11. 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, 2015, 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 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. On March 4, 2016, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the Rehabilitation Court’s ruling. On March 24, 2016, a group of investors filed a motion for reconsideration asking the Wisconsin Court of Appeals to reverse its decision. The motion for reconsideration was denied on March 30, 2016.

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 was held on March 29, 2016. On April 5, 2016, the Rehabilitation Court entered an order denying the motion, granting the Rehabilitator’s motion to quash a related deposition notice, and requiring interested parties in the proceedings to obtain leave of court before seeking any discovery.

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”). 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. Both parties appealed the July 9, 2013 order. 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.

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). 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 appealed the District Court's October 14, 2010 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On March 2, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims against Ambac Assurance and Ambac Financial Services.

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.

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. The parties have reached a settlement and pursuant to the settlement agreement dated March 28, 2016, the plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss the appeal with prejudice upon confirmation of the City’s plan of adjustment by the bankruptcy judge.

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 ("JPMIM") 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 JPMIM. 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. JPMIM has opposed the motion.

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 and defendants filed replies on February 23, 2016. This case was administratively consolidated with a similar case before the same judge, Financial Guaranty Insurance Company v. Alejandro Garcia Padilla, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico No. 3:16-cv-01095).

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 16-cv-1893). Ambac Assurance filed a complaint against the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“PRHTA”) on May 10, 2016, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract in connection with PRHTA’s extension of an existing toll road concession agreement. The complaint alleges that it was inappropriate for PRHTA to enter into the extension agreement in its current state of financial distress because PRHTA has no control over, and is unlikely to receive, the proceeds of the transaction. The complaint also seeks specific performance of PRHTA’s contractual duty to provide information requested by Ambac Assurance under documents related to PRHTA bonds insured by Ambac Assurance. Ambac Assurance filed related motions seeking the appointment of a provisional receiver for PRHTA and expedited discovery. In addition to those remedies, Ambac Assurance seeks an order of the court that would, among other things, compel PRHTA to allow Ambac Assurance to inspect PRHTA’s financial records on an ongoing basis and permanently enjoin PRHTA from committing further breaches of its fiduciary and contractual duties.

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 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. 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. The primary-liability appeal is expected to be fully briefed in August 2016. Bank of America has not yet perfected its secondary-liability appeal.

Other Litigation

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“Citigroup”) (United States District Court Southern District of New York, filed in October of 2011). This suit related to a collateralized debt obligation transaction arranged by Citigroup where Ambac Credit Products, LLC (insured by Ambac Assurance) provided credit protection through a credit default swap to a bank counterparty that was exposed to the transaction. The SEC and Citigroup reached a settlement of this action for $285,000. Judge Rakoff, the presiding judge, approved the settlement in August of 2014. We have recently been informed by the SEC that they intend to make a motion to Judge Rakoff for approval of the distribution of the funds to aggrieved parties in the near term. Judge Rakoff must approve the SEC’s proposed allocation. While there can be no assurance as what the SEC’s proposed allocation will be or the timing or substance of what Judge Rakoff will decide, Ambac Assurance expects to receive a significant portion of the settlement funds. Ambac has not recorded any receivable for its estimated portion of these settlement funds.