COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Ambac is responsible for leases on the rental of office space. The executive office of Ambac is located in New York City under a lease agreement that expires in December 2015. The lease has a provision where Ambac Assurance can remain at One State Street Plaza through September 2019 (requires consent of both parties) with the potential for a reduced amount of space. In February 2015, both parties committed to extending the lease term with the rental cost still to be determined. Ambac leases additional space for its data center, disaster recovery site and for its international locations under lease agreements that expire periodically through October 2020. An estimate of future net minimum lease payments in each of the next five years ending December 31, and the periods thereafter, is as follows:



	Amount
2015	$	5,679
2016	533
2017	533
2018	533
2019	416
All later years	324
	$	8,018

The Segregated Account and Wisconsin Rehabilitation Proceeding

On March 24, 2010, Ambac Assurance established a segregated account (the “Segregated Account”) and allocated to the Segregated Account certain financial guaranty insurance policies and other contingent liabilities, certain claims and other rights, and certain equity interests in subsidiaries. An insurance rehabilitation proceeding (the “Rehabilitation Proceeding”) was commenced with respect to the Segregated Account in the Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County (the “Rehabilitation Court”) on March 24, 2010 by the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Wisconsin (the “Commissioner”) and the Rehabilitation Court entered an order of rehabilitation for the Segregated Account, appointing the Commissioner as Rehabilitator, and entered orders enjoining certain actions that could have an adverse effect on the financial condition of the Segregated Account.

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. These appeals challenged various provisions of the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan and actions the Rehabilitator or the Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance had taken in formulating the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan. These appeals from the Confirmation Order were consolidated with earlier-filed appeals challenging, among other things, the issuance of injunctive relief and a settlement between Ambac Assurance and various financial institutions. 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 various parties. 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 January 17, 2014, the Rehabilitator filed a motion to obtain court approval to disburse settlement proceeds as permitted policy claim payments to specific policyholders as required by a settlement entered into with Residential Capital, LLC and related debtors in bankruptcy proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “ResCap Settlement”). In addition to seeking this approval with respect to the ResCap Settlement, the motion sought the court’s confirmation of the Rehabilitator’s authority to distribute proceeds from settlements of RMBS remediation claims as he deems appropriate and in the best interests of the Segregated Account and such distributions may include (i) paying claims by making payments in excess of the then applicable claims cash payment percentage, and/or (ii) paying all or portions of unpaid permitted policy claims. On February 7, 2014, three RMBS trustees jointly filed a partial objection to the motion. On February 13, 2014, the Rehabilitation Court heard argument on this motion and issued an order approving the Rehabilitator’s motion.

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 approved amendments modify the treatment of claims under the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan, as more fully described in Note 1. Background and Business Description. Following approval of such amendments by the Rehabilitation Court, the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan, as amended, became effective on June 12, 2014, as more fully described in Note 1. Background and Business Description.

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 was filed on December 8, 2014, and the appellants’ reply brief was filed on December 23, 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) (“Alameda Complaint”); 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) (“Contra Costa Complaint”); 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) (“Olympic Club Complaint”). The Contra Costa Complaint was brought on behalf of five California municipal entities and the non-profit Jewish Community Center of San Francisco. The Alameda Complaint was brought on behalf of nineteen California municipal entities. The Olympic Club Complaint was brought on behalf of the non-profit Olympic Club. The three actions make similar allegations against Ambac Assurance, various other financial guarantee insurance companies and employees thereof (collectively with Ambac Assurance, the “Bond Insurer Defendants”), and, in the case of the Contra Costa Complaint and the Olympic Club Complaint, the major credit rating agencies (the “Rating Agencies”). The actions allege that (1) Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants colluded with the Rating Agencies to perpetuate a “dual rating system” pursuant to which the Rating Agencies rated the debt obligations of municipal issuers differently from corporate debt obligations, thereby keeping municipal ratings artificially low relative to corporate ratings; (2) Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants issued false and misleading financial statements and failed to disclose the extent of the insurers’ respective exposures to mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations; and (3) as a result of these actions, plaintiffs incurred higher interest costs and bond insurance premiums in respect of their respective bond issues. Ambac Financial Group was originally a defendant in each of these actions, but on November 22, 2010, Ambac Financial Group was dismissed without prejudice as a defendant by the plaintiffs in each of these actions. 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). A hearing on the motion was held on March 23, 2012. 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 9th 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. This appeal was dismissed on December 19, 2014. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to reinstate the appeal, stating that it should only have been dismissed as against one defendant with whom plaintiffs settled. Ambac did not oppose that motion, which was granted on January 29, 2015. Also on July 7, 2014, the Bond Insurer Defendants filed their appellate brief appealing the July 9th Order. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Bond Insurer Defendants’ appellate brief and plaintiffs’ affirmative brief on their cross-motion were filed on November 5, 2014. The defendants’ brief in opposition to plaintiffs’ appeal and in further support of their cross-appeal was filed on February 3, 2015.

NPS LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation (United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, filed on July 8, 2008). This action was brought by NPS LLC (“NPS”), the owner of Gillette Stadium, the home stadium of the New England Patriots, with respect to the termination of a financial guarantee insurance policy issued by Ambac Assurance relating to auction rate bonds issued by NPS in 2006. Due to well-documented disruption of the auction rate securities market, the interest rate on the bonds floated to high levels and NPS therefore refinanced the bonds in a fixed rate financing without Ambac Assurance’s involvement. Pursuant to the insurance agreement between NPS and Ambac Assurance, NPS is obligated to pay a “make whole” premium to Ambac Assurance equal to the present value of the installment premiums that Ambac Assurance would have earned through 2017 if the bonds had not been redeemed (approximately $2,700). NPS alleged that it is not liable to pay the “make whole” premium because Ambac Assurance misrepresented its financial condition at the time the bonds were issued and that the alleged misrepresentations induced NPS to enter into the insurance agreement, thereby causing NPS to incur additional interest costs in connection with the bonds. NPS also alleged that Ambac Assurance was liable to NPS for the additional interest costs incurred by NPS which resulted from the disruption of the auction rate securities market. On February 25, 2010, the court granted Ambac Assurance’s motion for summary judgment as to all of NPS’s claims and Ambac Assurance’s counterclaim for the “make whole” premium and interest and costs. The parties are awaiting a determination by the court of the amount of Ambac Assurance’s legal fees that NPS will be required to pay. NPS has stated that it intends to appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of Ambac Assurance.

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). Plaintiffs, alleged owners of Ambac Assurance preferred stock, commenced litigation against Ambac Assurance asserting claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, resulting trust and rescission related to Ambac Assurance’s exercise in or about December 2008 of rights under put option agreements with certain trusts. Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the improper exercise of such rights, Ambac Assurance received approximately $800,000 in trust assets from the trusts in exchange for nearly worthless shares of Ambac Assurance preferred stock, which were thereafter delivered to the holders of the securities issued by the trusts. Plaintiffs seek damages, the imposition of a constructive trust, rescission and attorney’s fees. 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 but to date they have not perfected their appeal or filed any appellate brief. Plaintiffs’ deadline for timely perfecting the appeal expired on December 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.

Ambac Assurance has periodically received various regulatory inquiries and requests for information with respect to investigations and inquiries that such regulators are conducting. Ambac Assurance has complied with all such inquiries and requests for information.

Ambac is involved from time to time in various routine legal proceedings, including proceedings related to litigation with present or former employees. Although Ambac’s litigation with present or former employees is routine and incidental to the conduct of its business, such litigation can result in large monetary awards when a civil jury is allowed to determine compensatory and/or punitive damages for, among other things, termination of employment that is wrongful or in violation of implied contracts.

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 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 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). Ambac Assurance commenced this action to recover from the defendant on account of Ambac Assurance’s payment under a swap termination surety bond. The defendant counterclaimed (as amended on June 12, 2010), alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of California insurance statutes, fraud and promissory estoppel. Defendant claims that, in connection with defendant’s purchase of a bond insurance policy with respect to its variable rate bond issue in September 2005, Ambac Assurance misrepresented the stability of its “AAA” financial strength ratings and subsequently breached an implied covenant by underwriting risky structured obligations that ultimately led to the loss of the “AAA” ratings. On November 14, 2011, the court dismissed the defendant’s amended counterclaim in its entirety upon the motion of Ambac Assurance, and discovery commenced in December 2011. Both parties moved for summary judgment at the conclusion of discovery. 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. At a March 13, 2013 conference, the court requested that the parties prepare submissions regarding the amount of damages and fees Ambac Assurance is entitled to recover. 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 has 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. On December 23, 2014, the parties entered into a Judgment Satisfaction and Release Agreement to resolve the matter. Defendant made the $7,768 payment called for by this agreement before the end of 2014, and the agreement will become fully effective unless defendant enters insolvency proceedings or receivership within 100 days of its payment.

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). Ambac Assurance commenced this adversary proceeding, which relates to certain ad valorem taxes that the City levies and collects, in connection with the City of Detroit’s bankruptcy proceeding. On December 9, 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Ambac Assurance filed an amended complaint on December 23, 2013. In its amended complaint, Ambac Assurance seeks a declaratory judgment that, among other things, (i) under Michigan law, the defendants must segregate the ad valorem tax revenues pledged to pay the City’s general obligation bonds insured by Ambac Assurance and not commingle them with City funds, and such ad valorem tax revenues are restricted funds and cannot be used for any purpose other than to satisfy the City’s payment obligations with respect to its general obligation bonds; (ii) the City lacks any equitable or beneficial property interest in such ad valorem tax revenues and the bondholders have equitable and beneficial property interests therein; (iii) the City’s general obligation bonds insured by Ambac Assurance are secured by, and the bondholders have, a statutory lien on such ad valorem tax revenues, or in the alternative, a security interest therein; (iv) a portion of the ad valorem tax revenues are “special revenues” under the United States Bankruptcy Code and must be applied in accordance therewith; and (v) the City’s diversion of the ad valorem tax revenues or a grant of any post-petition interest therein to any other person without just compensation is an unlawful taking under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On January 17, 2014, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss. Ambac Assurance opposed the motion. The court heard oral argument on February 19, 2014. 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, on its own initiative, the Court issued an order dismissing the litigation without prejudice to having it reinstated at a later date if necessary.

Erste Europäische Pfandbriefund Kommunalkreditbank AG In Luxemburg and Ambac Assurance Corporation v. City of San Bernardino, California (United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Riverside Division, filed on January 7, 2015). Plaintiffs commenced this adversary proceeding, which relates to the Debtor’s obligations under the Public Employees Retirement Law, California Government Code Section 20000 et seq. (the “Retirement Law”), in connection with the City of San Bernardino’s bankruptcy proceeding. In the complaint, plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Debtor is obligated to make equivalent payments to both the holders of certain pension obligation bonds (the “Bonds”), a portion of which are insured by Ambac, and the California Public Employees Retirement Systems (“CalPERS”) to fund pension and other retirement benefits. It is the plaintiffs’ position that they are entitled to declaratory judgment because (i) when the City issue the Bonds, the City argued and a California court found, that the obligations under the Bonds were of the same legal character as the City’s obligations to CalPERS and (ii) the amounts owed to the bondholders are to CalPERS are merely separate portions of a single obligation owed by the Debtor under the Retirement Law. Plaintiffs therefore seek equivalent payment as to CalPERS, whether such payment takes for the form of current payments during the bankruptcy proceeding and thereafter, payments otherwise made in connection with the Retirement Law or any agreements entered into in accordance therewith, or distributions under a plan of adjustment. Defendant's response to the complaint is due March 2, 2015.

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:

•

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 February 17, 2011). This case is the continuation of a case that was originally filed on November 5, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York but that was dismissed from federal court after Ambac Assurance was granted leave to amend its complaint to add certain new claims (but not others) and a new party, which deprived the federal court of jurisdiction over the litigation. After the decision by the federal judge, dated February 8, 2011, Ambac Assurance re-filed the suit in New York state court on February 17, 2011. On July 18, 2011, Ambac Assurance filed a First Amended Complaint in its state-court litigation. In its state-court action, Ambac Assurance asserts claims for breach of contract, indemnification and reimbursement against EMC, as well as claims of fraudulent conduct by EMC and J. P. Morgan Securities Inc. In its First Amended Complaint, Ambac Assurance asserts an additional claim for breach of contract against EMC and a claim for successor liability against a new defendant, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. The Defendants filed their answer to the First Amended Complaint on August 30, 2011, and the parties are currently engaged in discovery. On December 18, 2014, defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim for fraudulent inducement arguing that as a matter of law, plaintiffs cannot prove justifiable reliance. Ambac Assurance filed its opposition on February 13, 2015.

•

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). Ambac Assurance alleges claims for fraudulent inducement and breaches of contract against EMC and J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., as well as claims against JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. as EMC’s successor in interest, arising from the defendants’ misrepresentations and breaches of contractual warranties regarding certain transactions that are not the subject of Ambac Assurance’s previously filed lawsuit against the same defendants (described above). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 28, 2012, which Ambac Assurance opposed on October 26, 2012. Oral argument was held on February 21, 2013. 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. In November 2014, Ambac Assurance filed for leave to re-argue, or in the alternative to appeal, the decision. Defendants opposed the motion. No decision has been issued. 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). Ambac Assurance alleges breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, indemnification, reimbursement and requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts, as well as damages. 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. Countrywide Securities Corp., Countrywide Financial Corp. (a.k.a. Bank of America Home Loans) and Bank of America Corp. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed on September 28, 2010). Ambac Assurance filed an Amended Complaint on September 8, 2011. Ambac Assurance alleged breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, indemnification and reimbursement, and breach of representations and warranties, requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts, as well as damages, and asserted a successor liability claim against Bank of America. On May 28, 2013, Ambac Assurance filed a Second Amended Complaint adding an alter ego claim against Bank of America alleging that, because Bank of America and Countrywide are alter egos of one another, Bank of America is responsible for Countrywide’s liabilities to Ambac. The defendants served their answers on July 31, 2013. Fact discovery has ended and the parties are currently engaged in expert discovery. 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). Ambac Assurance alleges claims for breach of contract, indemnification, reimbursement and requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts, as well as damages. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 6, 2013, which Ambac Assurance opposed in a brief filed on February 20, 2013. The motion was fully briefed and filed on March 5, 2013. 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). Ambac Assurance alleges claims for material breach of contract and for the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties under the contracts, as well as damages. Ambac Assurance has also asserted alter ego claims against Nomura Holding America, Inc. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 12, 2013, which Ambac Assurance opposed. The court held oral argument on November 13, 2013. The court has not yet decided the motion. 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 the contractual claims. On October 31, 2014 defendants filed a motion to strike the amended complaint. Ambac Assurance opposed that motion and at the court’s recommendation also filed a cross motion for leave to amend the complaint on November 14, 2014, which the defendants opposed. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the fraudulent inducement claim, which Ambac Assurance opposed. All motions are fully briefed. No decision has been issued on any of the outstanding motions.

•

The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation and Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County, filed on December 30, 2014). Ambac Assurance alleges a claim for fraudulent inducement in connection with Ambac Assurance’s issuance of insurance policies relating to five residential mortgage-backed securitizations that are not the subject of Ambac Assurance’s previously filed lawsuit against the same defendant. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on February 20, 2015, which Ambac Assurance intends to oppose.

•

Ambac Assurance Corporation and the Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Securities Corp., Countrywide Financial Corp., and Bank of America Corp. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed on December 30, 2014). Ambac Assurance alleges a claim for fraudulent inducement in connection with Ambac Assurance’s issuance of insurance policies relating to eight residential mortgage-backed securitizations that are not the subject of Ambac Assurance’s previously filed lawsuits against the same defendants. On February 20, 2015, the Countrywide defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which Bank of America joined on February 23, 2015. Ambac Assurance intends to oppose the motion.