COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The following commitments and contingencies provide an update of those discussed in “Note 18: Commitments and Contingencies” in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, and should be read in conjunction with the complete descriptions provided in the aforementioned Form 10-K.

The Segregated Account and Wisconsin Rehabilitation Proceeding

Various third parties filed motions or objections in the Rehabilitation Court and/or moved to intervene in the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Proceeding. On January 24, 2011, the Rehabilitation Court issued its Decision and Final Order Confirming the Rehabilitator’s Plan of Rehabilitation, with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (the “Confirmation Order”). Notices of appeal from the Confirmation Order were filed by various parties, including policyholders. On October 24, 2013, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the Confirmation Order and the Rehabilitation Court’s rejection of the objections filed by various third parties before entry of the Confirmation Order. On November 22, 2013, petitions seeking discretionary review of this ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court were filed by (1) Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee for certain insured bonds issued by the Las Vegas Monorail Co., and four Eaton Vance entities claiming to own some number of these bonds; and (2) Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, and U.S. Bank National Association, all as trustees for certain insured bonds or obligations. Additionally, on December 6, 2013, the Customer Asset Protection Company (“CAPCO”) filed a Response to these two petitions for review in which CAPCO took no position on whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court should grant the petitions, but asked the court to allow further consideration of Wis. Stat. § 645.68 if it does grant the petitions for review. The Rehabilitator responded by opposing further review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On March 17, 2014, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin denied the petitions for review making the decision by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals final and controlling law.

On February 13, 2014, the Rehabilitation Court approved a motion seeking approval for the Rehabilitator and the Segregated Account to disburse settlement proceeds from RMBS remediation claims as permitted policy claim payments, with such distributions to include (i) paying claims payments in excess of the then applicable claims cash payment percentage, and/or (ii) paying all or portions of unpaid permitted policy claims (such policy claim payments, “Special Policy Payments”).

On April 21, 2014, the Rehabilitator filed a motion with the Rehabilitation Court seeking approval to amend the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan (the “Amendment Motion”). On May 20, 2014 and June 5, 2014, the Rehabilitator filed supplements to his Amendment Motion, further supplementing and amending his amendments to the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan. The Rehabilitation Court heard and granted the Amendment Motion on June 11, 2014. The amendments modify the treatment of claims under the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan, as more fully described in Note 1. Moreover, the Rehabilitator will increase the percentage of the initial cash Interim Payment for permitted policy claims, pay certain Deferred Amounts, together with interest thereon, and make corresponding payments on surplus notes (other than junior surplus notes), as more fully described in Note 1.

On June 9, 2014, the Rehabilitator filed in the Rehabilitation Court a motion to confirm and declare the reimbursement amounts due with respect to cash claim payments made by Ambac Assurance and the Segregated Account on two policies. Certain investors filed objections to the motion on July 2, 2014. On July 7, 2014, after a hearing on the motion, the Rehabilitation Court granted the Rehabilitator’s motion. On August 20, 2014, a group of investors filed a notice of appeal. The appellants’ opening brief was filed on November 5, 2014. The Rehabilitator’s response brief is due on December 5, 2014.

Litigation Against Ambac

County of Alameda et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, second amended complaint filed on or about August 23, 2011); Contra Costa County et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, third amended complaint filed on or about October 21, 2011); The Olympic Club v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, fourth amended complaint filed on or about October 21, 2011). Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of the current amended complaints on September 21, 2011, which was denied on October 20, 2011. On December 2, 2011, Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants filed a special motion to strike the current amended complaints under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute (Calif. Code of Civ. Proc. Section 425.16). On May 1, 2012, the Court ruled that the complaints were governed by the Anti-SLAPP statute to the extent they alleged conspiracy to influence the rating agencies’ rating methodologies, but not to the extent that the complaints alleged false or misleading statements or nondisclosures. After oral argument on March 21, 2013, the court dismissed claims related to the conspiracy branch of the complaint under the California Antitrust Law (the Cartwright Act) and after oral argument on April 22, 2013 denied defendants’ motion to dismiss claims under the California Unfair Competition Law. The court entered an order to this effect on July 9, 2013. On September 9, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the July 9^th Order and on September 30, 2013, Ambac Assurance filed a notice of cross-appeal. On September 9, 2013, the parties filed motions for attorneys’ fees in connection with the portions of the Anti-SLAPP motions on which they were successful. The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for fees from the bench on November 8, 2013. On March 26, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ motions for attorneys’ fees awarding Ambac Assurance approximately $207. On July 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the court’s decision awarding attorneys’ fees to Ambac Assurance and the other defendants. Also on July 7, 2014, the Bond Insurer Defendants filed their appellate brief appealing the July 9^th Order. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Bond Insurer Defendants’ appellate brief and plaintiffs’ affirmative brief on their cross-motion were filed on November 5, 2014.

Broadbill Partners LP et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed November 8, 2012). Ambac Assurance filed a motion to dismiss on January 15, 2013, which the plaintiffs opposed. The Court held oral argument on September 11, 2013. On March 12, 2014, the court granted Ambac Assurance’s motion dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on March 31, 2014.

Ambac Assurance’s estimates of projected losses for RMBS transactions consider, among other things, the RMBS transactions’ payment waterfall structure, including the application of interest and principal payments and recoveries, and depend in part on our interpretations of contracts and other bases of our legal rights. From time to time, bond trustees and other transaction participants have employed different contractual interpretations. Ambac Assurance has been made aware that a transaction participant has directed a bond trustee to employ a different waterfall interpretation in a RMBS transaction, which may lead to the commencement of legal action. It is not possible to predict whether additional disputes will arise, nor the outcomes of any potential litigation. It is possible that there could be unfavorable outcomes in this or other disputes or proceedings and that our interpretations may prove to be incorrect, which could lead to changes to our estimate of loss reserves.

It is not reasonably possible to predict whether additional suits will be filed or whether additional inquiries or requests for information will be made, and it is also not possible to predict the outcome of litigation, inquiries or requests for information. It is possible that there could be unfavorable outcomes in these or other proceedings. Legal accruals for certain litigation against Ambac which are probable and reasonably estimable, and management’s estimated range of loss for such matters, are not material to the operating results or financial position of the Company. For the remaining litigation matters Ambac is defending that do not meet the “probable and reasonably estimable” accrual threshold and where no loss estimates have been provided above, management is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from unfavorable outcomes but, under some circumstances, adverse results in any such proceedings could be material to our business, operations, financial position, profitability or cash flows. The Company believes that it has substantial defenses to the claims above and, to the extent that these actions proceed, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously; however, the Company is not able to predict the outcomes of these actions.

Litigation Filed by Ambac

In the ordinary course of their businesses, certain of Ambac’s subsidiaries assert claims in legal proceedings against third parties to recover losses already paid and/or mitigate future losses. The amounts recovered and/or losses avoided which may result from these proceedings is uncertain, although recoveries and/or losses avoided in any one or more of these proceedings during any quarter or fiscal year could be material to Ambac’s results of operations in that quarter or fiscal year.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Adelanto Public Utility Authority (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, filed on June 1, 2009). On January 11, 2013 the court granted Ambac Assurance’s motion for summary judgment on all claims except Ambac Assurance’s claim for specific performance (as to which no summary judgment motion was made) and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Following a hearing on August 23, 2013, the court issued an order on August 29, 2013, awarding Ambac interest on the termination payment as well as legal fees and expenses as of March 31, 2013. In order to expedite the disposition of any appeals, Ambac Assurance filed a motion for the entry of final judgment for the claims upon which summary judgment was awarded and the defendant moved for the entry of final judgment on the dismissal in 2011 of all its counterclaims against Ambac Assurance. On March 6, 2014, the court granted both motions and entered final judgment on March 8, 2014 on the dismissal of defendant’s counterclaims and on the claims for which Ambac Assurance was granted summary judgment awarding Ambac Assurance approximately $7,760 as of March 11, 2014. Defendant filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 9, 2014. On June 26, 2014, the District Court granted Ambac Assurance’s motion for permission to register the judgment in its favor with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California notwithstanding the pendency of Defendant’s Second Circuit appeal and denied Defendant’s cross-motion for a stay of enforcement pending appeal with a partial supersedeas bond, and the judgment has been registered in the Central District. In the meantime, defendant’s Second Circuit appeal schedule has been repeatedly adjourned with the consent of Ambac Assurance while discussions concerning defendant’s satisfaction of the judgment occur under the auspices of the mediation program of the Court of Appeals.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. City of Detroit, Michigan, Kevyn D. Orr, John Naglick, Michael Jamison and Cheryl Johnson (United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division, filed on November 8, 2013). In July, 2014, the parties finalized settlement agreements pursuant to which, among other things, the litigation would be stayed pending the issuance of either an approval order concerning the settlement agreements or a confirmation order concerning the City of Detroit’s plan of adjustment and the occurrence of the effective date in the City’s bankruptcy proceedings. The Court stayed the litigation on September 16, 2014. Subsequently, on October 6, 2014, the Court issued an order dismissing the litigation without prejudice to having it reinstated at a later date if necessary.

In connection with Ambac Assurance’s efforts to seek redress for breaches of representations and warranties and fraud related to the information provided by both the underwriters and the sponsors of various transactions and for failure to comply with the obligation by the sponsors to repurchase ineligible loans, Ambac Assurance has filed various lawsuits, which are listed and described in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, as supplemented and updated below:

•

Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. EMC Mortgage LLC (formerly known as EMC Mortgage Corporation), J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. (formerly known as Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.), and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed March 30, 2012 and amended on August 14, 2012). On June 13, 2013, the court dismissed Ambac Assurance’s contractual claims but not its claims for fraudulent inducement or successor liability. Ambac Assurance appealed the trial court’s decision. On October 16, 2014, the Appellate Division for the First Department affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. Ambac Assurance filed for leave to re-argue, or in the alternative to appeal, the decision. With respect to the claims that remain in the case, discovery is ongoing.

•

Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. First Franklin Financial Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc., and Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors, Inc. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed April 16, 2012). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 13, 2012, which Ambac opposed on September 21, 2012. Oral argument was held on May 6, 2013. On July 18, 2013 the court dismissed Ambac Assurance’s claims for indemnification and limited Ambac Assurance’s claim for breach of loan-level warranties to the repurchase protocol, but did not dismiss Ambac Assurance’s other contractual claims or fraudulent inducement claim. On August 21, 2013, defendants filed a notice of appeal, and on August 30, 2013, Ambac Assurance filed a notice of cross-appeal. On April 22, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation withdrawing defendants’ appeal and Ambac Assurance’s cross-appeal of the court’s July 18, 2013 decision. Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been set.

•

Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Capital One, N.A., as successor by merger to Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed on October 24, 2012). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 6, 2013, which Ambac Assurance opposed. The court held oral argument on March 7, 2013 and on March 27, 2014, the court ordered the motion withdrawn. Defendant filed its answer on April 11, 2014. On June 16, 2014, the court entered an order discontinuing the litigation with prejudice pursuant to stipulation signed by the parties.

•

Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc. and Nomura Holding America Inc. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed on April 15, 2013). On September 22, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging claims for fraudulent inducement, material breach of contract and for the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties under the contracts, as well as damages. Pursuant to court order, on October 29, 2014, the parties submitted supplemental briefing on the impact, if any, of the First Department’s appellate decision in Ambac v. EMC on defendants’ pending motion to dismiss. On October 31, 2014 defendants filed a motion to strike the amended complaint. Plaintiffs intend to oppose the motion and to file a cross motion for leave to amend by November 14, 2014.