Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Note 9 - Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company and its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant in various lawsuits or proceedings. At the current time except as set forth below, the Company is unaware of any legal proceedings pending against the Company. The Company intends to aggressively contest all litigation and contingencies, as well as pursue all sources for contributions to settlements. The Company is a party to a lawsuit as follows: AmBase Corp., et al. v. 111 West 57^th Sponsor LLC, et al. In April 2016, AmBase initiated a litigation in the New York State Supreme Court for New York County (the “NY Court”), Index No. 652301/2016, (“AmBase v. 111 West 57^th Sponsor LLC, et al.”) (the “111 West 57^th Action”). The defendants in that litigation are 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, 111 West 57th JDS LLC, PMG West 57th Street LLC, 111 West 57th Control LLC, 111 West 57th Developer LLC, Elliot Joseph, 111 West 57^th KM Equity LLC, 111 West 57^th KM Group LLC, Kevin Maloney, Matthew Phillips, Michael Stern, Ned White and Franklin R. Kaiman (collectively, “Defendants”) and nominal defendant 111 West 57th Partners LLC. AmBase alleges in that action, among other claims, that the Defendants engaged in an unlawful scheme to dilute AmBase’s equity interest in the joint real estate venture 111 West 57^th Partners, and to keep for themselves certain financing opportunities in breach of Defendants’ contractual and fiduciary duties. The complaint also alleges that defendants have failed to honor the exercise of AmBase's contractual “equity put right” as set forth in the JV Agreement (the “Equity Put Right”). AmBase is seeking compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages, indemnification and equitable relief including a declaration of the parties’ rights, an accounting and a constructive trust over distributions received by the Defendants. The complaint in this action has been filed, a motion to dismiss is pending and discovery is ongoing. The Company has also demanded from the Sponsors access to the books and records for the 111 West 57^th Property which the Sponsors have refused, claiming they have provided all books and records as required. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property, see Note 4. AmBase Corp., et al. v. Spruce Capital Partners, et al. In July 2017, the Company initiated a second litigation in the NY Court, Index No. 655031/2017, (the “111 West 57^th Spruce Action”). The defendants in the 111 West 57^th Spruce action are 111 W57 Mezz Investor, LLC, Spruce Capital Partners LLC, 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, Michael Z. Stern, and Kevin P. Maloney (collectively, “Defendants”) and nominal defendants 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57^th Mezz 1 LLC. Spruce had given notice to the junior mezzanine borrower that it proposed to accept the pledged collateral (including the joint venture members’ collective interest in the property) in full satisfaction of the joint venture’s indebtedness under the Junior Mezzanine Loan (i.e., a “Strict Foreclosure”). After the Sponsors refused to object to Spruce’s proposal on behalf of the junior mezzanine borrower, and Spruce refused to commit to honor Investment LLC’s objection on its own behalf, the Company initiated this litigation to obtain injunctive relief halting the Strict Foreclosure. For additional information on the events leading to this litigation see Note 4. On July 26, 2017, the NY Court issued a temporary restraining order barring Spruce from accepting the collateral, pending a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for August 14, 2017. Spruce and the Sponsors subsequently filed papers in opposition to the request for a preliminary injunction and cross-motions to dismiss and quash subpoenas. On August 14, 2017, the NY Court postponed the hearing until August 28, 2017, keeping the temporary restraining order preventing a Strict Foreclosure in effect until the August 28, 2017, hearing. Subsequently the Company filed response briefs in support of their request for injunctive relief halting the Strict Foreclosure process and briefs in opposition to the motions to quash the subpoenas. On August 28, 2017, the NY Court held a preliminary injunction hearing, lifted the temporary restraining order, denied Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, and granted Defendants’ cross-motions. In order to prevent the Strict Foreclosure process from going forward, the Company immediately obtained an interim stay from the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Judicial Department (“Appellate Division”). That stay remained in place until four (4) P.M. August 29, 2017, permitting the Company to obtain an appealable order, notice an appeal, and move for a longer-term stay or injunctive relief pending appeal. The Appellate Division held a hearing on August 29, 2017, to consider the Company’s motion for an interim stay or injunctive relief pending appeal, both of which it denied, thus allowing the purported Strict Foreclosure to move forward. The Company will continue to challenge the validity of the actions that led to this purported transfer of title, including appeal. On August 30, 2017, Spruce issued a Notice of Retention of Pledged Collateral in Full Satisfaction of Indebtedness. By accepting the pledged collateral, pursuant to a Strict Foreclosure process, Spruce claims to have completed the retention of the collateral pledged by the junior mezzanine borrower, and therefore, the Company’s interest in the 111 West 57th Street Property. That investment represented substantially all of the Company’s assets and net equity value. The Company’s motion for a stay or injunctive relief pending appeal has not yet been resolved. 111 W57 Mezz Investor, LLC and Spruce Capital Partners LLC filed an opposition to that motion on September 15, 2017, and the Company filed its reply brief on September 22, 2017. Since the Company is not party to the Loan Agreements, it does not have access to communications with the lenders, except for those individual communications the Sponsors have elected to share. The Company has continued to demand access to such information, including access to the books and records for the 111 West 57^th Property both under the JV Agreement and as part of the 111 West 57^th Action and the 111 West 57^th Spruce Action. For additional information with regard to the Company’s recording of an impairment of its equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property; see Note 4. The carrying value of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property represented substantially all of the Company’s assets and net equity value. For information relating to the Litigation Funding Agreement entered into between the Company and Mr. Richard A. Bianco, the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, see Note 10. With respect to its disputes and litigation relating to its interest in the 111 West 57th Property, the Company is continuing to pursue various legal courses of action, as well as considering other possible economic strategies, including the possible sale of the Company’s interest in and/or rights with respect to the 111 West 57th Property. The Company is continuing to pursue other options to realize the Company’s investment value and/or protect its legal rights. The Company can give no assurances regarding the outcome of the matters described herein, including as to the effect of Spruce’s actions described herein, whether the Sponsors will perform their contractual commitments to the Company under the JV Agreement, as to what further action, if any, the lenders may take with respect to the project, as to the ultimate resolution of the ongoing litigation proceedings relating to the Company’s investment interest in the 111 West 57^th Property, as to the ultimate effect of the Sponsors’, the Company’s or the lenders’ actions on the project, or as to the completion or ultimate success of the project, or the value or ultimate realization of any portion of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Street Property. While the Company’s management is evaluating future courses of action to recover the value of the Company’s equity investment, the adverse developments make it uncertain as to whether any such courses of action will be successful in recovering value for the Company. Any such efforts are likely to require sustained effort over a period of time, and require substantial additional financial resources. Inability to recover all or most of such value would in all likelihood have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and future prospects.

Note 9 - Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company and its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant in various lawsuits or proceedings. At the current time except as set forth below, the Company is unaware of any legal proceedings pending against the Company. The Company intends to aggressively contest all litigation and contingencies, as well as pursue all sources for contributions to settlements.

The Company is a party to a lawsuit as follows:

AmBase Corp., et al. v. 111 West 57^th Sponsor LLC, et al. In April 2016, AmBase initiated a litigation in the New York State Supreme Court for New York County (the “NY Court”), Index No. 652301/2016, (“AmBase v. 111 West 57^th Sponsor LLC, et al.”) (the “111 West 57^th Action”). The defendants in that litigation are 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, 111 West 57th JDS LLC, PMG West 57th Street LLC, 111 West 57th Control LLC, 111 West 57th Developer LLC, Elliot Joseph, 111 West 57^th KM Equity LLC, 111 West 57^th KM Group LLC, Kevin Maloney, Matthew Phillips, Michael Stern, Ned White and Franklin R. Kaiman (collectively, “Defendants”) and nominal defendant 111 West 57th Partners LLC. AmBase alleges in that action, among other claims, that the Defendants engaged in an unlawful scheme to dilute AmBase’s equity interest in the joint real estate venture 111 West 57^th Partners, and to keep for themselves certain financing opportunities in breach of Defendants’ contractual and fiduciary duties. The complaint also alleges that defendants have failed to honor the exercise of AmBase's contractual “equity put right” as set forth in the JV Agreement (the “Equity Put Right”). AmBase is seeking compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages, indemnification and equitable relief including a declaration of the parties’ rights, an accounting and a constructive trust over distributions received by the Defendants. The complaint in this action has been filed, a motion to dismiss is pending and discovery is ongoing. The Company has also demanded from the Sponsors access to the books and records for the 111 West 57^th Property which the Sponsors have refused, claiming they have provided all books and records as required. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property, see Note 4.

AmBase Corp., et al. v. Spruce Capital Partners, et al. In July 2017, the Company initiated a second litigation in the NY Court, Index No. 655031/2017, (the “111 West 57^th Spruce Action”). The defendants in the 111 West 57^th Spruce action are 111 W57 Mezz Investor, LLC, Spruce Capital Partners LLC, 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, Michael Z. Stern, and Kevin P. Maloney (collectively, “Defendants”) and nominal defendants 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57^th Mezz 1 LLC.

Spruce had given notice to the junior mezzanine borrower that it proposed to accept the pledged collateral (including the joint venture members’ collective interest in the property) in full satisfaction of the joint venture’s indebtedness under the Junior Mezzanine Loan (i.e., a “Strict Foreclosure”). After the Sponsors refused to object to Spruce’s proposal on behalf of the junior mezzanine borrower, and Spruce refused to commit to honor Investment LLC’s objection on its own behalf, the Company initiated this litigation to obtain injunctive relief halting the Strict Foreclosure. For additional information on the events leading to this litigation see Note 4.

On July 26, 2017, the NY Court issued a temporary restraining order barring Spruce from accepting the collateral, pending a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for August 14, 2017. Spruce and the Sponsors subsequently filed papers in opposition to the request for a preliminary injunction and cross-motions to dismiss and quash subpoenas. On August 14, 2017, the NY Court postponed the hearing until August 28, 2017, keeping the temporary restraining order preventing a Strict Foreclosure in effect until the August 28, 2017, hearing. Subsequently the Company filed response briefs in support of their request for injunctive relief halting the Strict Foreclosure process and briefs in opposition to the motions to quash the subpoenas.

On August 28, 2017, the NY Court held a preliminary injunction hearing, lifted the temporary restraining order, denied Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, and granted Defendants’ cross-motions. In order to prevent the Strict Foreclosure process from going forward, the Company immediately obtained an interim stay from the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Judicial Department (“Appellate Division”). That stay remained in place until four (4) P.M. August 29, 2017, permitting the Company to obtain an appealable order, notice an appeal, and move for a longer-term stay or injunctive relief pending appeal. The Appellate Division held a hearing on August 29, 2017, to consider the Company’s motion for an interim stay or injunctive relief pending appeal, both of which it denied, thus allowing the purported Strict Foreclosure to move forward. The Company will continue to challenge the validity of the actions that led to this purported transfer of title, including appeal.

On August 30, 2017, Spruce issued a Notice of Retention of Pledged Collateral in Full Satisfaction of Indebtedness. By accepting the pledged collateral, pursuant to a Strict Foreclosure process, Spruce claims to have completed the retention of the collateral pledged by the junior mezzanine borrower, and therefore, the Company’s interest in the 111 West 57th Street Property. That investment represented substantially all of the Company’s assets and net equity value.

The Company’s motion for a stay or injunctive relief pending appeal has not yet been resolved. 111 W57 Mezz Investor, LLC and Spruce Capital Partners LLC filed an opposition to that motion on September 15, 2017, and the Company filed its reply brief on September 22, 2017.

Since the Company is not party to the Loan Agreements, it does not have access to communications with the lenders, except for those individual communications the Sponsors have elected to share. The Company has continued to demand access to such information, including access to the books and records for the 111 West 57^th Property both under the JV Agreement and as part of the 111 West 57^th Action and the 111 West 57^th Spruce Action.

For additional information with regard to the Company’s recording of an impairment of its equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property; see Note 4. The carrying value of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property represented substantially all of the Company’s assets and net equity value.

For information relating to the Litigation Funding Agreement entered into between the Company and Mr. Richard A. Bianco, the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, see Note 10.

With respect to its disputes and litigation relating to its interest in the 111 West 57th Property, the Company is continuing to pursue various legal courses of action, as well as considering other possible economic strategies, including the possible sale of the Company’s interest in and/or rights with respect to the 111 West 57th Property. The Company is continuing to pursue other options to realize the Company’s investment value and/or protect its legal rights.

The Company can give no assurances regarding the outcome of the matters described herein, including as to the effect of Spruce’s actions described herein, whether the Sponsors will perform their contractual commitments to the Company under the JV Agreement, as to what further action, if any, the lenders may take with respect to the project, as to the ultimate resolution of the ongoing litigation proceedings relating to the Company’s investment interest in the 111 West 57^th Property, as to the ultimate effect of the Sponsors’, the Company’s or the lenders’ actions on the project, or as to the completion or ultimate success of the project, or the value or ultimate realization of any portion of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Street Property.

While the Company’s management is evaluating future courses of action to recover the value of the Company’s equity investment, the adverse developments make it uncertain as to whether any such courses of action will be successful in recovering value for the Company. Any such efforts are likely to require sustained effort over a period of time, and require substantial additional financial resources. Inability to recover all or most of such value would in all likelihood have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and future prospects.