Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The following commitments and contingencies provide an update of those discussed in Note 17: 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, 2019, and should be read in conjunction with the complete descriptions provided in the aforementioned Form 10-K.

Litigation Against Ambac

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, et al. v. Autonomy Master Fund Limited, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 19-ap-00291, filed May 2, 2019). On May 2, 2019, the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (the "Oversight Board"), together with the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for the Commonwealth (the "Committee") filed an adversary proceeding against certain parties that filed proofs of claim on account of general obligation bonds issued by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, including Ambac Assurance. The complaint seeks declarations that the general obligation bonds are unsecured obligations and, in the alternative, seeks to avoid any security interests that holders of such bonds may have. On June 12, 2019, a group of general obligation bondholders moved to dismiss the complaint. On June 13, 2019, at the request of the Plaintiffs, the District Court stayed the case until September 1, 2019 as to all defendants; on July 24, 2019, the District Court referred this matter to mediation and ordered it stayed during the pendency of such mediation. Ambac Assurance filed a statement of position and reservation of rights on February 5, 2020; certain other defendants filed motions to dismiss on this same date. On February 9, 2020, the Oversight Board announced that it intends to file, and to seek to confirm, an amended plan of adjustment (the “Amended POA”). On March 10, 2020, the District Court ordered that this case remain stayed while the Oversight Board attempts to confirm the Amended POA.

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 20-ap-00003, filed Jan. 16, 2020). Pursuant to an order of the District Court setting out an agreed schedule for litigation submitted by the team of mediators designated in the Commonwealth’s restructuring cases (the “Mediation Team“), on January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board filed an adversary proceeding

against monoline insurers insuring bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority (“PRIFA”) and the PRIFA bond trustee, all of which Defendants filed proofs of claim against the Commonwealth relating to PRIFA bonds. The complaint seeks to disallow Defendants’ proofs of claim against the Commonwealth in their entirety, including for lack of secured status. Briefing on motions for summary judgment is expected to conclude on June 16, 2020, and a hearing is scheduled for June 23, 2020.

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 20-ap-00004, filed Jan. 16, 2020). Pursuant to an order of the District Court setting out an agreed schedule for litigation submitted by the Mediation Team, on January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board filed an adversary proceeding against monoline insurers insuring bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority (“PRCCDA”) and the PRCCDA bond trustee, all of which Defendants filed proofs of claim against the Commonwealth relating to PRCCDA bonds. The complaint seeks to disallow Defendants’ proofs of claim against the Commonwealth in their entirety, including for lack of secured status. Briefing on motions for summary judgment is expected to conclude on June 16, 2020, and a hearing is scheduled for June 23, 2020.

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 20-ap-00005, filed Jan. 16, 2020). Pursuant to an order of the District Court setting out an agreed schedule for litigation submitted by the Mediation Team, on January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board filed an adversary proceeding against monoline insurers insuring bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority ("PRHTA“), certain PRHTA bondholders, and the PRHTA fiscal agent for bondholders, all of which Defendants filed proofs of claim against the Commonwealth relating to PRHTA bonds. The complaint seeks to disallow Defendants’ proofs of claim against the Commonwealth in their entirety, including for lack of secured status. Briefing on motions for summary judgment is expected to conclude on June 16, 2020, and a hearing is scheduled for June 23, 2020.

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 20-ap-00007, filed Jan. 16, 2020). Pursuant to an order of the District Court setting out an agreed schedule for litigation submitted by the Mediation Team, on January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board and the Committee filed an adversary proceeding against monoline insurers insuring bonds issued by PRHTA, certain PRHTA bondholders, and the PRHTA fiscal agent for bondholders, all of which Defendants filed proofs of claim against PRHTA relating to PRHTA bonds. The complaint seeks to disallow portions of Defendants’ proofs of claim against the PRHTA, including for lack of secured status. On March 10, 2020, the District Court stayed this case.

NC Residuals Owners Trust, et al. v. Wilmington Trust Co., et al. (Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No. 2019-0880, filed Nov. 1,  2019).  On November 1, 2019, Ambac Assurance became aware of a new declaratory judgment action filed by certain residual equity interest holders (“NC Owners” or “Plaintiffs”) in fourteen National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts (the “Trusts”) against Wilmington Trust Company, the Owner Trustee for the Trusts; U.S. Bank

National Association, the Indenture Trustee; GSS Data Services, Inc., the Administrator; and Ambac Assurance.  Through this action, Plaintiffs seek a number of judicial determinations.  On January 21, 2020, the presiding Vice Chancellor entered an order consolidating the action with previously filed litigation relating to the Trusts. On February 13, 2020, Ambac Assurance, the Owner Trustee, the Indenture Trustee, and other parties filed declaratory judgment counterclaims. Several parties, including Plaintiffs and Ambac Assurance, have filed motions for judgment on the pleadings in support of their requested judicial determinations, and briefing on those motions is complete.

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 and have commenced, or threatened to commence, litigation to resolve these differences. 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.

The Company is involved from time to time in various routine legal proceedings, including proceedings related to litigation with present or former employees. Although the Company’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.

From time to time, Ambac is subject to allegations concerning its corporate governance that may lead to litigation, including derivative litigation, and while the monetary impacts may not be material, the matters may distract management and the Board of Directors from their principal focus on Ambac's business, strategy and objectives.

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 the Company which are probable and reasonably estimable, and management's estimated range of loss for such matters, are either not applicable or are not material to the operating results or financial position of the Company. For the litigation matters the Company 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.

Puerto Rico

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Public Buildings Authority (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:18-ap-00149, filed December 21, 2018). On December 21, 2018, the Oversight Board, together with the Committee, as Plaintiffs, filed a complaint against the Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority (“PBA”) seeking declaratory judgment that the leases between PBA and its lessees-many of whom are agencies and instrumentalities of the Commonwealth-are “disguised financings,” not true leases, and therefore should not be afforded administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. On March 12, 2019, Ambac Assurance and other interested parties were permitted to intervene in order to argue that the PBA leases are valid leases, and are entitled to administrative expense treatment under the Bankruptcy Code. On June 16, 2019, the Oversight Board announced that it had entered into a plan support agreement ("PSA") with certain general obligation and PBA bondholders that includes a proposed resolution of claim objections to and issues surrounding both general obligation and PBA bonds, including a proposed settlement of this adversary proceeding. On July 24, 2019, the District Court referred this matter to mediation and ordered it stayed during the pendency of such mediation. On September 27, 2019, the Oversight Board filed a joint plan of adjustment and disclosure statement for the Commonwealth, PBA, and the Employees’ Retirement System for Puerto Rico. On February 9, 2020, the Oversight Board executed a new plan support agreement with additional creditors (the “New PSA”) and announced that it intends to file, and seek to confirm, the Amended POA. On March 10, 2020, the District Court ordered that this case remain stayed while the Oversight Board attempts to confirm the Amended POA.

In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Omnibus Objection of (I) Financial Oversight and Management Board, Acting Through its Special Claims Committee, and (II) Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 502 and Bankruptcy Rule 3007, to Claims Filed or Asserted by Holders of Certain Commonwealth General Obligation Bonds (Dkt. No. 4784, filed January 14, 2019) (“GO Bond Claim Objection Procedures”). On January 14, 2019, the Oversight Board and the Committee filed an omnibus claim

objection in the Commonwealth’s Title III case challenging claims arising from certain general obligation bonds issued by the Commonwealth in 2012 and 2014 totaling approximately $6 billion, none of which are held or insured by Ambac Assurance. The court subsequently ordered certain consolidated procedures permitting parties in interest an opportunity to participate in litigation of the objection. On April 11, 2019, Ambac Assurance filed a notice of participation in support of the objection, advancing the argument, among other things, that the PBA leases are true leases, but the associated debt nonetheless should be included in the Commonwealth’s debt ceiling calculation such that the 2012 and 2014 general obligation bond issuances are null and void and claims arising therefrom should be disallowed. On June 16, 2019, the Oversight Board announced that it had entered into a PSA with certain general obligation and PBA bondholders that includes a proposed resolution of claim objections to and issues surrounding both general obligation and PBA bonds, including a proposed settlement of this omnibus claim objection. On June 25, 2019, the Oversight Board moved to stay proceedings related to this omnibus claim objection while it pursues confirmation of the plan contemplated in the PSA. On July 24, 2019, the District Court referred this matter to mediation and ordered it stayed during the pendency of such mediation. On February 5, 2020, certain parties filed motions to dismiss the claim objection. On February 9, 2020, the Oversight Board executed the New PSA and announced that it intends to file, and seek to confirm, the Amended POA. Additional motions to dismiss were filed on February 19, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the District Court ordered that this matter remain stayed while the Oversight Board attempts to confirm the Amended POA.

In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Ambac Assurance Corporation’s Motion to Strike Certain Provisions of the Plan Support Agreement By and Among the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, Certain GO Holders, and Certain PBA Holders (Dkt. No. 8020, filed July 16, 2019) (“Ambac Assurance Motion to Strike PSA”). On June 16, 2019, the Oversight Board announced that it had entered into a PSA with certain general obligation and PBA bondholders that includes a proposed resolution of claim objections to and issues surrounding both general obligation and PBA bonds. On July 16, 2019, Ambac Assurance filed a motion to strike certain provisions of the PSA that it believes violate PROMESA, including the potential payment of a breakup fee to creditors who have supported the PSA. On July 24, 2019, the District Court referred this matter to mediation and ordered it stayed during the pendency of such mediation. On February 9, 2020, the Oversight Board executed the New PSA. On March 10, 2020, the District Court denied Ambac Assurance’s motion without prejudice given the execution of the New PSA.

In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Ambac Assurance Corporation's Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion Concerning Application of the Automatic Stay to the Revenues Securing PRIFA Rum Tax Bonds (Dkt. No. 7176, filed May 30, 2019) (“PRIFA Stay Motion”). On May 30, 2019, Ambac Assurance filed a motion seeking an order that the automatic stay does not apply to certain lawsuits Ambac Assurance seeks to bring or to continue relating to bonds issued by PRIFA, or, in the alternative, for relief from the

automatic stay to pursue such lawsuits or for adequate protection of Ambac Assurance's collateral. On July 24, 2019, the District Court referred this matter to mediation and ordered it stayed during the pendency of such mediation. On January 31, 2020, the District Court granted a motion filed by Ambac Assurance, together with Assured Guaranty Corporation, Assured Guaranty Municipal Corporation, and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company to amend the PRIFA Stay Motion in order to allow the PRIFA bond trustee to join the amended motion and to allow movants to address recent, controlling precedent from the First Circuit, and Ambac Assurance filed the amended motion the same day. A preliminary hearing on the amended motion is scheduled for June 4, 2020.

In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Motion of Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Municipal Corp., Ambac Assurance Corporation, National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation, and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company for Relief from the Automatic Stay, or, in the Alternative, Adequate Protection (Dkt. No. 10102, filed January 16, 2020) (“PRHTA Stay Motion”). Pursuant to an order of the District Court setting out an agreed schedule for litigation submitted by the Mediation Team, on January 16, 2020, Ambac Assurance, together with Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Municipal Corp., National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation, and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company filed a motion seeking an order that the automatic stay does not apply to movants’ enforcement of the application of pledged revenues to the PRHTA bonds or the enforcement of movants’ liens on revenues pledged to such bonds, or, in the alternative, for adequate protection of movants’ interests in the revenues pledged to PRHTA bonds. A preliminary hearing on the motion is scheduled for June 4, 2020.

In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Ambac Assurance Corporation, Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Municipal Corp., and the Bank of New York Mellon’s Motion Concerning Application of the Automatic Stay to the Revenues Securing the CCDA Bonds (Dkt. No. 10104, filed January 16, 2020) (“PRCCDA Stay Motion”). Pursuant to an order of the District Court setting out an agreed schedule for litigation submitted by the Mediation Team, on January 16, 2020, Ambac Assurance, together with Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Municipal Corp., and the PRCCDA bond trustee, filed a motion seeking an order either (i) that the automatic stay does not apply to movants’ enforcement of their rights to revenues pledged to PRCCDA bonds by bringing an enforcement action against PRCCDA; or, in the alternative, (ii) lifting the automatic stay to enable movants to pursue an enforcement action against PRCCDA; or, in the further alternative, (iii) ordering adequate protection of movants’ interests in the PRCCDA pledged to PRCCDA bonds. A preliminary hearing on the motion is scheduled for June 4, 2020.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Samuel A. Ramirez & Co. Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., and UBS Financial Services Inc. (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Court of First Instance, San Juan Superior Court, Case No. CV-000248923, filed February 19, 2020). On February 19, 2020,

Ambac Assurance filed a complaint in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Court of First Instance, San Juan Superior Court, against certain underwriters of Ambac-insured bonds issued by PRIFA and PRCCDA, with causes of action under the Puerto Rico civil law doctrines of actos proprios and Unilateral Declaration of Will. Ambac Assurance alleges defendants engaged in inequitable conduct in underwriting Ambac-insured bonds issued by PRIFA and PRCCDA, including failing to investigate and adequately disclose material information in the official statements for the bonds that defendants provided to Ambac Assurance regarding systemic deficiencies in the Commonwealth’s financial reporting. Ambac Assurance seeks damages in compensation for claims paid by Ambac Assurance on its financial guaranty insurance policies insuring such bonds, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees. On March 20, 2020, Defendants removed this case to the Title III Court. On April 20, 2020, Ambac moved to remand the case back to the Court of First Instance. Briefing on the motion to remand is scheduled to conclude on June 10, 2020.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Autopistas Metropolitanas de Puerto Rico, LLC (United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico) Case No. 3:20-cv-01094, filed February 19, 2020). On February 19, 2020, Ambac Assurance filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, against Autopistas Metropolitanas de Puerto Rico, LLC (“Metropistas”), which holds a concession from PRHTA for two Puerto Rico highways, PR-5 and PR-22, in connection with a 10-year extension of the concession that was entered into in April 2016. The complaint includes claims for fraudulent conveyance and unjust enrichment, alleging that the consideration paid by Metropistas for the extension was less than reasonably equivalent value and most of the benefit of such payment was received by the Commonwealth instead of PRHTA. Ambac Assurance also seeks a declaratory judgment that it has a valid and continuing lien on certain toll revenues that are being collected by Metropistas. On March 31, 2020, the Oversight Board filed a motion before the Title III Court seeking an order directing Ambac to withdraw its complaint. On April 20, 2020, the District Court ordered this case stayed pending briefing before the Title III Court on the Oversight Board’s motion to withdraw. A hearing before the Title III Court on the motion to withdraw is scheduled for June 3, 2020.

Student Loans Exposure

CFPB v. Nat’l Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust (United States District Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 1:17-cv-01323, filed September 18, 2017). The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) filed a complaint against fifteen National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts, regarding alleged improprieties and deficiencies in servicing practices.   Simultaneous with the filing of its complaint, CFPB also filed a motion for entry of a proposed consent judgment that would grant monetary damages and injunctive relief against the Trusts. Ambac Assurance guaranteed certain securities issued by three of the Trusts and indirectly insures six other Trusts.  On September 20, 2017, Ambac Assurance filed a motion to intervene in the action, which motion was granted on October 19, 2018. On November 29, 2018, the court set a bifurcated discovery and briefing schedule. Discovery and briefing is now complete as to certain threshold issues. Additionally, on March 19, 2020, Intervenor Transworld Systems Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

RMBS Litigation

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, Case No. 651612/2010, filed on September 28, 2010). Ambac Assurance’s Second Amended Complaint, filed on May 28, 2013, asserted claims against Countrywide and Bank of America (as successor to Countrywide’s liabilities) for, among other things, breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. In August and October 2018, Defendants filed various pre-trial motions. On December 30, 2018, the court denied all of these pre-trial motions in their entirety and Defendants appealed. On September 17, 2019, the First Department affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s rulings. On October 17, 2019, Countrywide filed a motion for leave to appeal certain issues to the New York Court of Appeals and for reargument or leave to appeal certain other issues. On January 16, 2020, the First Department recalled and vacated its September 17, 2019 decision and order and substituted a new decision and order. On the same date, the First Department denied Countrywide’s motion seeking leave to appeal, without prejudice to seeking such leave from the reissued decision and order. On January 30, 2020, Countrywide filed a new motion for leave to appeal the First Department’s denial of its motions, which Ambac Assurance opposed. On January 14, 2020, the trial court granted Ambac Assurance’s motion to supplement and amend certain of its expert reports, and expert discovery is ongoing. Due to the impact of COVID-19 on the court system in New York State, which has caused the postponement of all in-person proceedings, the Court vacated the previously scheduled July 13, 2020 trial date. Given the difficulty or impossibility of predicting the scope, duration and magnitude of the effect of COVID-19 on the New York court system, and the possibility of other intervening causes of delay, we can provide no assurance as to when the trial will be rescheduled.

• Ambac Assurance Corporation v. U.S. Bank National Association (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Docket No. 18-cv-5182 (LGS), filed June 8, 2018 (the “SDNY Action”)); In the matter of HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-10 (Minnesota state court, Docket No. 27-TR-CV-17-32 (the “Minnesota Action”)). These two actions relate to U.S. Bank National Association’s (“U.S. Bank”) acceptance of a proposed settlement in a separate litigation that U.S. Bank is prosecuting, as trustee, related to the Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2005-10 (“Harborview 2005-10”), a residential mortgage-backed securitization for which Ambac Assurance issued an insurance policy. On March 6, 2017, U.S. Bank filed a petition commencing the Minnesota Action, a trust instruction proceeding in Minnesota state court concerning the proposed settlement, and on June 12, 2017, U.S. Bank filed an amended petition.  Ambac Assurance filed a

motion to dismiss the Minnesota Action, which was denied on November 13, 2017, and the denial was affirmed on appeal. On September 6, 2018, U.S. Bank filed its Second Amended Petition, and Ambac Assurance and certain other certificateholders objected to, or otherwise responded to, the petition. Discovery in the Minnesota Action is ongoing, and the court has set June 20, 2020 as the date for the start of the trial. On June 8, 2018, Ambac Assurance filed the SDNY Action asserting claims arising out of U.S. Bank’s acceptance of the proposed settlement and treatment of trust recoveries. Ambac Assurance asserted claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. On July 16, 2019, the court dismissed Ambac Assurance's breach-of-contract and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims based on U.S. Bank's acceptance of the settlement; and dismissed Ambac Assurance's declaratory judgment claims regarding the occurrence of an Event of Default and U.S. Bank's future distribution of trust recoveries through the waterfall. The court denied the motion to dismiss Ambac Assurance's breach-of-contract claims based on U.S. Bank's past distribution of trust recoveries through the waterfall. On January 17, 2020, U.S. Bank moved for summary judgment regarding the remaining claim relating to distributions. On February 7, 2020, Ambac

Assurance cross-moved for summary judgment. These summary judgment motions are fully briefed.

•

In re application of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee of the Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-9 (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, No. 654208/2018), filed August 23, 2018 (the “Trust Instruction Proceeding”). This action relates to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company’s (“DBNT”) proposed settlement of claims related to the Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust Series 2006-9 (“Harborview 2006-09”). On August 23, 2018, DBNT filed a Petition commencing the Trust Instruction Proceeding, seeking judicial instruction pursuant to CPLR Article 77, inter alia, to accept the proposed settlement with respect of claims relating to Harborview 2006-9.  On November 2, 2018, Ambac Assurance and other interested persons filed notices of intention to appear and answers to DBNT’s  petition. Ambac Assurance sought a period of discovery before resolution on the merits. Under the current case schedule discovery is to be completed by May 20, 2020 and merits briefing by July 10, 2020. Ambac Assurance expects this schedule to be modified.