XML 72 R31.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

Commitments And Contingencies | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2011
Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract] |
Commitments And Contingencies | Note 23: Commitments and Contingencies MBIA has received subpoenas or informal inquiries from a variety of regulators, regarding a variety of subjects. MBIA has cooperated fully with each of these regulators and has or is in the process of satisfying all such requests. MBIA may receive additional inquiries from these or other regulators and expects to provide additional information to such regulators regarding their inquiries in the future. Corporate Litigation The Company was named as a defendant, along with certain of its current and former officers, in private securities actions that were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation; (Case No. 05 CV 03514(LLS); S.D.N.Y.) (filed October 3, 2005). The plaintiffs asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lead plaintiffs purport to be acting as representatives for a class consisting of purchasers of the Company's stock during the period from August 5, 2003 to March 30, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit asserts, among other things, violations of the federal securities laws arising out of the Company's allegedly false and misleading statements about its financial condition and the nature of the arrangements entered into by MBIA Corp. in connection with a health care transaction loss. The plaintiffs allege that, as a result of these misleading statements or omissions, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. The defendants, including the Company, filed motions to dismiss this lawsuit on various grounds. On February 13, 2007, the Court granted those motions, and dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety, on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Court did not reach the other grounds for dismissal argued by the Company and the other defendants. On November 12, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal on statute of limitations grounds, but remanded the case to allow the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on February 18, 2009. On September 24, 2009, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. On November 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 22 and 24, 2010, individual defendants Juliette Tehrani and David Elliot, respectively, were voluntarily dismissed from the litigation. On February 28, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's grant of the Company's motion to dismiss and remanded the case back to the district court for reconsideration of the statute of limitations analysis in light of the intervening U.S. Supreme Court decision in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds as well as to consider additional arguments in favor of dismissal propounded by the Company. On June 10, 2011, defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 17, 2008, a consolidated amended class action complaint in a separate shareholder class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers, In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 08-CV-264, (KMK) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The amended complaint alleged that defendants MBIA Inc., Gary C. Dunton and C. Edward Chaplin violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, issuing false and misleading statements with respect to the Company's exposure to CDOs containing RMBS, specifically its exposure to so-called "CDO-squared" securities, which allegedly caused the Company's stock to trade at inflated prices. On March 31, 2010, the claims against Dunton and Chaplin were dismissed without prejudice. On April 30, 2010, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. On September 6, 2011, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement of the lawsuit. On September 30, 2011, the re-alleged claims against Dunton and Chaplin were withdrawn and dismissed with prejudice, and on December 19, 2011, the Court approved the Settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice. On February 13, 2008, a shareholder derivative lawsuit against certain of the Company's present and former officers and directors, and against the Company, as nominal defendant, entitled Trustees of the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Clapp et al., No. 08-CV-1515, (the "Detroit Complaint"), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The gravamen of the Detroit Complaint is similar to the aforementioned Consolidated Class Action, except that the legal claims are against the directors for breach of fiduciary duty and related claims. The Detroit Complaint purports to relate to a so-called "Relevant Time Period" from February 9, 2006, through the time of filing of the complaint. On December 14, 2010, Judge Karas dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On December 23, 2010, a new demand making similar claims was made on the Company's Board of Directors. On August 11, 2008, a shareholder derivative lawsuit entitled Crescente v. Brown et al., No. 08-17595 was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Westchester against certain of the Company's present and former officers and directors, and against the Company, as nominal defendant. The gravamen of this complaint is similar to the Detroit Complaint except that the time period assertedly covered is from January 2007, through the time of filing of this complaint. The derivative plaintiff has agreed to stay the action pending further developments in the federal derivative litigation. On July 23, 2008, the City of Los Angeles filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against a number of financial guarantee insurers, including MBIA. At the same time and subsequently, additional complaints against MBIA and nearly all of the same co-defendants were filed by the City of Stockton, the Public Financing Authority of the City of Stockton, the City of Oakland, the City and County of San Francisco, the County of San Mateo, the County of Alameda, the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the City of Sacramento, the City of Riverside, the Los Angeles World Airports, the City of Richmond, Redwood City, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, the Sacramento Suburban Water District, the City of San Jose, the County of Tulare, the Regents of the University of California, Contra Costa County, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Riverside, and the Public Financing Authority of the City of Riverside, The Olympic Club, the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco and the Redevelopment Agency of San Jose. These cases are part of a coordination proceeding in Superior Court, San Francisco County, before Judge Richard A. Kramer, referred to as the Ambac Bond Insurance Cases, which name as defendants MBIA, Ambac Assurance Corp., Syncora Guarantee, Inc. f/k/a XL Capital Assurance Inc., Financial Security Assurance, Inc., Assured Guaranty Corp., Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, and CIFG Assurance North America, Inc., Fitch Inc., Fitch Ratings, Ltd., Fitch Group, Inc., Moody's Corporation, Moody's Investors Service, Inc., The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., and Standard & Poor's Corporation. In August 2011, plaintiffs filed amended versions of their respective complaints. The claims allege participation by all defendants in a conspiracy in violation of California's antitrust laws to maintain a dual credit rating scale that misstated the credit default risk of municipal bond issuers and not-for-profit issuers and thus created market demand for bond insurance. Plaintiffs also allege that the individual bond insurers participated in risky financial transactions in other lines of business that damaged each bond insurer's financial condition (thereby undermining the value of each of their guaranties), and each failed adequately to disclose the impact of those transactions on their financial condition. In addition to the statutory antitrust claim, plaintiffs assert common law claims of breach of contract and fraud against MBIA and the other monoline defendants. The non-municipal plaintiffs also allege a California unfair competition cause of action. On October 20, 2011, the court overruled MBIA's demurrers to plaintiffs' amended complaints. On December 2, 2011, MBIA and the other monoline defendants filed a special motion to strike pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute. On July 23, 2008, the City of Los Angeles filed a separate complaint in the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, naming as defendants MBIA and other financial institutions, and alleging fraud and violations of California's antitrust laws through bid-rigging in the sale of guaranteed investment contracts and what plaintiffs call "municipal derivatives" to municipal bond issuers. The case was removed to federal court and transferred by order dated November 26, 2008, to the Southern District of New York for inclusion in the multidistrict litigation In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. No. 1950. Complaints making the same allegations against MBIA and nearly all of the same co-defendants were then, or subsequently, filed by the County of San Diego, the City of Stockton, the County of San Mateo, the County of Contra Costa, Los Angeles World Airports, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton, the Public Financing Authority of the City of Stockton, the County of Tulare, the Sacramento Suburban Water District, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the City of Riverside, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Riverside, the Public Financing Authority of the City of Riverside, Redwood City, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco, the City of Richmond, the City of San Jose, the San Jose Redevelopment Agency, the State of West Virginia, Los Angeles Unified School District and three not-for-profit retirement community operators, Active Retirement Community, Inc. d/b/a Jefferson's Ferry, Kendal on Hudson, Inc. and Paconic Landing at Southhold Inc. These cases have all been added to the multidistrict litigation. Plaintiffs in all of the cases assert federal and either California or New York state antitrust claims. As of May 31, 2011, MBIA has answered all of the existing complaints. On March 12, 2010, the City of Phoenix, Arizona filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against MBIA Corp., Ambac Assurance Corp. and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company relating to insurance premiums charged on municipal bonds issued by the City of Phoenix between 2004 and 2007. Plaintiff's complaint alleges pricing discrimination under Arizona insurance law and unjust enrichment. MBIA Corp. filed its answer on May 28, 2010. On April 5, 2010, Tri-City Healthcare District, a California public healthcare legislative district, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, against MBIA, MBIA Corp., National, certain MBIA employees (collectively for this paragraph, "MBIA") and various financial institutions and law firms. Tri-City subsequently filed three amended complaints. The Third Amended Complaint, filed on January 26, 2011, purports to state 10 causes of action against MBIA for, among other things, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of the California False Claims Act arising from Tri-City Healthcare District's investment in auction rate securities. On June 13, 2011, Tri-City Healthcare District filed its Fourth Amended Complaint against MBIA Inc., MBIA Corp. and National, which purports to state seven causes of action against MBIA for fraud in the inducement, concealment, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of contract, duress, and breach of the covenant of good faith arising from Tri-City Healthcare District's investment in auction rate securities. On September 8, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part MBIA's demurrer to Tri-City's Fourth Amended Complaint. On October 4, 2011, MBIA filed its answer to the remaining causes of action. The Company cannot predict the impact, if any, that any of the matters concerning Corporate Litigation, described above, may have a material adverse effect on the Company's ability to implement its strategy and on its business, results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition. At this stage of the litigation, there has not been a determination as to the amount, if any, of damages. Accordingly, the Company is not able to estimate any amount of loss or range of loss. Recovery Litigation On September 30, 2008, MBIA Corp. commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Securities Corp. and Countrywide Financial Corp. (collectively, "Countrywide"). An amended complaint, adding Bank of America as successor to Countrywide's liabilities, and Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP as defendants was filed on August 24, 2009. The amended complaint alleges that Countrywide fraudulently induced MBIA to provide financial guarantee insurance on securitizations of HELOCs and closed-end second-liens by misrepresenting the true risk profile of the underlying collateral and Countrywide's adherence to its strict underwriting standards and guidelines. The complaint also alleges that Countrywide breached its representations and warranties and its contractual obligations, including its obligation to cure or repurchase ineligible loans as well as its obligation to service the loans in accordance with industry standards. On April 29, 2010, the court denied Bank of America's motion to dismiss and allowed MBIA Corp.'s claims for successor and vicarious liability to proceed. On December 22, 2010, the court granted MBIA Corp.'s motion in limine allowing it to offer evidence relating to statistically valid random samples of loans from each of the Countrywide securitizations in support of its contract and fraud cases of action for purposes of determining liability and damages. On June 30, 2011, the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the lower court's denial of Countrywide's motion to dismiss MBIA Corp.'s fraud claim. On October 31, 2011, the court denied Bank of America's motion to consolidate and/or sever the successor liability claims (allowing deposition and expert discovery on the successor liability claim to proceed but reserving decision on whether to sever and consolidate the successor liability claim). Bank of America has appealed this ruling. On January 3, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part MBIA Corp.'s motion for partial summary judgment regarding proof of causation, holding that MBIA is not required to establish a direct causal link between Countrywide's misrepresentations and MBIA's claims payments made pursuant to the insurance policies at issue, but reserving judgment on the causation burden for the contractual repurchase claims. On January 25, 2012, Bank of America filed a Notice of Appeal against the January 3 order, and MBIA filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal on February 6, 2012. On July 10, 2009, MBIA Corp. commenced an action in Los Angeles Superior Court against Bank of America Corporation, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Securities Corporation, Angelo Mozilo, David Sambol, Eric Sieracki, Ranjit Kripalani, Jennifer Sandefur, Stanford Kurland, Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., UBS Securities, LLC, and various Countrywide-affiliated Trusts. The complaint alleges that Countrywide made numerous misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in connection with its sale of certain RMBS, including that the underlying collateral consisting of mortgage loans had been originated in strict compliance with its underwriting standards and guidelines. MBIA commenced this action as subrogee of the purchasers of the RMBS, who incurred severe losses that have been passed on to MBIA as the insurer of the income streams on these securities. On June 21, 2010, MBIA Corp. filed its second amended complaint. The court has allowed limited discovery to proceed while otherwise staying the case pending further developments in the New York Countrywide action described in the prior paragraph. On October 15, 2008, MBIA Corp. commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Residential Funding Company, LLC ("RFC"). On December 5, 2008, a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice was filed in the Southern District of New York and the complaint was re-filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The complaint alleges that RFC fraudulently induced MBIA Corp. to provide financial guarantee policies with respect to five RFC closed-end home equity second-lien and HELOC securitizations, and that RFC breached its contractual representations and warranties, as well as its obligation to repurchase ineligible loans, among other claims. On December 23, 2009, the court denied in part RFC's motion to dismiss MBIA's complaint with respect to MBIA's fraud claims. On March 19, 2010, MBIA Corp. filed its amended complaint. On May 14, 2010, RFC filed a motion to dismiss only the renewed negligent misrepresentation claim, which was granted on November 8, 2010. On December 7, 2010, RFC filed its answer to the remaining claims in MBIA Corp.'s amended complaint. On April 1, 2010, MBIA Corp. commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against GMAC Mortgage, LLC ("GMAC"). The complaint alleges fraud and negligent misrepresentation on the part of GMAC in connection with the procurement of financial guarantee insurance on three RMBS transactions, breach of GMAC's representations and warranties and its contractual obligation to cure or repurchase ineligible loans and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. On December 7, 2010, the court denied in part GMAC's motion to dismiss allowing MBIA Corp. to proceed on its fraud and breach of contract claims. On January 5, 2011, GMAC filed its answer to the remaining causes of action in the complaint. On December 14, 2009, MBIA Corp. commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc., and Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. ("Credit Suisse"). The complaint seeks damages for fraud and breach of contractual obligations in connection with the procurement of financial guarantee insurance on the Home Equity Mortgage Trust Series 2007-2 securitization. The complaint alleges, among other claims, that Credit Suisse falsely represented (i) the attributes of the securitized loans; (ii) that the loans complied with the governing underwriting guidelines; and (iii) that Credit Suisse had conducted extensive due diligence on and quality control reviews of the securitized loans to ensure compliance with the underwriting guidelines. The complaint further alleges that the defendants breached their contractual obligations to cure or repurchase loans found to be in breach of the representations and warranties applicable thereto and denied MBIA the requisite access to all records and documents regarding the securitized loans. On October 13, 2011, the court granted MBIA Corp.'s motion to renew consideration of the court's June 1 revised opinion and reinstated MBIA Corp.'s claim for fraudulent inducement but struck the demand for a jury trial. On November 4, 2011, Credit Suisse filed a Notice of Appeal of the court's ruling granting MBIA Corp.'s motion to renew. On November 7, 2011, MBIA Corp. filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal of the portion of the decision striking its jury trial demand. On October 14, 2008, June 17, 2009 and August 25, 2009, MBIA Corp. submitted proofs of claim to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") with respect to the resolution of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. for both pre- and post-receivership amounts owed to MBIA Corp. as a result of IndyMac's contractual breaches and fraud in connection with financial guarantee insurance issued by MBIA Corp. on securitizations of home equity lines of credit. The proofs of claim were subsequently denied by the FDIC. MBIA Corp. has appealed the FDIC's denial of its proofs of claim via a complaint, filed on May 29, 2009, against IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. and the FDIC, as receiver, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and alleges that IndyMac fraudulently induced MBIA Corp. to provide financial guarantee insurance on securitizations of home equity lines of credit by breaching contractual representations and warranties as well as negligently and fraudulently misrepresenting the nature of the loans in the securitization pools and IndyMac's adherence to its strict underwriting standards and guidelines. On February 8, 2010, MBIA Corp. filed its amended complaint against the FDIC both in its corporate capacity and as conservator/receiver of IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. for breach of its contractual obligations as servicer and seller for the IndyMac transactions at issue and for unlawful disposition of IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B.'s assets in connection with the FDIC's resolution of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. On October 6, 2011, the court issued a ruling granting the FDIC's motion to dismiss. On November 4, 2011, MBIA Corp. filed a Notice of Appeal. On September 22, 2009, MBIA Corp. commenced an action in Los Angeles Superior Court against IndyMac ABS, Inc., Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust, Series 2006-H4, Home Equity Mortgage Loans Asset-Backed Trust, Series INDS 2007-I, Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust, Series INDS 2007-2, Credit Suisse Securities (USA), L.L.C., UBS Securities, LLC, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Michael Perry, Scott Keys, Jill Jacobson, and Kevin Callan. The Complaint alleges that IndyMac Bank made numerous misrepresentations and omissions of material fact in connection with its sale of certain RMBS, including that the underlying collateral consisting of mortgage loans had been originated in strict compliance with its underwriting standards and guidelines. MBIA Corp. commenced this action as subrogee of the purchasers of the RMBS, who incurred severe losses that have been passed on to MBIA Corp. as the insurer of the income streams on these securities. On October 19, 2009, MBIA Corp. dismissed IndyMac ABS, Inc. from the action without prejudice. On October 23, 2009, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 30, 2009, the IndyMac trusts were consensually dismissed from the litigation. On August 3, 2010, the court denied defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in its entirety. Effective January 30, 2012, the case has been reassigned to Judge Kenneth Freeman. Transformation Litigation On March 11, 2009, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York against MBIA, MBIA Corp. and National, entitled Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. et al. v. MBIA Inc. et al., 09-cv-2242 (S.D.N.Y.). The lead plaintiffs, Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd., Aurelius Capital Partners, LP, Fir Tree Value Master Fund, L.P., Fir Tree Capital Opportunity Master Fund, L.P., and Fir Tree Mortgage Opportunity Master Fund, L.P. (the "Aurelius Plaintiffs"), purport to be acting as representatives for a class consisting of all holders of securities, instruments, or other obligations for which MBIA Corp., before February 18, 2009, issued financial guarantee insurance other than United States municipal/governmental bond securities. The complaint alleges that certain of the terms of the transactions entered into by MBIA Corp., which were approved by the New York State Department of Insurance, constituted fraudulent conveyances under §§ 273, 274 and 276 of New York Debtor and Creditor Law and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under New York common law. The Complaint seeks, inter alia, (a) a declaration that the alleged fraudulent conveyances are null and void and set aside, (b) a declaration that National is responsible for the insurance policies issued by MBIA Corp. up to February 17, 2009, and (c) an award of damages in an unspecified amount together with costs, expenses and attorneys' fees in connection with the action. In light of the June 28, 2011 Court of Appeals decision referenced below, on July 27, 2011, the court entered an amended case management plan and scheduling order setting a discovery cut-off of November 9, 2012. On August 8, 2011, Fir Tree Value Master Fund, L.P., Fir Tree Capital Opportunity Master Fund, L.P., and Fir Tree Mortgage Opportunity Master Fund, L.P. voluntarily dismissed all claims against defendants without prejudice. On May 13, 2009, a complaint was filed in the New York State Supreme Court against MBIA, MBIA Corp. and National, entitled ABN AMRO Bank N.V. et al. v. MBIA Inc. et al. The plaintiffs, a group of domestic and international financial institutions, purport to be acting as holders of insurance policies issued by MBIA Corp. directly or indirectly guaranteeing the repayment of structured finance products. The complaint alleges that certain of the terms of the transactions entered into by MBIA, which were approved by the New York State Department of Insurance, constituted fraudulent conveyances and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under New York law. The complaint seeks a judgment (a) ordering the defendants to unwind the Transactions, (b) declaring that the Transactions constituted a fraudulent conveyance, (c) declaring that MBIA and National are jointly and severally liable for the insurance policies issued by MBIA Corp., and (d) ordering damages in an unspecified amount. On February 17, 2010, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 28, 2011, the New York State Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's decision and allowed all of the plaintiffs' claims to proceed, with the exception of plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment. On August 15, 2011, the court entered a scheduling order coordinating discovery in the plenary action with the Aurelius case in federal court and setting a discovery cut-off of November 9, 2012. Fourteen of the original eighteen plaintiffs have dismissed their claims, several of which dismissals were related to the commutation of certain of their MBIA-insured exposures. On June 15, 2009, the same group of eighteen domestic and international financial institutions who filed the above described plenary action in New York State Supreme Court filed a proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of New York's Civil Practice Law & Rules in New York State Supreme Court, entitled ABN AMRO Bank N.V. et al. v. Eric Dinallo, in his capacity as Superintendent of the New York State Insurance Department, the New York State Insurance Department, MBIA Inc. et al. In its motions to dismiss the three above-referenced plenary actions, MBIA argued that an Article 78 proceeding is the exclusive forum in which a plaintiff may raise any challenge to the Transformation approved by the Superintendent of the Department of Insurance. The petition seeks a judgment (a) declaring void and to annul the approval letter of the Superintendent of the Department of Insurance, (b) to recover dividends paid in connection with the Transactions, (c) declaring that the approval letter does not extinguish plaintiffs' direct claims against MBIA in the plenary action described above. MBIA and the New York State Insurance Department filed their answering papers to the Article 78 Petition on November 24, 2009 and argued that based on the record and facts, approval of Transformation and its constituent transactions was neither arbitrary nor capricious nor in violation of New York Insurance Law. On November 16, 2011, MBIA submitted its sur-reply papers. The NYSDFS filed its sur-reply papers on December 30, 2011. A trial is expected to commence in the second quarter of 2012. As described above, fourteen of the original eighteen plaintiffs have dismissed their claims. On October 22, 2010, a similar group of domestic and international financial institutions who filed the above described Article 78 proceeding and related plenary action in New York State Supreme Court filed an additional proceeding pursuant to Article 78 of New York's Civil Practice Law & Rules in New York State Supreme Court, entitled Barclays Bank PLC et. al. v. James Wrynn, in his capacity as Superintendent of the New York State Insurance Department, the New York State Insurance Department, MBIA Inc. et al. This petition challenges the New York State Insurance Department's June 22, 2010 approval of National's restatement of earned surplus. The proceeding is currently stayed. The Company is defending against the aforementioned actions in which it is a defendant and expects ultimately to prevail on the merits. There is no assurance, however, that the Company will prevail in these actions. Adverse rulings in these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company's ability to implement its strategy and on its business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. At this stage of the litigation, there has not been a determination as to the amount, if any, of damages. Accordingly, the Company is not able to estimate any amount of loss or range of loss. There are no other material lawsuits pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened, to which the Company or any of its subsidiaries is a party.

X
- 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/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration