XML 47 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended | 12 Months Ended
--- | --- | ---
Jun. 30, 2022 | Dec. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |  |
Commitments and Contingencies | 19. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 19. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation Against Ambac - Pending Cases 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. 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. On January 26, 2024, the Court granted the parties leave to file motions for summary judgment, with opening briefs due March 8, 2024, oppositions due April 19, 2024, and replies due May 10, 2024. In re National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts Litigation (Delaware Court of Chancery, Consolidated C.A. No. 12111, filed November 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. The Vice Chancellor entered a series of stays to facilitate good-faith settlement discussions, the most recent of which was entered on May 2, 2023, and stayed the matter through May 5, 2023. On February 23, 2024, the parties filed a status report stating that they continue to negotiate a resolution to the various pending claims. 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. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan (described below) resolved this litigation. On May 9, 2022, the District Court dismissed this case. 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 PRHTA (as defined below), 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; 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). The October 12, 2022 confirmation of the PRHTA POA (as defined and described below) resolved this litigation. AAC expects this case will be dismissed pursuant to PRHTA POA. 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 PRIFA (as defined below) bonds 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, Assured Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. (“Assured”) and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (“National”) announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement (as defined below). On July 14, 2021, AAC and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (“FGIC”) reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement (as defined below). 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 GO/PBA Settlement (as defined below). On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan (described below) resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the District Court entered an order closing this adversary proceeding. 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 PRCCDA (as defined below) bonds 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. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan (described below) resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the Court entered an order closing this adversary proceeding. 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 PRHTA bonds, 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. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan (described below) resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the District Court entered an order closing this adversary proceeding. 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 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 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. 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. The October 12, 2022 confirmation of the PRHTA POA (described below) resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the Court entered an order closing this adversary proceeding. Litigation Against Ambac - General 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. The Company periodically receives various regulatory inquiries and requests for information with respect to investigations and inquiries that such regulators are conducting. The Company 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 such litigation routine and incidental to the conduct of its business, such litigation can potentially result in large monetary awards when a civil jury is allowed to determine compensatory and/or punitive damages. Everspan may be subject to disputes with policyholders regarding the scope and extent of coverage offered under Everspan's policies; be required to defend claimants in suits against its policyholders for covered liability claims; or enter into commercial disputes with its reinsurers, MGA/Us or third party claims administrators regarding their respective contractual obligations and rights. Under some circumstances, the results of such disputes or suits may lead to liabilities beyond those which are anticipated or reserved. 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 with losses that are probable and reasonably estimable 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 On January 18, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (the “District Court”) entered an order confirming a plan of adjustment for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “Commonwealth Plan”). On January 20, 2022, the District Court entered orders approving a Qualifying Modification (the “PRIFA QM”) for the Puerto Rico Infrastructure Finance Authority (“PRIFA”) and a Qualifying Modification (the “PRCCDA QM”) for the Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority (“PRCCDA”). On October 12, 2022, the District Court entered an order confirming a plan of adjustment (the “PRHTA POA”) for the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (the “PRHTA”). These two plans of adjustment and two qualifying modifications incorporated settlements reached between AAC, the Oversight Board, and certain other parties related to each of AAC’s Puerto Rico-related exposures, which included agreements with respect to the treatment of general obligation and Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority (“PBA”) bonds (the “GO/PBA Settlement”), PRHTA and PRCCDA bonds (the “PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement”), and PRIFA bonds (the “PRIFA Settlement”). By incorporating these settlements, the Commonwealth Plan, PRIFA QM, PRCCDA QM, and PRHTA POA resolved the majority of AAC’s outstanding Puerto Rico-related litigation. Certain parties appealed the confirmation orders for both the Commonwealth Plan and the PRHTA POA; all of these appeals have been resolved and the orders confirming both plans were affirmed. Those appeals are discussed immediately below, followed by a discussion of AAC’s additional remaining outstanding Puerto Rico-related litigation. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17- bk-03283) (appeals of the Commonwealth Plan). On January 18, 2022, the District Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan and entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law related thereto. Several parties appealed the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, but the First Circuit affirmed the District Court in all appeals and all appeals have been dismissed. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17- bk-03567) (appeal of the PRHTA POA). On October 12, 2022, the District Court entered an order confirming the PRHTA POA and entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law related thereto. On October 24, 2022, a group of present and former employees of PRHTA (“the Vazquez-Velazquez Group”) filed a notice of appeal with respect to, and a motion to stay, the PRHTA POA confirmation order. One party appealed the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, but the First Circuit affirmed the District Court and the appeal has been dismissed. 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). On January 7, 2016, AAC, along with co-plaintiffs Assured, 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 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. AAC expects this case will be dismissed given the settlements reached between AAC and the Oversight Board. 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 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. The settlements reached between AAC and the Oversight Board resolved this litigation, and the January 20, 2022 PRIFA QM provided for dismissal of this case. AAC expects this case will be dismissed pursuant to the PRIFA QM. 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. 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. On July 6, 2022, the District Court granted AAC’s motion to lift the stay and for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). AAC filed its SAC on July 10, 2022, and on July 25, 2022, BNY moved to dismiss the SAC. On September 23, 2022, Ambac filed its opposition to BNY’s motion to dismiss, and on October 24, 2022, BNY filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss. Oral argument has been requested but not yet scheduled. 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 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 March 10, 2020, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed while the Oversight Board attempted to confirm the Commonwealth Plan. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan resolved this litigation. 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 February 5 and 19, 2020, certain parties filed motions to dismiss the claim objection. 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 changes to the Commonwealth’s 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. On October 1, 2020, the Committee moved the District Court to reconsider its denial of the Committee’s motion to lift the stay; 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. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the Court entered an order terminating this matter. 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 and FGIC 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 January 31, 2020, AAC, FGIC, Assured, and the PRIFA bond trustee filed an amended motion seeking substantially similar relief. 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, 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 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 January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan resolved this litigation. 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”). On January 16, 2020, AAC, Assured, National, and FGIC 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 January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan resolved this litigation. 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”). On January 16, 2020, AAC, FGIC, Assured, 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 January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the Court entered an order terminating the PRCCDA Stay Motion. 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 January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan resolved this litigation. On March 23, 2022, the District Court dismissed this case. 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, Assured, FGIC, and National 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. On July 29, 2021, AAC, Assured, FGIC, 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. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan resolved this litigation. 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. 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 January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, resolved this litigation. 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 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 an objection to proposed Commonwealth Plan and a related proposed confirmation order. On October 27, 2021, AAC and FGIC filed a reply in response to the Underwriter Defendants’ objection. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan overruled this objection and resolved this litigation. 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. On February 21, 2022, the Trusts and several intervenors, including AAC, filed a petition with the Third Circuit for permission to appeal the District Court’s order denying their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 3, 2022, the CFPB filed its opposition to the petition for permission to appeal. On April 29, 2022, the Third Circuit granted the Trusts' and intervenors' petition. On September 23, 2022, the Trusts and other intervenors, including AAC, filed their opening brief to the Third Circuit, seeking reversal of the District Court’s order denying their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The CFPB filed its responsive brief on November 7, 2022. The Trusts and other intervenors, including AAC, filed their reply brief on December 28, 2022. The Third Circuit heard oral argument in the matter on May 17, 2023.

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://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration