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/A for the year ended December 31, 2015, and should be read in conjunction with the complete descriptions provided in the aforementioned Form 10-K/A.

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.

On July 15, 2016, the Rehabilitator filed a motion to confirm and declare the nature of the proceedings in order to avoid misunderstandings that may arise in litigation involving Ambac Assurance concerning certain military housing projects. The Rehabilitation Court scheduled a hearing of this motion on September 2, 2016, with opposing briefs due on August 26, 2016.

Litigation Against Ambac

Joseph Pirinea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc., Diana N. Adams, David Trick, Jeffrey S. Stein and Nader Tavakoli (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Civil Action No.16-cv-05079-RMB, filed on June 28, 2016). A putative securities class action lawsuit was recently filed against Ambac and certain of its present and former officers and directors, for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The suit purports to be on behalf of purchasers of Ambac’s securities from November 13, 2013 through June 30, 2015. It alleges, among other things, that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Ambac’s (a) risk management policies and procedures, (b) credit mitigation strategies, (c) internal controls over financial reporting, and (d) loss exposures on its public finance bond portfolio. In particular, the suit alleges that defendants did not sufficiently disclose Ambac’s exposure to bonds issued by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, despite allegedly being aware of significant risks associated with those exposures. Ambac believes the lawsuit is without merit, and intends to vigorously defend against it.

NPS LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation (United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Case No 08-11281-DPW, filed on July 8, 2008). 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. On June 3, 2016, the Court rendered a decision awarding Ambac most of its attorneys’ fees and costs, with interest at the contract rate from March 15, 2010, and on June 17, 2016 entered judgment in Ambac’s favor on its February 25, 2010 and June 3, 2016 decisions in the amount of the “make whole” premium, the award of attorneys’ fees and costs and interest on both of them. Contrary to NPS’s previous threat to file an appeal upon entry of a final judgment, it did not do so, and it paid the judgment in full with accrued post-judgment interest to Ambac on July 20, 2016 in the amount of $4,733.

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”), consolidated under Case No. JCCP 4555. 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 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 Assurance lacks standing on the basis that there has been an “Ambac Default,” and that Ambac Assurance is not entitled to specific performance pursuant to the terms of the loan documents. Such lawsuits include the following action:


•	Bragg Communities, LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation (General Court of Justice, Cumberland county, North Carolina, Case No. 15-CVS-9013). Ambac Assurance filed a motion to dismiss on February 5, 2016, which was granted on June 14, 2016. The court entered the dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint on June 24, 2016. Plaintiff’s time to appeal the dismissal has expired.

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 disputes will arise, nor the outcomes of any potential litigation. It is possible that there could be unfavorable outcomes in such 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, Docket No. 15-1185, filed on January 7, 2015). 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). Fact and expert discovery have been substantially completed. On January 22, 2016, Ambac UK filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a ruling that defendant breached the Investment Management Agreement between JPMIM and Ballantyne plc under one of the asserted theories of liability. JPMIM has opposed the motion. Argument on the motion is scheduled for August 16, 2016.

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, filed on January 7, 2016).Defendants (including the Government Development Bank (“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. The GDB President, in her official capacity, moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 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. On July 1, 2016, PRHTA filed an Emergency Notice of Stay, asserting that the case was automatically stayed under section 405 of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”). Ambac Assurance filed a response on July 11, 2016, disagreeing that the PROMESA stay applies but electing not to contest the stay at such time and reserving the right to challenge it or to seek to lift the stay in the future. Ambac Assurance also asserted that PRHTA still is obligated to make available to Ambac Assurance certain information, notwithstanding the stay on litigation and provided a proposed order for the court to issue. PRHTA filed a reply on July 18, 2016, contesting Ambac Assurance’s characterization, and provided an alternative order for the court to issue. Ambac Assurance’s response was filed July 25, 2016. PRHTA also filed an Urgent Motion to Exempt PRHTA from Outstanding Filings in the case during the pendency of the stay, which was granted.

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. Such lawsuits include the following action:

•

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Fort Leavenworth Frontier Heritage Communities, II, LLC (U.S. District Court, District of Kansas, Index No. 15-CV-9596). 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. On June 29, 2016, the court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and granted Ambac Assurance leave to file an amended complaint, which was filed on July 13, 2016. On August 1, 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ambac Assurance’s opposition to the motion is currently due to be filed on or before August 17, 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, including the following actions:

•

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, Case No. 651612/2010, 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. On May 6, 2016, Countrywide filed its opening brief. On July 1, 2016, Ambac Assurance filed its opposition and reply brief. The primary liability appeal is expected to be fully briefed in August 2016. Bank of America filed its opening appellate brief against Ambac Assurance on May 20, 2016, and Ambac Assurance filed its appellate brief in opposition to Bank of America’s appeal on July 19, 2016. The successor liability appeal is expected to be fully briefed in September 2016.

•

The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation and Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County, Case No 14 CV 3511, filed on December 30, 2014). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on February 20, 2015. 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 appealed the July 2, 2015 order. On June 23, 2016, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the complaint and defendant has petitioned the Wisconsin Supreme Court to review that decision. 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. In response to an order dated July 14, 2016, the parties to the 2015 New York Action submitted supplemental briefs on July 21 and 28, 2016 addressing the impact of the June 23, 2016 decision by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

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, Docket No. 11-CV-7387, filed in October 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 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.