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 2016, 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 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 that appeal is now fully briefed before the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. 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). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 27, 2017. Plaintiff filed its brief in opposition to the motion on April 24, 2017. Ambac filed its reply brief on May 9, 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); Contra Costa County et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, third amended complaint filed on or about October 21, 2011); The Olympic Club v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, fourth amended complaint filed on or about October 21, 2011). Ambac Assurance and representatives of the plaintiffs have reached a preliminary agreement to settle these litigations, subject to receipt of required approvals and the execution of a formal settlement agreement.

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. Ambac Assurance is a defendant in various lawsuits, including the following:


•	Meade Communities LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation (Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Case No. C-02-CV-15-003745). On April 28, 2017, Ambac Assurance filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts of the Meade complaint. On April 28, 2017, Meade filed a motion for partial summary judgment on two counts of the complaint and certain Ambac Assurance affirmative defenses.

•

Monterey Bay Military Housing LLC and Monterey Bay Land LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation (Superior Court, Monterey County, California, Case No. 15CV000599). On March 30, 2017, Ambac Assurance filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts of the Monterey Bay complaint. On March 30, 2017, Monterey Bay filed a motion for partial summary judgment on two counts of the complaint and certain Ambac Assurance affirmative defenses.

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.

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 or Joined 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 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). Trial commenced in March 2017. On March 25, 2017 the parties reached a confidential settlement in principle and on April 11, 2017 executed a settlement agreement memorializing the terms of the agreement.

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). 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 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. PROMESA’s litigation stay expired on May 2, 2017, but the Commonwealth and Oversight Board have stated to Ambac Assurance that they believe this action is stayed due to the Commonwealth’s Title III filing.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 16-cv-1893). On May 10, 2016, Ambac Assurance filed a complaint against the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“PRHTA”), 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. On August 23, 2016 the court issued an order staying the case. PROMESA’s litigation stay expired on May 2, 2017. The Commonwealth and Oversight Board have stated to Ambac Assurance that they believe this action is stayed due to the Commonwealth’s Title III filing.

Lex Claims, LLC et al. v. Alejandro Garcia Padilla et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 16-2374). On February 17, 2016, Ambac was permitted to intervene in an action brought by certain General Obligation bondholder plaintiffs asserting 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. Although the case was filed during the pendency of the PROMESA litigation stay, the district court held that the plaintiffs’ claims arising under PROMESA itself were not stayed. On March 20, 2017, Ambac filed in the district court an answer to the second amended complaint and a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim against COFINA, to strike certain portions of the second amended complaint, or, in the alternative, to certify the question of COFINA’s constitutionality to the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. Certain other intervenors also filed answers and various motions in the district court. On April 4, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision concerning the application of the PROMESA stay, which had the effect of reinstating the stay. PROMESA’s litigation stay expired on May 2, 2017, but the Commonwealth and Oversight Board have stated to Ambac Assurance that they believe this action is stayed due to the Commonwealth’s and/or COFINA's Title III filings.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 17-1567). On May 2, 2017, Ambac Assurance filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the FEGP and a recently enacted statute called the “Fiscal Plan Compliance Law” are unconstitutional and unlawful because they violate the Contracts, Takings, and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution; are preempted by PROMESA; and are unlawful transfers of property from COFINA to the Commonwealth in violation of PROMESA. The complaint further seeks an injunction against the filing of any Title III petitions, or the enactment or enforcement of any future legislation, rules, budgets, or restructuring plans premised on the FEGP, and a declaration that the Commonwealth is liable for any funds unlawfully transferred to it from COFINA. The complaint also seeks a declaration that the FEGP and Fiscal Plan Compliance Law each violate covenants made by the Commonwealth and COFINA in the COFINA Resolution, which constitute Events of Default under the COFINA Resolution. The Commonwealth and Oversight Board have stated to Ambac Assurance that they believe this action is stayed due to the Commonwealth’s and/or COFINA's Title III filings.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 17-1568). On May 2, 2017, Ambac Assurance filed a complaint alleging that various moratorium laws and executive orders enacted by the Commonwealth to claw back funds from the PRIFA, PRHTA, and PRCCDA bonds violate the Contracts, Takings, and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution; are preempted by PROMESA; and unlawfully transfer PRHTA, PRCCDA, and PRIFA property to the Commonwealth. The complaint further seeks a declaration that the Commonwealth is liable for any funds unlawfully transferred to it from COFINA; an injunction against enforcement of the moratorium laws and executive orders; and an injunction against the filing of any Title III petitions, or the enactment or enforcement of any future legislation, rules, budgets, or restructuring plans premised on the FEGP. The Commonwealth and Oversight Board have stated to Ambac Assurance that they believe this action is stayed due to the Commonwealth’s Title III filing.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. U.S. Department of Treasury et al. (United States District Court, District of Columbia, No. 17-809). On May 2, 2017, Ambac Assurance filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Treasury and Steven Mnuchin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, alleging that Puerto Rico’s ongoing diversion of rum taxes from PRIFA violates the Contracts, Takings, and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and seeking an equitable lien on all rum taxes possessed by the U.S. Treasury, and an injunction preventing their transfer to the Commonwealth, in order to prevent further dissipation of those funds by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth and Oversight Board have stated to Ambac Assurance that they believe this action is stayed due to the Commonwealth’s Title III filing.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Bank of New York Mellon (New York State Supreme Court, Commercial Division). On May 2, 2017, Ambac Assurance filed a complaint against the trustee for the COFINA bonds, Bank of New York Mellon (“BNY”), alleging breach of fiduciary, contractual, and other duties for failing to adequately and appropriately protect the holders of certain Ambac-insured senior COFINA bonds. The complaint seeks money damages; a declaration that BONY breached its fiduciary, contractual, and other duties; a declaration compelling BNY to recognize an event of default under the COFINA Resolution and accelerate the COFINA debt; an injunction to prevent BNY from making payments to holders of subordinate COFINA bonds; and forced replacement of BNY as trustee. The Commonwealth and Oversight Board have not stated to Ambac Assurance that they believe this action is stayed due to the Commonwealth’s and/or COFINA's Title III filings

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. Ambac Assurance has filed various lawsuits, including the following:

•

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 an amended complaint 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. On March 17, 2017, the court granted Fort Leavenworth's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On March 28, 2017, Ambac re-filed the case in state court in Shawnee County, Kansas. The re-filed case is styled Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Fort Leavenworth Frontier Heritage Communities II, LLC (District Court, Shawnee County, Kansas, No. 2017-cv-000216).

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:

•

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). 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 March 27, 2017, Nomura appealed the June 2015 decision to the extent it denied its motion to dismiss and filed its opening appellate brief. 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). On June 23, 2016, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s prior 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 was argued on February 28, 2017.

•

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). On February 23, 2017, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint to reflect a revised settlement offer, and also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which U.S. Bank opposed. On March 9, 2017, U.S. Bank filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which plaintiffs opposed. The court heard oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss on April 24, 2017. On March 6, 2017, U.S. Bank filed a trust instruction proceeding in Minnesota state court concerning the proposed settlement, which is captioned, In the matter of HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-10, No. 27-TR-CV-17-32 (the “Minnesota Action”). On April 5, 2017, Ambac Assurance filed a motion to dismiss the Minnesota Action.

•

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-02614, filed April 11, 2017). Ambac alleges claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory judgment, and violation of the Streit Act in connection with defendant’s failure to enforce rights and remedies and defendant’s treatment of trust recoveries, as trustee of five residential mortgage-backed securitizations for which Ambac Assurance issued insurance policies.