17. 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 location 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:



2017		2018		2019		2020		2021		Thereafter		Total
$	6,951	$	6,972	$	5,691	$	1,933	$	1,630	$	14,019	$	37,196

Ambac rent expense for the aforementioned leases amounted to $3,008, $5,746 and $5,588 for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

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 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 Segregated Account Rehabilitation Proceedings in order to avoid misunderstandings that may arise in litigation involving Ambac Assurance concerning certain military housing projects. Certain parties to these military housing litigations filed an opposition to the Rehabilitator’s motion on September 30, 2016. On October 11, 2016 the Rehabilitation Court held a hearing on the motion and on October 24, 2016, the Rehabilitation Court entered an order granting the Rehabilitator’s motion. On November 7, 2016, the interested parties that had opposed the Rehabilitator’s motion filed a notice of appeal from the October 24 order, and filed their opening brief in support of this appeal on January 17, 2017. The Rehabilitator filed a response brief in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on February 15, 2017. On November 21, 2016, the Rehabilitator filed a motion to quash a subpoena served on the Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance by certain parties to the military housing litigations. The Rehabilitation Court granted the Rehabilitator’s motion to quash on November 23, 2016. The interested parties that had served the subpoena filed an opposition to the Rehabilitator’s motion to quash on November 23, 2016, and filed on November 28, 2016 a motion to reconsider the November 23 order, which the Rehabilitator opposed on December 6, 2016. The Rehabilitation Court held a hearing on January 6, 2017 and entered an order on January 20, 2017 denying the motion to reconsider and clarifying procedures for discovery relating to the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Proceedings.

Litigation Against Ambac

Ori Wilbush, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc., Diana N. Adams, David Trick, Jeffrey S. Stein, Nader Tavakoli and Cathleen Matanle (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 16-cv-05076-RMB, filed on June 28, 2016). A putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in June 2016 against Ambac and certain of its present and former officers and directors, for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The court appointed a lead plaintiff on October 11, 2016. The lead plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on November 23, 2016. The suit purports to be on behalf of purchasers of Ambac’s securities from November 13, 2013 through November 17, 2015. It alleges, among other things, that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Ambac’s (a) risk management and credit rating 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. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 27, 2017. Ambac believes the lawsuit is without merit.

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 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. Discovery has commenced.

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, 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.


•	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. 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). 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 and the plan of adjustment becoming effective.

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 Investment Management Agreement between JPMIM and Ballantyne plc under one of the asserted theories of liability. JPMIM opposed the motion. On February 21, 2017, the court issued a decision that JPMIM had not complied with the contractual provision at issue in the motion, but also decided that an issue of fact remained as to whether such breach violated the standard of care set forth in the investment management agreement and, therefore, denied the motion. Trial is scheduled to begin in March 2017.

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). 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. 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). On October 4, 2016, the court denied the Defendants’ and GDB President’s motions to dismiss with respect to all claims asserted by Ambac Assurance and Assured. On October 14, 2016, Defendants filed a Notice of Automatic Stay, asserting that Plaintiffs’ claims have been rendered moot and further asserting that the case is automatically stayed under section 405 of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”). On October 28, 2016, Plaintiffs informed the court that neither party was currently challenging the stay, and expressly reserved their right to seek to lift the stay at any time. Plaintiffs also objected to Defendants’ assertion that the case should be dismissed as moot.

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 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. On August 23, 2016 the court issued an order staying the case, and requesting that Ambac Assurance and PRHTA notify the court whether each would seek to assert cause to lift the stay. On August 26, 2016, both Ambac Assurance and PRHTA informed the court that neither was currently seeking to lift the stay; however, Ambac Assurance expressly reserved its right to seek to lift the stay at any time.

Lex Claims, LLC et al. v. Alejandro Garcia Padilla et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 16-2374). On October 7, 2016, certain General Obligation bondholder plaintiffs in an action to which Ambac Assurance is not currently a party filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint and for partial relief from the PROMESA stay. Plaintiffs’ proposed second amended complaint adds the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (“COFINA”), COFINA’s executive director, and the trustee for the COFINA bonds as defendants, and asserts numerous claims that challenge the legal validity of the COFINA structure and seek injunctive relief requiring the sales and use tax proceeds securing COFINA’s bonds to be transferred to the Puerto Rico Treasury. The plaintiffs contend that many of the claims challenging COFINA are not subject to PROMESA’s litigation stay provisions. On October 24, 2016, the defendants filed an opposition to the motion for leave to amend, arguing that the entire action is subject to the PROMESA stay. On October 26, 2016, Ambac Assurance filed a motion for leave to intervene and in support of the PROMESA stay. Ambac Assurance seeks to intervene principally to argue that the claims challenging COFINA are stayed by PROMESA, but also reserves the right to move to dismiss or otherwise defend against those claims should the court determine they are not stayed. The court has not ruled yet on plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend or Ambac Assurance’s motion to intervene. On November 4, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint that same day. On November 7, 2016, the government defendants sought to stay the case. On November 29, 2016, the parties’ briefing on Ambac Assurance’s motion to intervene was complete. Other putative intervenors filed motions to intervene. On February 17, 2017, the court granted the motions to intervene by Ambac Assurance and some of the other movants. The court also denied the defendants’ motion to stay and the arguments in support of the stay filed by the intervenors, including Ambac Assurance.

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. 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 opposed the motion.


•	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 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, Case No. 651217/2012, 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, Case No. 651612/2010, 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 to the New York Appellate Division, First Department. These appeals are fully briefed and the First Department held oral argument on January 26, 2017.

•

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, Case No. 651359/2013, 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. On December 29, 2016, the court issued a decision denying Nomura’s motion to strike Ambac’s amended complaint and its motion to dismiss the fraudulent inducement claim. On January 31, 2017, Nomura filed a notice of appeal from that decision. Discovery is ongoing.

•

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). 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 appealed the July 2, 2015 order. On June 23, 2016, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the complaint, and on October 11, 2016, the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted Countrywide’s petition for review of the June 23 decision by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The Wisconsin Supreme Court appeal is fully briefed and scheduled for oral argument on February 28, 2017. 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 court held oral argument in November 2015 and on September 20, 2016 granted Ambac Assurance’s motion to stay. Countrywide’s motion to dismiss the complaint is held in abeyance pending resolution of the Wisconsin Action.

•

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, Case No. 653979/2014, 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. On December 20, 2016, the court issued a decision denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss.. Discovery is ongoing.

•

Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. U.S. Bank National Association (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Docket No. 17-cv-00446 (SHS), filed January 20, 2017). Ambac Assurance commenced this action to enjoin the defendant from accepting a proposed settlement in a separate litigation that the defendant is prosecuting, as trustee, in connection with a residential mortgage-backed securitization for which Ambac Assurance issued an insurance policy. Ambac Assurance alleges claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the Streit Act. On February 14, 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting additional claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract related to the defendant’s treatment of trust recoveries. The defendant has not yet responded to Ambac Assurance’s amended complaint.

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. 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.