XML 46 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.25.0.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | 19. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 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 is 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 or other parties 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. 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. From time to time, Ambac is subject to allegations concerning its corporate governance, including the manner in which it exercises control and oversight of its subsidiaries, that may lead to litigation, including derivative litigation. While the monetary impacts of addressing such allegations outside of litigation may not be material, these charges 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 suits in addition to those described below 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 below, 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 described below 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 against Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Dwight Jereczek and Stanley Elliott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MBIA Inc., Ambac Financial Group, Inc., Ambac Assurance Corporation, MBIA Insurance Corporation, and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, filed on February 12, 2025) (the "COFINA Case"). This putative class action complaint is brought by alleged former holders of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) allegedly insured by defendants under financial guaranty insurance policies. On behalf of themselves and all persons and entities that owned such bonds between October 19, 2018, and February 12, 2019, plaintiffs allege that, in connection with the restructuring of COFINA under Title III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act, defendants orchestrated a scheme to improperly use their role in the Title III process to alter contracts with insured COFINA bondholders, resulting in such bondholders receiving less than what they contracted for under the financial guaranty insurance policies. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and bad faith refusal to pay first-party benefits under an insurance contract. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages with interest thereon, disgorgement of profits, a declaratory judgment of plaintiffs’ rights and defendants’ responsibilities, and a permanent injunction against violations of law. As of the date of this report, no summons has been issued or served on Ambac. Litigation in Legacy Financial Guarantee Business AAC is involved in litigation as described below as well as the COFINA Case described above. These actual and potential cases may continue after the AAC Sale is completed. Following completion of the AAC Sale, the Company will no longer have any exposure to the following matters, except with respect to the COFINA Case described above for so long as AFG remains a defendant in the case. Current Litigation 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; opening briefs were due March 22, 2024, while oppositions are due May 31, 2024 and replies on July 12, 2024. On February 29, 2024, the court denied co-defendants’ motion to sever plaintiffs’ claims. On March 22, 2024, defendants served opening motions for summary judgment against plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety on multiple grounds, and plaintiffs served cross-motions for summary judgment on defendants’ unclean hands defenses. The parties’ summary judgment motions were fully briefed as of July 12, 2024 and are currently awaiting a decision from the Court. On December 11, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for oral argument on Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, stating that it would “notify the parties if it concludes that oral argument concerning the motions for summary judgment would be productive.” 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 21, 2025, the Administrator filed a status report stating that certain parties continue to negotiate a resolution to some of the pending claims. 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. On September 12, 2024, the District Court entered an Order to Show Cause concerning the proper venue for the case, stating that it planned to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. After AAC and BNY filed a Joint Response to the Order to Show Cause on September 19, 2024, stating that they did not object to the transfer, the case was transferred to the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on September 20, 2024. On September 24, 2024, the District Court granted BNY’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. On October 23, 2024, AAC filed a Notice of Appeal appealing the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On December 9, 2024, AAC and BNY filed a joint stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the appeal with prejudice and, following such filing, the District Court entered its judgment ordering such dismissal. Potential Litigation 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. From time to time AAC is also subject to allegations that it has failed to fulfill a contractual obligation or duty in respect of securities that it has issued. 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 these 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. In the ordinary course of its businesses, AAC asserts 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.

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/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 405 -SubTopic 30 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/405-30/tableOfContent Reference 2: 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 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org/450/tableOfContent Reference 4: 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/1943274/2147478522/954-440-50-1 Reference 5: 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 6: 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