayed the case; on March 10, 2020, the District Court again ordered that this case be stayed while the Oversight Board attempted to confirm the Commonwealth Plan. On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan. The Commonwealth Plan resolves this litigation. Several parties appealed the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit, including the Teachers’ Unions, the Credit Unions, Suiza, the Oversight Board, and certain individual creditors. On April 26, 2022, the First Circuit rejected the Teachers’ Unions’ challenges to the Commonwealth Plan and affirmed the confirmation order; on May 10, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions petitioned for rehearing en banc. All other appeals remain pending. 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. 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 July 24, 2019, the District Court stayed the case; the case remained stayed until early 2020. On March 10, 2020, the District Court again ordered that this matter remain stayed while the Oversight Board attempted to confirm the Commonwealth Plan. On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan. The Commonwealth Plan resolves the GO Bond Claim Objection. Several parties appealed the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit, including the Teachers’ Unions, the Credit Unions, Suiza, the Oversight Board, and certain individual creditors. On April 26, 2022, the First Circuit rejected the Teachers’ Unions’ challenges to the Commonwealth Plan and affirmed the confirmation order; on May 10, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions petitioned for rehearing en banc. All other appeals remain pending. 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 and September 9, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay. On March 3, 2021, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s opinions denying the motion to lift the stay. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this matter be stayed on the joint motion of the parties as a result of the PRIFA Settlement, the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement, and the GO/PBA Settlement. On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan; on January 20, 2022, the Court entered an order approving the Title VI Qualifying Modification for PRIFA (the “PRIFA QM”). The Commonwealth Plan and the PRIFA QM resolve the PRIFA Stay Motion. Several parties appealed the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit, including the Teachers’ Unions, the Credit Unions, Suiza, the Oversight Board, and certain individual creditors. On April 26, 2022, the First Circuit rejected the Teachers’ Unions’ challenges to the Commonwealth Plan and affirmed the confirmation order; on May 10, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions petitioned for rehearing en banc. All other appeals remain pending. 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 and September 9, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay. On March 3, 2021, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s opinions denying the motion to lift the stay. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this matter be stayed on the joint motion of the parties as a result of the PRIFA Settlement, the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement, and the GO/PBA Settlement. On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan. The Commonwealth Plan resolves the PRHTA Stay Motion. Several parties appealed the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit, including the Teachers’ Unions, the Credit Unions, Suiza, the Oversight Board, and certain individual creditors. On April 26, 2022, the First Circuit rejected the Teachers’ Unions’ challenges to the Commonwealth Plan and affirmed the confirmation order; on May 10, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions petitioned for rehearing en banc. All other appeals remain pending. 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. 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 August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this matter be stayed on the joint motion of the parties as a result of the PRIFA Settlement, the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement, and the GO/PBA Settlement. On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan; on January 20, 2022, the Court entered an order approving the Title VI Qualifying Modification for PRCCDA (the “PRCCDA QM”). The Commonwealth Plan and the PRCCDA QM resolve the PRCCDA Stay Motion. Several parties appealed the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit, including the Teachers’ Unions, the Credit Unions, Suiza, the Oversight Board, and certain individual creditors. On April 26, 2022, the First Circuit rejected the Teachers’ Unions’ challenges to the Commonwealth Plan and affirmed the confirmation order; on May 10, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions petitioned for rehearing en banc. All other appeals remain pending. 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 April 27, 2022, the Commonwealth Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal by the Commonwealth court of AAC’s Amended Complaint. 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 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed on the joint motion of the parties as a result of the PRIFA Settlement, the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement, and the GO/PBA Settlement. On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan. The Commonwealth Plan resolves this litigation. Several parties appealed the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit, including the Teachers’ Unions, the Credit Unions, Suiza, the Oversight Board, and certain individual creditors. On April 26, 2022, the First Circuit rejected the Teachers’ Unions’ challenges to the Commonwealth Plan and affirmed the confirmation order; on May 10, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions petitioned for rehearing en banc. All other appeals remain pending. 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 August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed on the joint motion of the parties as a result of the PRIFA Settlement, the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement, and the GO/PBA Settlement. On January 18, 2022, the Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan. The Commonwealth Plan resolves this matter. Several parties appealed the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit, including the Teachers’ Unions, the Credit Unions, Suiza, the Oversight Board, and certain individual creditors. On April 26, 2022, the First Circuit rejected the Teachers’ Unions’ challenges to the Commonwealth Plan and affirmed the confirmation order; on May 10, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions petitioned for rehearing en banc. All other appeals remain pending. 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. On May 2, 2022, the Oversight Board filed the PRHTA DS and PRHTA POA. A hearing on approval of the PRHTA DS is scheduled for June 17, 2022. 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). On March 3, 2022, the CFPB filed its opposition to the petition filed on February 21, 2022 by the Trusts and several intervenors, including AAC, for permission to appeal to the Third Circuit the District Court’s order denying their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 29, 2022, the Third Circuit granted the Trusts' and intervenors' petition. 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). On March 17, 2022, the New York Court of Appeals decided an appeal in an unrelated RMBS case involving the issue of whether an RMBS sponsor can be held liable for damages for breaching loans that a trustee does not provide specific notice of pre-suit. The decision may affect one of the bases upon which AAC seeks recovery with respect to a significant portion of breaching loans. On April 27, 2022, the parties jointly requested an extension of the deadline for AAC to file a note of issue to June 23, 2022 (from April 28, 2022) and the deadline for summary judgment motions to August 22, 2022 (from 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). On March 17, 2022, the New York Court of Appeals decided an appeal in an unrelated RMBS case involving the issue of whether an RMBS sponsor can be held liable for damages for breaching loans that a trustee does not provide specific notice of pre-suit. The decision is relevant to this action and may affect one of the bases upon which AAC seeks recovery with respect to a significant portion of breaching loans. • 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). On March 21, 2022, each party filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed by the other on December 21, 2021. • 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 March 11, 2022, AAC filed a motion for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, to which Countrywide filed a response on March 28, 2022. • 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). On April 4, 2022, AAC filed its opposition to the motion for summary judgment that Countrywide filed on February 18, 2022, which was fully submitted as of May 4, 2022. • In the matter of HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-10 (Minnesota state court, Docket No. 27-TR-CV-17-32 (the “Minnesota Action”)). Trial was completed on May 6, 2022. Proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law and post-trial briefs are due on June 30, 2022, and the court will hear oral arguments on July 14, 2022. • 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). On March 7, 2022, the court entered a revised stipulated scheduling order whereby, following decision about summary judgment motions in Phase 1 and to the extent necessary, the parties will brief AAC’s proposed use of statistical sampling before proceeding with Phase 2 discovery.

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