18. 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 was modified and extended in 2015 to allow Ambac to remain in the same office space through September 2019 and on one floor through the end of 2029, with an option to continue to occupy other currently leased floors through the end of 2029. Rent payments under this lease made through September 2019 will result in the periodic reduction of Segregated Account Junior Surplus Notes that were previously issued to the landlord, beginning in January 2016. 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:



2016		2017		2018		2019		2020		Thereafter		Total
$	6,529	$	6,944	$	6,964	$	5,691	$	1,935	$	15,613	$	43,676

Successor Ambac rent expense for the aforementioned leases amounted to $5,746 and $5,588 for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and $3,422 for the eight months ended December 31, 2013. Predecessor Ambac rent expense for the aforementioned leases amounted to $1,871 for the four months ended April 30, 2013.

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.

On February 27, 2015, the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee, made a motion for allowance of a policy claim that had been disallowed by the Rehabilitator. The Rehabilitator opposed the motion on March 23, 2015 and the trustee filed a reply in further support of its motion on March 26, 2015. On April 6, 2015, the Rehabilitation Court denied the trustee’s motion.

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.

On February 10, 2016, certain investors filed a motion in the Rehabilitation Court requesting an order directing the Rehabilitator to show cause why the Interim Payment Percentage as set forth in the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan, as amended, should not be substantially increased and distributions promptly made to all holders. A hearing on the motion is expected to be held at the end of March 2016.

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 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. Oral argument was held on February 10, 2016. On February 18, 2016 the California Court of Appeal, First District, issued a decision reversing the lower court’s dismissal of the Cartwright Act claim as against Ambac Assurance and otherwise affirming the lower court’s decision as to Ambac Assurance.

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.

City of New Orleans v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, Ambac Financial Services, LLC, PaineWebber Capital Services, Inc. and UBS Securities LLC (United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, Civil Action No. 08-3949 filed on July 17, 2008). This action was brought by the City of New Orleans ("New Orleans") against Ambac Assurance and Ambac Financial Services on July 17, 2008 in connection with their participation in a New Orleans bond issue. New Orleans issued variable rate demand obligations ("VRDOs"), which were insured by Ambac Assurance, and entered into an interest rate swap agreement with PaineWebber, Inc. in order to fix its interest rate on the VRDOs. PaineWebber in turn entered into an interest rate swap agreement with Ambac Financial Services with terms that mirrored those of the New Orleans/Paine Webber swap. On December 23, 2009, New Orleans filed an Amended Complaint alleging that Ambac Assurance failed to provide credit enhancement as a result of Ambac Assurance's rating being downgraded by the rating agencies in 2008, and seeking damages against Ambac Assurance and Ambac Financial Services for the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract for credit enhancement, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) error in the principal cause, (4) fraud in the inducement of contract, (5) negligent misrepresentation, (6) bad faith, (7) breach of the swap, (8) tortious interference with the swap, (9) breach of and tortious interference with remarketing agreement and (10) detrimental reliance. On October 14, 2010, the Court granted a motion to dismiss all claims against Ambac Assurance and Ambac Financial Services and in late 2011, administratively closed the case and gave New Orleans 180 days to settle or move to re-open the case. In 2014, New Orleans filed a motion to re-open the case as to UBS Securities LLC, which the Court granted. New Orleans and UBS Securities LLC entered into a settlement agreement, and on May 20, 2015, the Court entered a final order and judgment dismissing with prejudice the case against all defendants. The City has appealed the District Court's October 14, 2010 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the appeal is fully briefed.

Ambac Assurance is defending several lawsuits in which borrowers have brought declaratory judgment actions claiming, among other things, that Ambac Assurance’s claims for specific performance related to the construction and development of housing at various military bases to replace or cash-fund a debt-service-reserve surety bond, as required under the applicable loan documents (see Litigation Filed By Ambac), are time-barred or are barred by the doctrine of laches, that Ambac lacks standing on the basis that there has been an “Ambac Default,” and that Ambac is not entitled to specific performance pursuant to the terms of the loan documents. Specifically, Ambac Assurance is a defendant in the following actions:


•	Meade Communities LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation (Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Case No. C-02-CV-15-003745). Plaintiff filed this action on December 2, 2015. Ambac Assurance’s answer was served on February 16, 2016.


•	Bragg Communities, LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation (General Court of Justice, Cumberland county, North Carolina, Case No. 15-CVS-9013). Plaintiff filed this action on December 4, 2015. Ambac Assurance filed a motion to dismiss on February 5, 2016.


•	Monterey Bay Military Housing LLC and Monterey Bay Land LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation (Superior Court, Monterey County, California, Case No. 15CV000599). Plaintiff filed this action on December 4, 2015. Ambac Assurance filed an answer on January 19, 2016.

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. 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. 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. Ambac Assurance received approximately $7,760 in satisfaction of its judgment against the Authority.

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. On March 13, 2015, the City filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which plaintiffs opposed. On May 11, 2015, the court heard oral argument and granted the City’s motion to dismiss. On June 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court’s order granting the City’s motion to dismiss with the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit and filed their appellate brief on January 5, 2016.

Ambac UK v. J.P. Morgan Investment Management (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed May 4, 2009, No. 650259/2009). Ambac UK commenced this action against J.P. Morgan Investment Management asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence relating to defendant’s mismanagement of assets supporting bonds issued by Ballantyne Plc and insured by Ambac UK that funded excess reserves for term life insurance required by regulation. (Pursuant to an agreement with Ballantyne Plc, Ambac UK was given the authority to prosecute Ballantyne plc's claims against J.P. Morgan Investment Management.) On March 24, 2010, the court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. Ambac UK appealed the March 2010 decision and on July 14, 2011, the Appellate Division for the First Department reversed the decision and reinstated Ambac UK's claims in their entirety. Fact and expert discovery have been completed. On January 22, 2016, Ambac UK filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a ruling that defendant breached the contract under one of the asserted theories of liability.

Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., and Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Alejandro Garcia Padilla, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico No. 3:16-cv-01037). Ambac Assurance, along with co-plaintiffs Assured Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief to protect its rights against the illegal clawback of certain revenue by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. One defendant, in her capacity as Government Development Bank (“GDB”) President, filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on January 29, 2016. All other defendants (including the GDB President but solely in her capacity as a member of the Working Group For The Fiscal and Economic Restoration of Puerto Rico) filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on January 29, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their oppositions to the motions on February 16, 2016.

Ambac Assurance has filed various lawsuits seeking specific performance of obligations of borrowers on loans related to the construction and development of housing at various military bases to replace or cash-fund a debt-service-reserve surety bond provided by Ambac Assurance, as required under the applicable loan documents. Specifically, Ambac Assurance has instituted the following actions:


•	Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Riley Communities, LLC (District Court, Shawnee County Kansas, No. 2016-CV-00026). Ambac Assurance filed this action on January 8, 2016. On February 2, 2016, defendant served its answer.


•	Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Fort Leavenworth Frontier Heritage Communities, II, LLC (U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, Index No. 15-CV-9596). Ambac Assurance filed this action on November 19, 2015. On January 4, 2016, defendant moved to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party, which Ambac Assurance opposed on January 25, 2016. Defendant filed its reply on February 8, 2016.


•	Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Carlisle/ Picatinny Family Housing Limited Partnership (Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, No. 2015-6348). Ambac Assurance filed a summons on December 15, 2015 and a complaint on January 11, 2016. On February 1, 2016, defendant served its answer.


•	Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Fort Lee Commonwealth Communities, LLC (Circuit Court, Roanoke City, Virginia, No. CL16000072-00). Ambac Assurance filed this action on January 7, 2016. Defendant served its answer on February 9, 2016.


•	Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Fort Bliss/White Sands Missile Range Housing LP (District Court, El Paso County, Texas, Cause No. 2016DCV0094). Ambac Assurance filed this action on January 8, 2016. Defendant served its answer on February 11, 2016.

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 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 opposed the motion and the court heard oral argument on July 14, 2015. No decision was issued. On January 25, 2016, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation and on January 29, 2016, filed a stipulation voluntarily discontinuing the litigation.

•

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. On May 14, 2015, the First Department denied the motion. On January 25, 2016, the parties reached an agreement to settle the litigation and on January 29, 2016, filed a stipulation voluntarily discontinuing the litigation.

•

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.

•

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 and expert discovery has ended. On May 1, 2015, Ambac Assurance filed motions for partial summary judgment, which defendants opposed. Defendants also each filed motions for summary judgment, which Ambac Assurance opposed. The court heard oral argument on July 15, 2015. On October 27, 2015, the court issued a decision dated October 22, 2015 granting in part and denying in part the parties’ respective summary judgment motions regarding Ambac Assurance’s claims against Countrywide (primary-liability claims), and issued a second decision granting Ambac Assurance’s partial motion for summary judgment and denying Bank of America’s motion for summary judgment regarding Ambac Assurance’s secondary-liability claims against Bank of America. Ambac Assurance and Countrywide filed notices of appeal of the October 22, 2015 decision relating to primary liability and Bank of America filed a notice of appeal of the October 27, 2015 decision relating to its secondary-liability. On February 22, 2016, Ambac Assurance filed its opening appellate brief against Countrywide.

•

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. 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 filed a motion to dismiss the fraudulent inducement claim, which Ambac Assurance opposed. The court heard oral argument on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the fraudulent inducement claim on April 14, 2015. On June 3, 2015, the court denied defendants’ July 2013 motion to dismiss Ambac’s claim for breaches of representations and warranties, but granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Ambac’s claims for breach of the repurchase protocol and for alter ego liability against Nomura Holding. No decision has been issued on the other 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 court heard oral argument on two of Countrywide’s grounds for dismissal on June 23, 2015, and indicated that it would dismiss the Wisconsin Action without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court issued an order to that effect on July 2, 2015. Ambac Assurance has appealed the July 2, 2015 order, and the appeal is fully briefed. On June 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Summons with Notice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, No. 652321/15 (the “2015 New York Action”), alleging claims identical to the Wisconsin Action. On July 21, 2015, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the 2015 New York Action and a motion to stay the 2015 New York Action pending appeal and litigation of the Wisconsin Action. On August 5, 2015, Countrywide filed its opposition to plaintiffs’ motion to stay and on August 10, 2015, Countrywide filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which Ambac opposed. The motions are fully briefed, the court held oral argument in November 2015 and no decisions have been issued. In November 2015, by agreement of the parties, the court stayed discovery in the 2015 New York Action pending final resolution of plaintiffs’ motion to stay and Countrywide’s motion to dismiss.

•

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. The motion is fully briefed, the court held oral argument in November 2015 and no decision has been issued. Discovery is ongoing.