Outstanding Insurance Exposure

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Outstanding Exposure Disclosure

Outstanding Insurance Exposure

Outstanding Insurance Exposure

The Company primarily sells credit protection contracts in financial guaranty insurance form. Until 2009, the Company also sold credit protection by issuing policies that guaranteed payment obligations under credit derivatives, primarily credit default swaps (CDS). The Company's contracts accounted for as credit derivatives are generally structured such that the circumstances giving rise to the Company’s obligation to make loss payments are similar to those for its financial guaranty insurance contracts. The Company has not entered into any new CDS in order to sell credit protection in the U.S. since the beginning of 2009, when regulatory guidelines were issued that limited the terms under which such protection could be sold. The capital and margin requirements applicable under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act also contributed to the Company not entering into such new CDS in the U.S. since 2009. The Company has, however, acquired or reinsured portfolios both before and after 2009 that include financial guaranty contracts in credit derivative form.

The Company also writes specialty insurance that is consistent with its risk profile and benefits from its underwriting experience.

The Company seeks to limit its exposure to losses by underwriting obligations that it views as investment grade at inception, although on occasion it may underwrite new issuances that it views as BIG, typically as part of its loss mitigation strategy for existing troubled exposures. The Company also seeks to acquire portfolios of insurance from financial guarantors that are no longer writing new business by acquiring such companies, providing reinsurance on a portfolio of insurance or reassuming a portfolio of reinsurance it had previously ceded; in such instances, it evaluates the risk characteristics of the target portfolio, which may include some BIG exposures, as a whole in the context of the proposed transaction. The Company diversifies its insured portfolio across asset classes and, in the structured finance portfolio, typically requires subordination or collateral to protect it from loss. Reinsurance may be used in order to reduce net exposure to certain insured transactions.

     Public finance obligations insured by the Company primarily consist of general obligation bonds supported by the taxing powers of U.S. state or municipal governmental authorities, as well as tax-supported bonds, revenue bonds and other obligations supported by covenants from state or municipal governmental authorities or other municipal obligors to impose and collect fees and charges for public services or specific infrastructure projects. The Company also includes within public finance obligations those obligations backed by the cash flow from leases or other revenues from projects serving substantial public purposes, including utilities, toll roads, healthcare facilities and government office buildings. The Company also includes within public finance similar obligations issued by territorial and non-U.S. sovereign and sub-sovereign issuers and governmental authorities.

Structured finance obligations insured by the Company are generally issued by special purpose entities, including VIEs, and backed by pools of assets having an ascertainable cash flow or market value or other specialized financial obligations. Some of these VIEs are consolidated as described in Note 14, Variable Interest Entities. Unless otherwise specified, the outstanding par and debt service amounts presented in this note include outstanding exposures on VIEs whether or not they are consolidated. The Company also provides specialty insurance and reinsurance on transactions without special purpose entities but with similar risk profiles to its structured finance exposures written in financial guaranty form.

Second-to-pay insured par outstanding represents transactions the Company has insured that are already insured by another financial guaranty insurer and where the Company's obligation to pay under its insurance of such transactions arises only if both the obligor on the underlying insured obligation and the primary financial guaranty insurer default. The Company underwrites such transactions based on the underlying insured obligation without regard to the primary financial guaranty insurer and internally rates the transaction the higher of the rating of the underlying obligation and the rating of the primary financial guarantor. The second-to-pay insured par outstanding as of December 31, 2019 and 2018 was $6.6 billion and $6.7 billion, respectively. The par on second-to-pay exposure where the ratings of the primary financial guaranty insurer and underlying insured transaction that are BIG was $105 million and $111 million as of December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively.

Significant Risk Management Activities

The Portfolio Risk Management Committee, which includes members of senior management and senior risk and surveillance officers, establishes company-wide credit policy for the Company's direct and assumed business. It implements specific underwriting procedures and limits for the Company and allocates underwriting capacity among the Company's subsidiaries. The Portfolio Risk Management Committee is responsible for enterprise risk management for the overall company and focuses on measuring and managing credit, market and liquidity risk for the overall company. All transactions in new asset classes or new jurisdictions must be approved by this committee. The U.S., U.K., AG Re and AGRO risk management committees conduct an in-depth review of the insured portfolios of the relevant subsidiaries, focusing on varying portions of the portfolio at each meeting. They review and may revise internal ratings assigned to the insured transactions and review sector reports, monthly product line surveillance reports and compliance reports.

All transactions in the insured portfolio are assigned internal credit ratings by the relevant underwriting committee at inception, which credit ratings are updated by the relevant risk management committee based on changes in transaction credit quality. As part of the surveillance process, the Company monitors trends and changes in transaction credit quality, and recommends such remedial actions as may be necessary or appropriate. The Company also develops strategies to enforce its contractual rights and remedies and to mitigate its losses, engage in negotiation discussions with transaction participants and, when necessary, manage the Company's litigation proceedings.

Surveillance Categories

The Company segregates its insured portfolio into investment grade and BIG surveillance categories to facilitate the appropriate allocation of resources to monitoring and loss mitigation efforts and to aid in establishing the appropriate cycle for periodic review for each exposure. BIG exposures include all exposures with internal credit ratings below BBB-. The Company’s internal credit ratings are based on internal assessments of the likelihood of default and loss severity in the event of default. Internal credit ratings are expressed on a ratings scale similar to that used by the rating agencies and are generally reflective of an approach similar to that employed by the rating agencies, except that the Company's internal credit ratings focus on future performance rather than lifetime performance.

The Company monitors its insured portfolio and refreshes its internal credit ratings on individual exposures in quarterly, semi-annual or annual cycles based on the Company’s view of the exposure’s credit quality, loss potential, volatility and sector. Ratings on exposures in sectors identified as under the most stress or with the most potential volatility are reviewed every quarter, although the Company may also review a rating in response to developments impacting the credit when a ratings review is not scheduled. For assumed exposures, the Company may use the ceding company’s credit ratings of transactions where it is impractical for it to assign its own rating. 

Exposures identified as BIG are subjected to further review to determine the probability of a loss. See Note 6, Expected Loss to be Paid, for additional information. Surveillance personnel then assign each BIG transaction to the appropriate BIG surveillance category based upon whether a future loss is expected and whether a claim has been paid. The Company uses a tax-equivalent yield to calculate the present value of projected payments and recoveries and determine whether a future loss is expected in order to assign the appropriate BIG surveillance category to a transaction. For financial statement measurement purposes, the Company uses risk-free rates, which are determined each quarter, to calculate the expected loss.

More extensive monitoring and intervention is employed for all BIG surveillance categories, with internal credit ratings reviewed quarterly. For purposes of determining the appropriate surveillance category, the Company expects “future losses” on a transaction when the Company believes there is at least a 50% chance that, on a present value basis, it will in the future pay claims on that transaction that will not be fully reimbursed. The three BIG categories are:

• BIG Category 1: Below-investment-grade transactions showing sufficient deterioration to make future losses possible, but for which none are currently expected.

• BIG Category 2: Below-investment-grade transactions for which future losses are expected but for which no claims (other than liquidity claims, which are claims that the Company expects to be reimbursed within one year) have yet been paid.

• BIG Category 3: Below-investment-grade transactions for which future losses are expected and on which claims (other than liquidity claims) have been paid.

Unless otherwise noted, ratings disclosed herein on the Company's insured portfolio reflect its internal ratings. The Company classifies those portions of risks benefiting from reimbursement obligations collateralized by eligible assets held in trust in acceptable reimbursement structures as the higher of 'AA' or their current internal rating.

Financial Guaranty Exposure

The Company measures its financial guaranty exposure in terms of (a) gross and net par outstanding and (b) gross and net debt service.

The Company typically guarantees the payment of principal and interest when due. Since most of these payments are due in the future, the Company generally uses gross and net par outstanding as a proxy for its financial guaranty exposure. Gross par outstanding generally represents the principal amount of the insured obligation at a point in time. Net par outstanding equals gross par outstanding net of any third-party reinsurance. The Company includes in its par outstanding calculation the impact of any consumer price index inflator to the reporting date as well as, in the case of accreting (zero-coupon) obligations, accretion to the reporting date.

The Company purchases securities that it has insured, and for which it has expected losses to be paid, in order to mitigate the economic effect of insured losses (loss mitigation securities). The Company excludes amounts attributable to loss mitigation securities from par and debt service outstanding, which amounts are included in the investment portfolio, because

the Company manages such securities as investments and not insurance exposure. As of December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the Company excluded $1.4 billion and $1.9 billion, respectively, of net par attributable to loss mitigation securities.

Gross debt service outstanding represents the sum of all estimated future principal and interest payments on the obligations insured, on an undiscounted basis. Net debt service outstanding equals gross debt service outstanding net of any third-party reinsurance. Future debt service payments include the impact of any consumer price index inflator after the reporting date, as well as, in the case of accreting (zero-coupon) obligations, accretion after the reporting date.

The Company calculates its debt service outstanding as follows:

• for insured obligations that are not supported by homogeneous pools of assets (which category includes most of the Company's public finance transactions), as the total estimated contractual future principal and interest due through maturity, regardless of whether the obligations may be called and regardless of whether, in the case of obligations where principal payments are due when an underlying asset makes a principal payment, the Company believes the obligations will be repaid prior to contractual maturity;

• for insured obligations that are supported by homogeneous pools of assets that are contractually permitted to prepay principal (which category includes, for example, residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and CLOs), as total estimated expected future principal and interest due on insured obligations through their respective expected terms, which includes the Company's expectations as to whether the obligations may be called and, in the case of obligations where principal payments are due when an underlying asset makes a principal payment, when the Company expects principal payments to be made prior to contractual maturity.

The calculation of debt service requires the use of estimates, which the Company updates periodically, including estimates for the expected remaining term of insured obligations supported by homogeneous pools of assets, updated interest rates for floating and variable rate insured obligations, behavior of consumer price indices for obligations with consumer price index inflators, foreign exchange rates and other assumptions based on the characteristics of each insured obligation. The anticipated sunset of London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) at the end of 2021 has introduced another variable into the Company's calculation of future debt service. See the Risk Factor captioned “The Company may be adversely impacted by the transition from LIBOR as a reference rate” under Operational Risks in Part 1, Item 1A, Risk Factors. Debt service is a measure of the estimated maximum potential exposure to insured obligations before considering the Company’s various legal rights to the underlying collateral and other remedies available to it under its financial guaranty contract.

Actual debt service may differ from estimated debt service due to refundings, terminations, negotiated restructurings, prepayments, changes in interest rates on variable rate insured obligations, consumer price index behavior differing from that projected, changes in foreign exchange rates on non-U.S. denominated insured obligations and other factors.

Financial Guaranty Portfolio

Debt Service Outstanding

	Gross Debt Service Outstanding				Net Debt Service Outstanding
	As of December 31, 2019		As of December 31, 2018		As of December 31, 2019		As of December 31, 2018
	(in millions)
Public finance	$	363,497	$	361,511	$	362,361	$	358,438
Structured finance	12,279		13,569		11,769		13,148
Total financial guaranty	$	375,776	$	375,080	$	374,130	$	371,586

Financial Guaranty Portfolio by Internal Rating

As of December 31, 2019 

	Public Finance U.S.				Public Finance Non-U.S.				Structured Finance U.S				Structured Finance Non-U.S				Total
Rating Category	Net Par Outstanding		%		Net Par Outstanding		%		Net Par Outstanding		%		Net Par Outstanding		%		Net Par Outstanding		%
	(dollars in millions)
AAA	$	381	0.2	%	$	2,541	5.0	%	$	1,258	13.5	%	$	181	23.8	%	$	4,361	1.8	%
AA	19,847		11.3		5,142		10.0		4,010		43.1		38		5.0		29,037		12.3
A	94,488		53.9		15,627		30.4		1,030		11.1		184		24.2		111,329		47.0
BBB	55,000		31.3		27,051		52.8		1,206		13.0		317		41.6		83,574		35.3
BIG	5,771		3.3		898		1.8		1,796		19.3		41		5.4		8,506		3.6
Total net par outstanding	$	175,487	100.0	%	$	51,259	100.0	%	$	9,300	100.0	%	$	761	100.0	%	$	236,807	100.0	%

Financial Guaranty Portfolio by Internal Rating

As of December 31, 2018

	Public Finance U.S.				Public Finance Non-U.S.				Structured Finance U.S				Structured Finance Non-U.S				Total
Rating Category	Net Par Outstanding		%		Net Par Outstanding		%		Net Par Outstanding		%		Net Par Outstanding		%		Net Par Outstanding		%
	(dollars in millions)
AAA	$	413	0.2	%	$	2,399	5.4	%	$	1,533	15.4	%	$	273	22.9	%	$	4,618	1.9	%
AA	21,646		11.6		1,711		3.9		3,599		36.2		65		5.4		27,021		11.2
A	105,180		56.4		13,013		29.5		1,016		10.2		206		17.3		119,415		49.4
BBB	52,935		28.4		25,939		58.8		1,164		11.7		550		46.1		80,588		33.3
BIG	6,388		3.4		1,041		2.4		2,632		26.5		99		8.3		10,160		4.2
Total net par outstanding	$	186,562	100.0	%	$	44,103	100.0	%	$	9,944	100.0	%	$	1,193	100.0	%	$	241,802	100.0	%

The following tables present gross and net par outstanding for the financial guaranty portfolio.

Financial Guaranty Portfolio

Gross Par Outstanding

	As of December 31, 2019		As of December 31, 2018
	(in millions)
U.S. public finance	$	176,047	$	187,919
Non-U.S. public finance	51,538		44,714
U.S. structured finance	9,800		10,352
Non-U.S. structured finance	771		1,206
Total gross par outstanding	$	238,156	$	244,191

Financial Guaranty Portfolio

Net Par Outstanding

by Sector

Sector (1)	As of December 31, 2019		As of December 31, 2018
	(in millions)
Public finance:
U.S.:
General obligation	$	73,467	$	78,800
Tax backed	37,047		40,616
Municipal utilities	26,195		28,402
Transportation	16,209		15,197
Healthcare	7,148		6,750
Higher education	5,916		6,643
Infrastructure finance	5,429		5,489
Housing revenue	1,321		1,435
Investor-owned utilities	655		846
Renewable energy	210		215
Other public finance	1,890		2,169
Total public finance—U.S.	175,487		186,562
Non-U.S.:
Regulated utilities	18,995		18,124
Infrastructure finance	17,952		17,166
Sovereign and sub-sovereign	11,341		6,094
Renewable energy	1,555		1,346
Pooled infrastructure	1,416		1,373
Total public finance—non-U.S.	51,259		44,103
Total public finance	226,746		230,665
Structured finance:
U.S.:
RMBS	3,546		4,270
Life insurance transactions	1,776		1,435
Pooled corporate obligations	1,401		1,215
Financial products	1,019		1,094
Consumer receivables	962		1,255
Other structured finance	596		675
Total structured finance—U.S.	9,300		9,944
Non-U.S.:
RMBS	427		576
Pooled corporate obligations	55		126
Other structured finance	279		491
Total structured finance—non-U.S.	761		1,193
Total structured finance	10,061		11,137
Total net par outstanding	$	236,807	$	241,802

_____________________

(1)    Prior period has been presented on a basis consistent with current period sector classifications.

In addition to amounts shown in the table above, the Company had outstanding commitments to provide guaranties of $301 million of gross par for public finance and $610 million of gross par of structured finance as of December 31, 2019. These commitments are contingent on the satisfaction of all conditions set forth in them and may expire unused or be canceled at the counterparty’s request. Therefore, the total commitment amount does not necessarily reflect actual future guaranteed amounts.

Actual maturities of insured obligations could differ from contractual maturities because borrowers have the right to call or prepay certain obligations. The expected maturities of structured finance obligations are, in general, considerably shorter than the contractual maturities for such obligations.

Financial Guaranty Portfolio

Expected Amortization of

Net Par Outstanding

As of December 31, 2019

	Public Finance		Structured Finance		Total
	(in millions)
0 to 5 years	$	55,219	$	4,161	$	59,380
5 to 10 years	48,500		1,852		50,352
10 to 15 years	42,901		1,917		44,818
15 to 20 years	33,820		1,698		35,518
20 years and above	46,306		433		46,739
Total net par outstanding	$	226,746	$	10,061	$	236,807

Financial Guaranty Portfolio

Components of BIG Net Par Outstanding

As of December 31, 2019

	BIG Net Par Outstanding								Net Par
	BIG 1		BIG 2		BIG 3		Total BIG		Outstanding
					(in millions)
Public finance:
U.S. public finance	$	1,582	$	430	$	3,759	$	5,771	$	175,487
Non-U.S. public finance	854		—		44		898		51,259
Public finance	2,436		430		3,803		6,669		226,746
Structured finance:
U.S. RMBS	162		74		1,382		1,618		3,546
Life insurance transactions	—		—		40		40		1,771
Other structured finance	69		62		48		179		4,744
Structured finance	231		136		1,470		1,837		10,061
Total	$	2,667	$	566	$	5,273	$	8,506	$	236,807

Financial Guaranty Portfolio

Components of BIG Net Par Outstanding

As of December 31, 2018

	BIG Net Par Outstanding								Net Par
	BIG 1		BIG 2		BIG 3		Total BIG		Outstanding
					(in millions)
Public finance:
U.S. public finance	$	1,767	$	399	$	4,222	$	6,388	$	186,562
Non-U.S. public finance	796		245		—		1,041		44,103
Public finance	2,563		644		4,222		7,429		230,665
Structured finance:
U.S. RMBS	368		214		1,805		2,387		4,270
Life insurance transactions	—		—		85		85		1,184
Other structured finance	127		79		53		259		5,683
Structured finance	495		293		1,943		2,731		11,137
Total	$	3,058	$	937	$	6,165	$	10,160	$	241,802

Financial Guaranty Portfolio

BIG Net Par Outstanding

and Number of Risks

As of December 31, 2019

	Net Par Outstanding						Number of Risks(2)
Description	Financial Guaranty Insurance(1)		Credit Derivative		Total		Financial Guaranty Insurance(1)	Credit Derivative	Total
	(dollars in millions)
BIG:
Category 1	$	2,600	$	67	$	2,667	121	6	127
Category 2	561		5		566		24	1	25
Category 3	5,216		57		5,273		131	7	138
Total BIG	$	8,377	$	129	$	8,506	276	14	290

Financial Guaranty Portfolio

BIG Net Par Outstanding

and Number of Risks

As of December 31, 2018

	Net Par Outstanding						Number of Risks(2)
Description	Financial Guaranty Insurance(1)		Credit Derivative		Total		Financial Guaranty Insurance(1)	Credit Derivative	Total
	(dollars in millions)
BIG:
Category 1	$	2,981	$	77	$	3,058	128	6	134
Category 2	932		5		937		39	1	40
Category 3	6,090		75		6,165		145	8	153
Total BIG	$	10,003	$	157	$	10,160	312	15	327

_____________________

(1)    Includes VIEs.

(2) A risk represents the aggregate of the financial guaranty policies that share the same revenue source for purposes of making debt service payments.

The Company seeks to maintain a diversified portfolio of insured obligations designed to spread its risk across a number of geographic areas.

Financial Guaranty Portfolio

Geographic Distribution of

Net Par Outstanding

As of December 31, 2019

	Number of Risks	Net Par Outstanding		Percent of Total Net Par Outstanding
	(dollars in millions)
U.S.:
U.S. Public finance:
California	1,318	$	33,368	14.1	%
Pennsylvania	665	15,895		6.7
Texas	1,090	14,860		6.3
New York	749	14,682		6.2
Illinois	602	13,977		5.9
New Jersey	337	10,504		4.4
Florida	266	7,107		3.0
Michigan	305	5,345		2.3
Puerto Rico	17	4,270		1.8
Louisiana	162	4,167		1.8
Other	2,529	51,312		21.7
Total U.S. public finance	8,040	175,487		74.2
U.S. Structured finance (multiple states)	450	9,300		3.9
Total U.S.	8,490	184,787		78.1
Non-U.S.:
United Kingdom	288	38,450		16.2
France	7	3,130		1.3
Canada	8	2,495		1.1
Australia	11	2,112		0.9
Austria	3	1,250		0.5
Other	42	4,583		1.9
Total non-U.S.	359	52,020		21.9
Total	8,849	$	236,807	100.0	%

Exposure to Puerto Rico

The Company had insured exposure to general obligation bonds of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico or the Commonwealth) and various obligations of its related authorities and public corporations aggregating $4.3 billion net par as of December 31, 2019, all of which was rated BIG. Beginning on January 1, 2016, a number of Puerto Rico exposures have defaulted on bond payments, and the Company has now paid claims on all of its Puerto Rico exposures except for Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA), Municipal Finance Agency (MFA) and University of Puerto Rico (U of PR).

On November 30, 2015 and December 8, 2015, the then governor of Puerto Rico issued executive orders (Clawback Orders) directing the Puerto Rico Department of Treasury and the Puerto Rico Tourism Company to "claw back" certain taxes pledged to secure the payment of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (PRHTA), Puerto Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority (PRIFA), and Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority (PRCCDA). The Puerto Rico exposures insured by the Company subject to clawback are shown in the table “Puerto Rico Net Par Outstanding.”

The fiscal and political issues in Puerto Rico have been exacerbated by natural disasters. On September 20, 2017, Hurricane Maria made landfall in Puerto Rico as a Category 4 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale, causing loss of life and widespread destruction. More recently, beginning on December 28, 2019, and progressing into early 2020, Puerto Rico has been struck by a swarm of earthquakes, including at least 11 that were of magnitude 5 or greater based on the the Richter magnitude scale. While not nearly as deadly or destructive as Hurricane Maria, the earthquakes have damaged buildings and infrastructure, including the power grid.

On June 30, 2016, the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) was signed into law. PROMESA established a seven-member financial oversight board (Oversight Board) with authority to require that balanced budgets and fiscal plans be adopted and implemented by Puerto Rico. Title III of PROMESA provides for a process analogous to a voluntary bankruptcy process under chapter 9 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.

The Company believes that a number of the actions taken by the Commonwealth, the Oversight Board and others with respect to obligations the Company insures are illegal or unconstitutional or both, and has taken legal action, and may take additional legal action in the future, to enforce its rights with respect to these matters. In addition, the Commonwealth, the Oversight Board and others have taken legal action naming the Company as a party. See “Puerto Rico Litigation” below.

The Company also participates in mediation and negotiations relating to its Puerto Rico exposure.

The final form and timing of responses to Puerto Rico’s financial distress and the devastation of Hurricane Maria eventually taken by the federal government or implemented under the auspices of PROMESA and the Oversight Board or otherwise, and the final impact on the Company, after resolution of legal challenges, of any such responses on obligations insured by the Company, are uncertain. The impact of developments relating to Puerto Rico during any quarter or year could be material to the Company's results of operations in that particular quarter or year.

The Company groups its Puerto Rico exposure into three categories:

• Constitutionally Guaranteed. The Company includes in this category public debt benefiting from Article VI of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, which expressly provides that interest and principal payments on the public debt are to be paid before other disbursements are made.

• Public Corporations – Certain Revenues Potentially Subject to Clawback. The Company includes in this category the debt of public corporations for which applicable law permits the Commonwealth to claw back, subject to certain conditions and for the payment of public debt, at least a portion of the revenues supporting the bonds the Company insures. As a constitutional condition to clawback, available Commonwealth revenues for any fiscal year must be insufficient to pay Commonwealth debt service before the payment of any appropriations for that year.  The Company believes that this condition has not been satisfied to date, and accordingly that the Commonwealth has not to date been entitled to claw back revenues supporting debt insured by the Company.

• Other Public Corporations. The Company includes in this category the debt of public corporations that are supported by revenues it does not believe are subject to clawback.

Constitutionally Guaranteed

General Obligation. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had $1,253 million insured net par outstanding of the general obligations of Puerto Rico, which are supported by the good faith, credit and taxing power of the Commonwealth. Despite the requirements of Article VI of its Constitution, the Commonwealth defaulted on the debt service payment due on July 1, 2016, and the Company has been making claim payments on these bonds since that date. The Oversight Board has filed a petition under Title III of PROMESA with respect to the Commonwealth.

On May 9, 2019, the Oversight Board certified a revised fiscal plan for the Commonwealth. The revised certified Commonwealth fiscal plan indicates an expected primary budget surplus, if fiscal plan reforms are enacted, of $13.7 billion that would be available for debt service over the six-year forecast period ending 2024. The Company believes the available surplus set forth in the Oversight Board's revised certified fiscal plan (which assumes certain fiscal reforms are implemented by the Commonwealth) should be sufficient to cover contractual debt service of Commonwealth general obligation issuances and of authorities and public corporations directly implicated by the Commonwealth’s general fund during the forecast period. However, the revised certified Commonwealth fiscal plan indicates a net cumulative primary budget deficit through 2049, and there can be no assurance that the fiscal reforms will be enacted or, if they are, that the forecasted primary budget surplus will occur or, if it does, that such funds will be used to cover contractual debt service.

On February 9, 2020, the Oversight Board announced it had entered into an amended general obligation Plan Support Agreement (Amended GO PSA) with certain general obligation (GO) and Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority (PBA) bondholders representing approximately $8 billion of the aggregate amount of general obligation and PBA bond claims. The Amended GO PSA purports to provide a framework to address approximately $35 billion of Commonwealth debt (including PBA debt) and unsecured claims. The Company is not a party to that agreement and does not support it. 

The Amended GO PSA provides for different recoveries based on the bonds’ vintage issuance date, with GO and PBA bonds issued before 2011(Vintage) receiving higher recoveries than GO and PBA bonds issued in 2011 and thereafter (except that, for purposes of the Amended GO PSA, Series 2011A GO bonds would be treated as Vintage bonds). The recoveries for the GO bonds, by vintage issuance date, are set forth in the table included below. The differentiated recovery scheme provided under the Amended GO PSA is purportedly based on the Oversight Board’s attempt to invalidate the non-Vintage GO and PBA bonds (see “Puerto Rico Litigation” below). Under the Amended GO PSA, GO and PBA bondholders generally would receive newly issued Commonwealth GO bonds, Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (COFINA) junior lien bonds and cash equal to the amounts set out below, expressed as a percent of their outstanding pre-petition claims (which excludes post-petition accrued interest), based on the vintage issuance date of the bonds they hold.  In all cases, holders of GO/PBA bonds supporting the Amended GO PSA are also entitled to certain fees.

General Obligation Bonds	Assured Guaranty Net Par Outstanding as of December 31, 2019		Assured Guaranty Total Net Principal Claims Paid as of December 31, 2019		Assured Guaranty Total Net Interest Claims Paid as of December 31, 2019		Base Recovery as a % of Pre-Petition Claims
	(in millions)						(percent)
Vintage GO	$	669	$	383	$	147	74.9	%
2011 GO (Series D, E and PIB)	5		6		1		73.8
2011 GO (Series C)	210		—		42		70.4
2012 GO	369		—		63		69.9
2014 GO	—		—		—		65.4

On September 27, 2019, the Oversight Board filed with the Title III court a Plan of Adjustment (POA) to restructure approximately $35 billion of debt (including the GO bonds) and other claims against the government of Puerto Rico and certain entities and $50 billion in pension obligations. The POA is expected to be amended to incorporate the terms related to the GO bonds proposed under the Amended GO PSA. The Company believes the POA, as currently constituted, does not comply with the laws and constitution of Puerto Rico and the provisions of PROMESA and does not satisfy the statutory requirements for confirmation of a plan of adjustment under Title III of PROMESA.

PBA. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had $140 million insured net par outstanding of PBA bonds, which are supported by a pledge of the rents due under leases of government facilities to departments, agencies, instrumentalities and municipalities of the Commonwealth, and that benefit from a Commonwealth guaranty supported by a pledge of the Commonwealth’s good faith, credit and taxing power. Despite the requirements of Article VI of its Constitution, the PBA defaulted on most of the debt service payment due on July 1, 2016, and the Company has been making claim payments on these bonds since then. On September 27, 2019, the Oversight Board filed a petition under Title III of PROMESA with respect to the PBA to allow the restructuring of the PBA claims through the POA.

Under the Amended GO PSA (which does not include the Company as a party and which the Company does not support), PBA bondholders generally would receive newly issued Commonwealth GO bonds, COFINA junior lien bonds and cash equal to the amounts set out below, expressed as a percent of their outstanding pre-petition claims (which excludes post-petition accrued interest), based on the vintage issuance date of the bonds they hold. In all cases, holders of PBA bonds supporting the Amended GO PSA are also entitled to certain fees.

PBA Bonds	Assured Guaranty Net Par Outstanding as of December 31, 2019		Assured Guaranty Total Net Principal Claims Paid as of December 31, 2019		Assured Guaranty Total Net Interest Claims Paid as of December 31, 2019		Base Recovery as % of Pre-Petition Claims
	(in millions)						(percent)
Vintage PBA	$	140	$	32	$	24	77.6	%
2011 PBA	—		—		—		76.8
2012 PBA	—		—		—		72.2

As noted above, on September 27, 2019, the Oversight Board filed with the Title III court a POA to restructure approximately $35 billion of debt (including the PBA bonds) and other claims against the government of Puerto Rico and certain entities and $50 billion in pension obligations. The POA is expected to be amended to incorporate the terms related to the PBA bonds proposed under the GO PSA. The Company believes the POA, as currently constituted, does not comply with the laws and constitution of Puerto Rico and the provisions of PROMESA and does not satisfy the statutory requirements for confirmation of a plan of adjustment under Title III of PROMESA.

Public Corporations - Certain Revenues Potentially Subject to Clawback

PRHTA. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had $811 million insured net par outstanding of PRHTA (transportation revenue) bonds and $454 million insured net par outstanding of PRHTA (highways revenue) bonds. The transportation revenue bonds are secured by a subordinate gross lien on gasoline and gas oil and diesel oil taxes, motor vehicle license fees and certain tolls, plus a first lien on up to $120 million annually of taxes on crude oil, unfinished oil and derivative products. The highways revenue bonds are secured by a gross lien on gasoline and gas oil and diesel oil taxes, motor vehicle license fees and certain tolls. The non-toll revenues consisting of excise taxes and fees collected by the Commonwealth on behalf of PRHTA and its bondholders that are statutorily allocated to PRHTA and its bondholders are potentially subject to clawback. Despite the presence of funds in relevant debt service reserve accounts that the Company believes should have been employed to fund debt service, PRHTA defaulted on the full July 1, 2017 insured debt service payment, and the Company has been making claim payments on these bonds since that date. The Oversight Board has filed a petition under Title III of PROMESA with respect to PRHTA.

On June 5, 2019, the Oversight Board certified a revised fiscal plan for PRHTA. The revised certified PRHTA fiscal plan projects very limited capacity to pay debt service over the six-year forecast period.

PRCCDA. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had $152 million insured net par outstanding of PRCCDA bonds, which are secured by certain hotel tax revenues. These revenues are sensitive to the level of economic activity in the area and are potentially subject to clawback. There were sufficient funds in the PRCCDA bond accounts to make only partial payments on the July 1, 2017 PRCCDA bond payments guaranteed by the Company, and the Company has been making claim payments on these bonds since that date.

PRIFA. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had $16 million insured net par outstanding of PRIFA bonds, which are secured primarily by the return to PRIFA and its bondholders of a portion of federal excise taxes paid on rum. These revenues are potentially subject to the clawback. The Company has been making claim payments on the PRIFA bonds since January 2016.

Other Public Corporations

Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA). As of December 31, 2019, the Company had $822 million insured net par outstanding of PREPA obligations, which are secured by a lien on the revenues of the electric system. The Company has been making claim payments on these bonds since July 1, 2017. On July 2, 2017, the Oversight Board commenced proceedings for PREPA under Title III of PROMESA. On June 27, 2019, the Oversight Board certified a revised fiscal plan for PREPA.

On May 3, 2019, AGM and AGC entered into a restructuring support agreement with PREPA (PREPA RSA) and other stakeholders, including a group of uninsured PREPA bondholders, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Oversight Board, that is intended to, among other things, provide a framework for the consensual resolution of the treatment of the Company’s insured PREPA revenue bonds in PREPA's recovery plan. Upon consummation of the restructuring transaction, PREPA’s revenue bonds will be exchanged into new securitization bonds issued by a special

purpose corporation and secured by a segregated transition charge assessed on electricity bills. The revised fiscal plan of PREPA certified by the Oversight Board on June 27, 2019 reflects the relevant terms of the PREPA RSA.

The closing of the restructuring transaction is subject to a number of conditions, including approval by the Title III Court of the PREPA RSA and settlement described therein, a minimum of 67% support of voting bondholders for a plan of adjustment that includes this proposed treatment of PREPA revenue bonds and confirmation of such plan by the Title III court, and execution of acceptable documentation and legal opinions. Under the PREPA RSA, the Company has the option to guarantee its allocated share of the securitization exchange bonds, which may then be offered and sold in the capital markets. The Company believes that the additive value created by attaching its guarantee to the securitization exchange bonds would materially improve its overall recovery under the transaction, as well as generate new insurance premiums; and therefore that its economic results could differ from those reflected in the PREPA RSA.

PRASA. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had $373 million of insured net par outstanding of PRASA bonds, which are secured by a lien on the gross revenues of the water and sewer system. On June 29, 2019, the Oversight Board certified a revised fiscal plan for PRASA. In July 2019, PRASA entered into a restructuring transaction with the federal government and the Oversight Board to restructure its subordinated loans from federal agencies that had been under forbearance for over three years (the PRASA Agreement). The PRASA Agreement extends the maturity of the loans for up to 40 years and provides for low interest rates and no interest accrual for the first ten years on a portion of the loans, but also places the subordinated loans on a parity with the PRASA bonds the Company guarantees.  The Company was not asked to consent to the PRASA Agreement. The PRASA Agreement reduces the amount of annual debt service owed by PRASA for its current debt. The PRASA bond accounts contained sufficient funds to make the PRASA bond payments due through the date of this filing that were guaranteed by the Company, and those payments were made in full.

MFA. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had $248 million net par outstanding of bonds issued by MFA secured by a lien on local property tax revenues. The MFA bond accounts contained sufficient funds to make the MFA bond payments due through the date of this filing that were guaranteed by the Company, and those payments were made in full.

U of PR. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had $1 million insured net par outstanding of U of PR bonds, which are general obligations of the university and are secured by a subordinate lien on the proceeds, profits and other income of the university, subject to a senior pledge and lien for the benefit of outstanding university system revenue bonds. As of the date of this filing, all debt service payments on U of PR bonds insured by the Company have been made.

Resolved Commonwealth Credit

COFINA. On February 12, 2019, pursuant to a plan of adjustment approved by the PROMESA Title III Court on February 4, 2019 (COFINA Plan of Adjustment), the Company paid off in full its $273 million net par outstanding of insured COFINA bonds, plus accrued and unpaid interest. Pursuant to the COFINA Plan of Adjustment, the Company received $152 million in initial par of closed lien senior bonds of COFINA validated by the PROMESA Title III Court (COFINA Exchange Senior Bonds), along with cash. The total recovery (cash and COFINA Exchange Senior Bonds) represented 60% of the Company’s official Title III claim, which related to amounts owed as of the date COFINA entered Title III proceedings. The fair value of the COFINA Exchange Senior Bonds, excluding accrued interest, was $139 million at February 12, 2019, and was recorded as salvage received. During the third quarter of 2019 the Company sold all of its COFINA Exchange Senior Bonds.

Puerto Rico Litigation

The Company believes that a number of the actions taken by the Commonwealth, the Oversight Board and others with respect to obligations it insures are illegal or unconstitutional or both, and has taken legal action, and may take additional legal action in the future, to enforce its rights with respect to these matters. In addition, the Commonwealth, the Oversight Board and others have taken legal action naming the Company as party.

Currently there are numerous legal actions relating to the default by the Commonwealth and certain of its entities on debt service payments, and related matters, and the Company is a party to a number of them. On July 24, 2019, Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (Federal District Court for Puerto Rico) held an omnibus hearing on litigation matters relating to the Commonwealth. At that hearing, she imposed a stay through November 30, 2019, on a series of adversary proceedings and contested matters amongst the stakeholders and imposed mandatory mediation on all parties through that date. On October 28, 2019, Judge Swain extended the stay until December 31, 2019, and further extended the stay until March 11, 2020 for certain matters (as noted below). Among the goals of the mediation is to reach an agreed-upon schedule for addressing the resolution of numerous issues, including, among others: (a) issues related to

the validity, secured status and priority regarding bonds issued by the Commonwealth and certain of its entities; (b) the validity and impact of the Clawback Orders and other diversion of collateral securing certain bonds; (c) classification of claims; (d) constitutional issues; and (e) identification of essential services. A number of the legal actions in which the Company is involved are covered by the stay and mandatory mediation order.

On January 7, 2016, AGM, AGC and Ambac Assurance Corporation commenced an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico to invalidate the executive orders issued on November 30, 2015 and December 8, 2015 by the then governor of Puerto Rico directing that the Secretary of the Treasury of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico Tourism Company claw back certain taxes and revenues pledged to secure the payment of bonds issued by the PRHTA, the PRCCDA and PRIFA. The Commonwealth defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which the court denied on October 4, 2016. On October 14, 2016, the Commonwealth defendants filed a notice of PROMESA automatic stay. While the PROMESA automatic stay expired on May 1, 2017, on May 17, 2017, the court stayed the action under Title III of PROMESA.

On June 3, 2017, AGC and AGM filed an adversary complaint in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico seeking (i) a judgment declaring that the application of pledged special revenues to the payment of the PRHTA bonds is not subject to the PROMESA Title III automatic stay and that the Commonwealth has violated the special revenue protections provided to the PRHTA bonds under the United States Bankruptcy Code (Bankruptcy Code); (ii) an injunction enjoining the Commonwealth from taking or causing to be taken any action that would further violate the special revenue protections provided to the PRHTA bonds under the Bankruptcy Code; and (iii) an injunction ordering the Commonwealth to remit the pledged special revenues securing the PRHTA bonds in accordance with the terms of the special revenue provisions set forth in the Bankruptcy Code. On January 30, 2018, the court rendered an opinion dismissing the complaint and holding, among other things, that (x) even though the special revenue provisions of the Bankruptcy Code protect a lien on pledged special revenues, those provisions do not mandate the turnover of pledged special revenues to the payment of bonds and (y) actions to enforce liens on pledged special revenues remain stayed. A hearing on AGM and AGC’s appeal of the trial court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (First Circuit) was held on November 5, 2018. On March 26, 2019, the First Circuit issued its opinion affirming the trial court’s decision and held that Sections 928(a) and 922(d) of the Bankruptcy Code permit, but do not require, continued payments during the pendency of the Title III proceedings. The First Circuit agreed with the trial court that (i) Section 928(a) of the Bankruptcy Code does not mandate the turnover of special revenues or require continuity of payments to the PRHTA bonds during the pendency of the Title III proceedings, and (ii) Section 922(d) of the Bankruptcy Code is not an exception to the automatic stay that would compel PRHTA, or third parties holding special revenues, to apply special revenues to outstanding obligations. On April 9, 2019, AGM, AGC and other petitioners filed a petition with the First Circuit seeking a rehearing by the full court; the petition was denied by the First Circuit on July 31, 2019. On September 20, 2019, AGC, AGM and other petitioners filed a petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court of the First Circuit's holding, which was denied on January 13, 2020.

On June 26, 2017, AGM and AGC filed a complaint in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico seeking (i) a declaratory judgment that the PREPA restructuring support agreement executed in December 2015 (2015 PREPA RSA) is a “Preexisting Voluntary Agreement” under Section 104 of PROMESA and the Oversight Board’s failure to certify the 2015 PREPA RSA is an unlawful application of Section 601 of PROMESA; (ii) an injunction enjoining the Oversight Board from unlawfully applying Section 601 of PROMESA and ordering it to certify the 2015 PREPA RSA; and (iii) a writ of mandamus requiring the Oversight Board to comply with its duties under PROMESA and certify the 2015 PREPA RSA. On July 21, 2017, in light of its PREPA Title III petition on July 2, 2017, the Oversight Board filed a notice of stay under PROMESA.

On July 18, 2017, AGM and AGC filed in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico a motion for relief from the automatic stay in the PREPA Title III bankruptcy proceeding and a form of complaint seeking the appointment of a receiver for PREPA. The court denied the motion on September 14, 2017, but on August 8, 2018, the First Circuit vacated and remanded the court's decision. On October 3, 2018, AGM and AGC, together with other bond insurers, filed a motion with the court to lift the automatic stay to commence an action against PREPA for the appointment of a receiver. Under the PREPA RSA, AGM and AGC have agreed to withdraw from the lift stay motion upon the Title III Court’s approval of the settlement of claims embodied in the PREPA RSA.

On May 23, 2018, AGM and AGC filed an adversary complaint in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico seeking a judgment declaring that (i) the Oversight Board lacked authority to develop or approve the new fiscal plan for Puerto Rico which it certified on April 19, 2018 (Revised Fiscal Plan); (ii) the Revised Fiscal Plan and the Fiscal Plan Compliance Law (Compliance Law) enacted by the Commonwealth to implement the original Commonwealth Fiscal Plan violate various sections of PROMESA; (iii) the Revised Fiscal Plan, the Compliance Law and various moratorium laws and executive orders enacted by the Commonwealth to prevent the payment of debt service (a) are unconstitutional and void because they violate the Contracts, Takings and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and (b) are preempted by various sections of PROMESA;

and (iv) no Title III plan of adjustment based on the Revised Fiscal Plan can be confirmed under PROMESA. On August 13, 2018, the court-appointed magistrate judge granted the Commonwealth's and the Oversight Board's motion to stay this adversary proceeding pending a decision by the First Circuit in an appeal by Ambac Assurance Corporation of an unrelated adversary proceeding decision, which the First Circuit rendered on June 24, 2019. On July 24, 2019, Judge Swain announced a court-imposed stay of a series of adversary proceedings and contested matters through November 30, 2019, with a mandatory mediation element; Judge Swain extended the stay until December 31, 2019, and further extended the stay until March 11, 2020. Pursuant to the request of AGM, AGC and the defendants, Judge Swain ordered on September 6, 2019 that the claims in this complaint be addressed in the Commonwealth plan confirmation process and be subject to her July 24, 2019 stay and mandatory mediation order and be incorporated into the same schedule and mediation process.

On July 23, 2018, AGC and AGM filed an adversary complaint in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico seeking a judgment (i) declaring the members of the Oversight Board are officers of the U.S. whose appointments were unlawful under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution; (ii) declaring void from the beginning the unlawful actions taken by the Oversight Board to date, including (x) development of the Commonwealth's Fiscal Plan, (y) development of PRHTA's Fiscal Plan, and (z) filing of the Title III cases on behalf of the Commonwealth and PRHTA; and (iii) enjoining the Oversight Board from taking any further action until the Oversight Board members have been lawfully appointed in conformity with the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Title III court dismissed a similar lawsuit filed by another party in the Commonwealth’s Title III case in July 2018. On August 3, 2018, a stipulated judgment was entered against AGM and AGC at their request based upon the court's July decision in the other Appointments Clause lawsuit and, on the same date, AGM and AGC appealed the stipulated judgment to the First Circuit. On August 15, 2018, the court consolidated, for purposes of briefing and oral argument, AGM and AGC's appeal with the other Appointments Clause lawsuit. The First Circuit consolidated AGM and AGC's appeal with a third Appointments Clause lawsuit on September 7, 2018 and held a hearing on December 3, 2018. On February 15, 2019, the First Circuit issued its ruling on the appeal and held that members of the Oversight Board were not appointed in compliance with the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution but declined to dismiss the Title III petitions citing the (i) de facto officer doctrine and (ii) negative consequences to the many innocent third parties who relied on the Oversight Board’s actions to date, as well as the further delay which would result from a dismissal of the Title III petitions. The case was remanded back to the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico for the appellants’ requested declaratory relief that the appointment of the board members of the Oversight Board is unconstitutional. The First Circuit delayed the effectiveness of its ruling for 90 days so as to allow the President and the Senate to validate the currently defective appointments or reconstitute the Oversight Board in accordance with the Appointments Clause. On April 23, 2019, the Oversight Board filed a petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court of the First Circuit's holding that its members were not appointed in compliance with the Appointments Clause and on the following day filed a motion in the First Circuit to further stay the effectiveness of the First Circuit’s February 15, 2019 ruling pending final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court. On May 24, 2019, AGC and AGM filed a petition for a review by the U.S. Supreme Court of the First Circuit’s holding that the de facto officer doctrine allows courts to deny meaningful relief to successful challengers suffering ongoing injury at the hands of unconstitutionally appointed officers. On July 2, 2019, the First Circuit granted the Oversight Board’s motion to stay the effectiveness of the First Circuit’s February 15, 2019 ruling pending final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court. On October 15, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the First Circuit's ruling.

On December 21, 2018, the Oversight Board and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of all Title III Debtors (other than COFINA) filed an adversary complaint in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico seeking a judgment declaring that (i) the leases to public occupants entered into by the PBA are not “true leases” for purposes of Section 365(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code and therefore the Commonwealth has no obligation to make payments to the PBA under the leases or Section 365(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, (ii) the PBA is not entitled to a priority administrative expense claim under the leases pursuant to Sections 503(b)(1) and 507(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, and (iii) any such claims filed or asserted against the Commonwealth are disallowed. On January 28, 2019, the PBA filed an answer to the complaint. On March 12, 2019, the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico granted, with certain limitations, AGM’s and AGC’s motion to intervene. On March 21, 2019, AGM and AGC, together with certain other intervenors, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On July 24, 2019, Judge Swain announced a court-imposed stay of a series of adversary proceedings and contested matters, which include this proceeding, through November 30, 2019, with a mandatory mediation element; Judge Swain extended the stay until December 31, 2019, and further extended the stay until March 11, 2020.

On January 14, 2019, the Oversight Board and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors filed an omnibus objection in the Title III Court to claims filed by holders of approximately $6 billion of Commonwealth general obligation bonds issued in 2012 and 2014, asserting among other things that such bonds were issued in violation of the Puerto Rico constitutional debt service limit, such bonds are null and void, and the holders have no equitable remedy against the Commonwealth. Pursuant to procedures established by Judge Swain, on April 10, 2019, AGM filed a notice of participation in these proceedings. As of December 31, 2019, $369 million of the Company’s insured net par outstanding of the general obligation bonds of Puerto Rico were issued on or after March 2012. On May 21, 2019, the Official Committee of Unsecured

Creditors filed a claim objection to certain Commonwealth general obligation bonds issued in 2011, approximately $215 million of which are insured by the Company as of December 31, 2019, on substantially the same bases as the January 14, 2019 filing, and which the plaintiffs propose to be subject to the proceedings relating to the 2012 and 2014 bonds. On July 24, 2019, Judge Swain announced a court-imposed stay of a series of adversary proceedings and contested matters, which include this proceeding, through November 30, 2019, with a mandatory mediation element. Judge Swain extended the stay until December 31, 2019, but did not further extend the stay with respect to this matter. On January 8, 2020, certain Commonwealth general obligation bondholders (self-styled as the Lawful Constitutional Debt Coalition) filed a claim objection to the 2012 and 2014 bonds, asserting among other things that those bonds were issued in violation of the Puerto Rico constitutional debt limit and are not entitled to first priority status under the Puerto Rico Constitution.

On May 2, 2019, the Oversight Board and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors filed an adversary complaint in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico against various Commonwealth general obligation bondholders and bond insurers, including AGC and AGM, that had asserted in their proofs of claim that their bonds are secured. The complaint seeks a judgment declaring that defendants do not hold consensual or statutory liens and are unsecured claimholders to the extent they hold allowed claims. The complaint also asserts that even if Commonwealth law granted statutory liens, such liens are avoidable under Section 545 of the Bankruptcy Code. On July 24, 2019, Judge Swain announced a court-imposed stay of a series of adversary proceedings and contested matters, which include this proceeding, through November 30, 2019, with a mandatory mediation element; Judge Swain extended the stay until December 31, 2019, but did not further extend the stay with respect to this matter.

On May 20, 2019, the Oversight Board and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors filed an adversary complaint in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico against the fiscal agent and holders and/or insurers, including AGC and AGM, that have asserted their PRHTA bond claims are entitled to secured status in PRHTA’s Title III case. Plaintiffs are seeking to avoid the PRHTA bondholders’ liens and contend that (i) the scope of any lien only applies to revenues that have been both received by PRHTA and deposited in certain accounts held by the fiscal agent and does not include PRHTA’s right to receive such revenues; (ii) any lien on revenues was not perfected because the fiscal agent does not have “control” of all accounts holding such revenues; (iii) any lien on the excise tax revenues is no longer enforceable because any rights PRHTA had to receive such revenues are preempted by PROMESA; and (iv) even if PRHTA held perfected liens on PRHTA’s revenues and the right to receive such revenues, such liens were terminated by Section 552(a) of the Bankruptcy Code as of the petition date. On July 24, 2019, Judge Swain announced a court-imposed stay of a series of adversary proceedings and contested matters, which include this proceeding, through November 30, 2019, with a mandatory mediation element; Judge Swain extended the stay through December 31, 2019, and extended the stay again pending further order of the court.

On September 30, 2019, certain parties that either had advanced funds to PREPA for the purchase of fuel or had succeeded to such claims (Fuel Line Lenders) filed an amended adversary complaint in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico against the Oversight Board, PREPA, the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority (AAFAF), U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for PREPA bondholders, and various PREPA bondholders and bond insurers, including AGC and AGM. The complaint seeks, among other things, declarations that the advances made by the Fuel Line Lenders are Current Expenses as defined in the trust agreement pursuant to which the PREPA bonds were issued and there is no valid lien securing the PREPA bonds unless and until the Fuel Line Lenders are paid in full, as well as orders subordinating the PREPA bondholders’ lien and claim to the Fuel Line Lenders’ claims and declaring the PREPA RSA null and void. A hearing on a motion to dismiss is scheduled for June 2020.

On October 30, 2019, the retirement system for PREPA employees (SREAEE) filed an amended adversary complaint in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico against the Oversight Board, PREPA, AAFAF, the Commonwealth, the Governor, and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for PREPA bondholders. The complaint seeks, among other things, declarations that amounts owed to SREAEE are Current Expenses as defined in the trust agreement pursuant to which the PREPA bonds were issued, that there is no valid lien securing the PREPA bonds other than on amounts in the sinking funds and that SREAEE is a third-party beneficiary of certain trust agreement provisions, as well as orders subordinating the PREPA bondholders’ lien and claim to the SREAEE claims. On November 7, 2019, the court granted a motion to intervene by AGC and AGM. A hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss is scheduled for June 2020.

On January 16, 2020, AGM and AGC along with certain other monoline insurers filed in Federal District Court for Puerto Rico a motion (amending and superseding a motion filed by AGM and AGC on August 23, 2019) for relief from the automatic stay imposed pursuant to Title III of PROMESA to permit movants to enforce in another forum the application of the revenues securing the PRHTA Bonds (the “PRHTA Revenues”) or, in the alternative, for adequate protection for their property interests in PRHTA Revenues.

On January 16, 2020, the Financial Oversight and Management Board brought an adversary proceeding in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico against AGM, AGC and other insurers of PRHTA Bonds, objecting to the bond insurers claims in the Commonwealth Title III proceedings and seeking to disallow such claims, among other reasons, as being duplicative of the master claims filed by the trustee, for lack of standing and for any assertions of secured status or property interests with respect to PRHTA Revenues.

On January 16, 2020, the Financial Oversight and Management Board, on behalf of the PRHTA, brought an adversary proceeding in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico against AGM, AGC and other insurers of PRHTA Bonds, objecting to the bond insurers claims in the PRHTA Title III proceedings and seeking to disallow such claims, among other reasons, as being duplicative of the master claims filed by the trustee and for any assertions of secured status or property interests with respect to PRHTA Revenues.

On January 16, 2020, AGM and AGC along with certain other monoline insurers and the trustee for the PRIFA Rum Tax Bonds filed in Federal District Court for Puerto Rico a motion concerning application of the automatic stay to the revenues securing the PRIFA Bonds (the PRIFA Revenues), seeking an order lifting the automatic stay so that movants can enforce rights respecting the PRIFA Revenues in another forum or, in the alternative, that the Commonwealth must provide adequate protection for movants’ lien on the PRIFA Revenues.

On January 16, 2020, the Financial Oversight and Management Board brought an adversary proceeding in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico against AGC and other insurers of PRIFA Bonds, objecting to the bond insurers claims and seeking to disallow such claims, among other reasons, as being duplicative of the master claims filed by the trustee, for lack of standing and for any assertions of secured status or ownership interests with respect to PRIFA Revenues.

On January 16, 2020, AGM and AGC along with certain other monoline insurers and the trustee for the PRCCDA Bonds filed in Federal District Court for Puerto Rico a motion concerning application of the automatic stay to the revenues securing the PRCCDA Bonds (the PRCCDA Revenues), seeking an order that an action to enforce rights respecting the PRCCDA Revenues in another forum is not subject to the automatic stay associated with the Commonwealth’s Title III proceeding or, in the alternative, if the court finds that the stay is applicable, lifting the automatic stay so that movants can enforce such rights in another forum or, in the further alternative, if the court finds the automatic stay applicable and does not lift it, that the Commonwealth must provide adequate protection for movants’ lien on the PRCCDA Revenues.

On January 16, 2020, the Financial Oversight and Management Board brought an adversary proceeding in the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico against AGC and other insurers of PRCCDA Bonds, objecting to the bond insurers claims and seeking to disallow such claims, among other reasons, as being duplicative of the master claims filed by the trustee and for any assertions of secured status or property interests with respect to PRCCDA Revenues.

Puerto Rico Par and Debt Service Schedules

All Puerto Rico exposures are internally rated BIG. The following tables show the Company’s insured exposure to general obligation bonds of Puerto Rico and various obligations of its related authorities and public corporations.

Puerto Rico

Gross Par and Gross Debt Service Outstanding

	Gross Par Outstanding				Gross Debt Service Outstanding
	December 31, 2019		December 31, 2018		December 31, 2019		December 31, 2018
	(in millions)
Exposure to Puerto Rico	$	4,458	$	4,971	$	6,956	$	8,035

Puerto Rico

Net Par Outstanding

	As of December 31, 2019		As of December 31, 2018
	(in millions)
Commonwealth Constitutionally Guaranteed
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico - General Obligation Bonds (1)	$	1,253	$	1,340
PBA	140		142
Public Corporations - Certain Revenues Potentially Subject to Clawback
PRHTA (Transportation revenue) (1)	811		844
PRHTA (Highways revenue) (1)	454		475
PRCCDA	152		152
PRIFA	16		16
Other Public Corporations
PREPA (1)	822		848
PRASA	373		373
MFA	248		303
COFINA	—		273
U of PR	1		1
Total net exposure to Puerto Rico	$	4,270	$	4,767

____________________

(1) As of the date of this filing, the Oversight Board has certified a filing under Title III of PROMESA for these exposures.

The following table shows the scheduled amortization of the insured general obligation bonds of Puerto Rico and various obligations of its related authorities and public corporations. The Company guarantees payments of interest and principal when those amounts are scheduled to be paid and cannot be required to pay on an accelerated basis. In the event that obligors default on their obligations, the Company would only be required to pay the shortfall between the principal and interest due in any given period and the amount paid by the obligors.

Amortization Schedule of Puerto Rico Net Par Outstanding

and Net Debt Service Outstanding

As of December 31, 2019

	Scheduled Net Par Amortization		Scheduled Net Debt Service Amortization
	(in millions)
2020 (January 1 - March 31)	$	—	$	106
2020 (April 1 - June 30)	—		3
2020 (July 1 - September 30)	286		392
2020 (October 1 - December 31)	—		3
Subtotal 2020	286		504
2021	149		351
2022	139		332
2023	205		392
2024	222		398
2025-2029	1,158		1,862
2030-2034	1,021		1,484
2035-2039	740		917
2040-2044	104		179
2045-2047	246		272
Total	$	4,270	$	6,691

Exposure to the U.S. Virgin Islands

As of December 31, 2019, the Company had $485 million insured net par outstanding to the U.S. Virgin Islands and its related authorities (USVI), of which it rated $218 million BIG. The $267 million USVI net par the Company rated investment grade primarily consisted of bonds secured by a lien on matching fund revenues related to excise taxes on products produced in the USVI and exported to the U.S., primarily rum. The $218 million BIG USVI net par consisted of (a) Public Finance Authority bonds secured by a gross receipts tax and the general obligation, full faith and credit pledge of the USVI and (b) bonds of the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority secured by a net revenue pledge of the electric system.

Hurricane Irma caused significant damage in St. John and St. Thomas, while Hurricane Maria made landfall on St. Croix as a Category 4 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale, causing loss of life and substantial damage to St. Croix’s businesses and infrastructure, including the power grid. The USVI is benefiting from the federal response to the 2017 hurricanes and has made its debt service payments to date.

Specialty Insurance and Reinsurance Exposure

The Company also provides specialty insurance and reinsurance on transactions with similar risk profiles to its structured finance exposures written in financial guaranty form. All specialty insurance and reinsurance exposures shown in the table below are rated investment grade internally.

Specialty Insurance and Reinsurance

Exposure

	Gross Exposure				Net Exposure
	As of December 31, 2019		As of December 31, 2018		As of December 31, 2019		As of December 31, 2018
	(in millions)
Life insurance transactions (1)	$	1,046	$	880	$	898	$	763
Aircraft residual value insurance policies	398		340		243		218

____________________

(1)

The life insurance transactions net exposure is projected to increase to approximately $1.0 billion by December 31, 2023.