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 Part II, Item 8 in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2014, and should be read in conjunction with the complete descriptions provided in the aforementioned Form 10-K.

The Segregated Account and Wisconsin Rehabilitation Proceeding

On March 18, 2015, the Rehabilitator filed 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 a certain policy. Objections to the motion were due on April 27, 2015, but no objection was filed. On May 1, 2015, the Rehabilitation Court granted the Rehabilitator’s motion.

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). 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. Plaintiffs’ reply brief in further support of their appeal was filed on April 24, 2015. The appeal is now fully briefed and awaiting scheduling of oral argument.

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.

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). On December 23, 2014, the parties entered into a Judgment Satisfaction and Release Agreement to resolve the matter and in April 2015, when the Agreement became fully effective, the parties dismissed the Authority’s appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the portion of the action that remained in the District Court and filed instruments of satisfaction of Ambac’s judgment against the Authority in the Southern District of New York and the Central District of California.

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). On March 13, 2015, the City filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which Ambac Assurance opposed. A hearing on the motion is currently scheduled for May 11, 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). 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 has opposed the motion, which is fully briefed. No decision has been issued.

•

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). On May 1, 2015, Ambac Assurance filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Defendants also each filed motions for summary judgment, which Ambac Assurance intends to oppose.

•

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. 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 also filed a motion to dismiss the fraudulent inducement claim, which Ambac Assurance opposed. All motions are fully briefed. The court heard oral argument on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the fraudulent inducement claim on April 14, 2015. 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 opposed. The motion is fully briefed. No decision has been issued.

•

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 opposed the motion. Defendants’ reply is due on May 18, 2015.