Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	17. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation Against Ambac Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC, et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al. (United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Case No. 17-cv-04992-BLF, filed August 28, 2017). Plaintiffs, the corporate developers of various military housing projects, filed an amended complaint on October 27, 2017 against AAC, a former employee of AAC, and certain unaffiliated persons and entities, asserting claims for (i) violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 1962(c) and 1962(d) (civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and conspiracy to commit civil RICO), (ii) breach of fiduciary duty, (iii) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, (iv) fraudulent misrepresentation, (v) fraudulent concealment and (vi) conspiracy to commit fraud. The claims relate to bonds and debt certificates (insured by AAC) that were issued to finance the renovation and construction of housing at certain military bases. Plaintiffs allege that defendants secretly conspired to overcharge plaintiffs for the financing of the projects and directed the excess profits to themselves. Plaintiffs allege defendants generated these excess profits by supposedly charging inflated interest rates, manipulating “shadow ratings,” charging unnecessary fees, and hiding evidence of their alleged wrongdoing. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages, disgorgement of profits and fees, punitive damages, trebled damages and attorneys’ fees. Ambac and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on November 13, 2017. On July 17, 2018, the court granted AAC’s and the other defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint without prejudice. On December 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On February 15, 2019, Ambac and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On September 26, 2019, the court issued a decision denying defendants’ motion to dismiss and sua sponte reconsidering its previous denial of defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”). On October 4, 2019, the case was transferred to the SDNY. On October 10, 2019, the defendants filed motions in the SDNY to vacate or reconsider the decision by the Northern District of California on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On October 24, 2019, plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition to defendants' motions to vacate or reconsider, and on October 31, 2019, defendants filed their reply briefs in further support of their motions. On November 20, 2019, the court ordered that the defendants’ answers to the second amended complaint would be due seven days after the court issues a decision on their motions. 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 AAC. 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. AAC 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, et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 19-ap-00363, filed May 20, 2019). On May 20, 2019, the Oversight Board, together with the Committee, as Plaintiffs, filed an adversary proceeding against certain parties that filed proofs of claim on account of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority ("PRHTA"), including AAC. The complaint seeks declarations that the PRHTA bonds are only secured by revenues on deposit with the PRHTA Fiscal Agent and that PRHTA bondholders have no security interest in any other property of PRHTA or the Commonwealth, and in the alternative, to the extent such other security interests exist, the complaint seeks to avoid other security interests that holders of PRHTA bonds may have. On June 14, 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. On December 19, 2019, the District Court ordered that this matter will remain stayed pending further order of the District Court pursuant to the Oversight Board’s initiation of a separate adversary proceeding concerning PRHTA bonds (No. 20-ap-00005, discussed below). 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. On February 27, 2020, defendants filed motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2020, the District Court stayed the motions to dismiss and authorized the Oversight Board to move for summary judgment, which motion defendants opposed. Oral argument on the motion for summary judgment was held on September 23, 2020. On January 20, 2021, the District Court granted defendants’ request for deferral of the adjudication of the summary judgment motion until defendants have the opportunity to conduct certain discovery. Discovery is ongoing. 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. On February 27, 2020, defendants filed motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2020, the District Court stayed the motions to dismiss and authorized the Oversight Board to move for summary judgment, which motion defendants opposed. Oral argument on the motion for summary judgment was held on September 23, 2020. On January 20, 2021, the District Court granted defendants’ request for deferral of the adjudication of the summary judgment motion until defendants have the opportunity to conduct certain discovery. Discovery is ongoing. 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 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. On February 27, 2020, defendants filed motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2020, the District Court stayed the motions to dismiss and authorized the Oversight Board to move for summary judgment, which motion defendants opposed. Oral argument on the motion for summary judgment was held on September 23, 2020. On January 20, 2021, the District Court granted defendants’ request for deferral of the adjudication of the summary judgment motion until defendants have the opportunity to conduct certain discovery. Discovery is ongoing. 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, AAC 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 AAC. 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, AAC, the Owner Trustee, the Indenture Trustee, and other parties filed declaratory judgment counterclaims. Several parties, including Plaintiffs and Ambac Assurance, filed motions for judgment on the pleadings in support of their requested judicial determinations. On August 27, 2020, the Vice Chancellor issued an opinion addressing all of the pending motions for judgment on the pleadings, which granted certain of the parties’ requested judicial determinations and denied others. He deferred judgment on still other declarations pending further factual development. Trial on the unresolved contractual interpretation issues has been scheduled for September 13–17, 2021. AAC’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. AAC has periodically received various regulatory inquiries and requests for information with respect to investigations and inquiries that such regulators are conducting. AAC 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 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 January 7, 2016). AAC, 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 moved to dismiss on January 29, 2016. On October 4, 2016, the court denied the Defendants’ motions to dismiss. 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 was 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. PROMESA’s litigation stay expired on May 2, 2017. On May 3, 2017, the Oversight Board filed a petition to adjust the Commonwealth’s debts under Title III of PROMESA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against the Commonwealth. On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 16-cv-1893, filed May 10, 2016). AAC 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. AAC also filed related motions seeking the appointment of a provisional receiver for PRHTA and expedited discovery. On May 21, 2017, the Oversight Board filed a petition to adjust PRHTA’s debts under Title III of PROMESA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against PRHTA. On May 24, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. Lex Claims, LLC et al. v. Alejandro Garcia Padilla et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 16-2374, filed July 20, 2016). On October 7, 2016, certain General Obligation bondholder Plaintiffs in an action to which AAC was not then a party filed a motion for leave to amend an existing complaint, adding the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation ("COFINA"), COFINA’s executive director, and the trustee for the COFINA bonds as Defendants, and asserting numerous claims that challenged 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. On February 17, 2017, the court permitted AAC to intervene. On May 3, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and on May 5, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of COFINA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against the Commonwealth and COFINA (respectively). On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. On October 19, 2018, the Oversight Board filed (i) a disclosure statement and a plan of adjustment for COFINA (the “COFINA Plan”) in the COFINA Title III case incorporating a resolution of the dispute between the Commonwealth and COFINA concerning entitlement to sales and use taxes (the “Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute”), and (ii) a motion under Bankruptcy Rule 9019 in the Commonwealth Title III case for approval of the settlement of the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute (the “9019 Motion”). On February 4, 2019 the District Court granted the 9019 Motion and confirmed the COFINA Plan, which resolves the dispute in this case. The COFINA Plan became effective on February 12, 2019. Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order. On April 12, 2019, the Oversight Board and the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority ("AAFAF") moved to dismiss these appeals as equitably moot because the COFINA Plan has been consummated. On February 8, 2021, the First Circuit dismissed the appeals of the confirmation order. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 17-1567, filed May 2, 2017). On May 2, 2017, AAC filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the Commonwealth’s Fiscal and Economic Growth Plan (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. On May 3, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and on May 5, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of COFINA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against COFINA. On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. On February 4, 2019, the District Court granted the 9019 Motion and confirmed the COFINA Plan. The COFINA Plan became effective on February 12, 2019. Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order. AAC anticipates that this case will be voluntarily dismissed given the effectiveness of the COFINA Plan. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 17-1568, filed May 2, 2017). On May 2, 2017, AAC filed a complaint alleging that various moratorium laws and executive orders enacted by the Commonwealth to claw back funds from 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. On May 3, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and on May 21, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of PRHTA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against the Commonwealth and PRHTA (respectively). On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. U.S. Department of Treasury et al. (United States District Court, District of Columbia, No. 17-809, filed May 2, 2017). On May 2, 2017, AAC 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. On May 3, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. On May 24, 2017, the Oversight Board filed a statement requesting that the court take notice of the stay resulting from the Commonwealth’s Title III filing. On May 25, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case as a result of the Title III proceedings. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Bank of New York Mellon (United States District Court, Southern District of New York. No. 1:17-cv-03804, filed May 2, 2017). On May 2, 2017, AAC filed a complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, 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 AAC-insured senior COFINA bonds. On May 19, 2017, BNY filed a notice of removal of this action from New York state court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On May 30, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico entered an order in an adversary proceeding brought by BNY (No. 1:17-ap-00133) staying this litigation pending further order of the court. The COFINA Plan became effective on February 12, 2019, and, pursuant to the District Court’s confirmation order, this litigation is permitted to continue, with Ambac’s claims against BNYM being limited to those for gross negligence, willful misconduct and intentional fraud. Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 12, 2019, the Oversight Board and AAFAF moved to dismiss these appeals as equitably moot because the COFINA Plan has been consummated. On February 8, 2021, the First Circuit dismissed the appeals of the confirmation order. Bank of New York Mellon v. COFINA, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-ap-00133, filed May 16, 2017). On May 16, 2017, BNY filed an interpleader action styled as an adversary proceeding against COFINA and certain creditors of COFINA, including AAC, that have made competing claims of entitlement to funds held by BNY in order to determine the parties’ respective entitlements to the funds. BNY also sought a release of liability in association with the COFINA funds in its possession.. On September 27, 2018, the court terminated competing motions for summary judgment without prejudice in light of the pending agreement in principle between the agent for COFINA and the agent for the Commonwealth in adversary proceeding no. 1:17-ap-00257 (the “Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute,” discussed below). On October 19, 2018, the Oversight Board filed (i) a disclosure statement and the COFINA Plan in the COFINA Title III case incorporating a resolution of the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute, and (ii) the 9019 Motion in the Commonwealth Title III case for approval of the settlement of the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute. On February 4, 2019 the District Court granted the 9019 Motion and confirmed the COFINA Plan, which resolves the dispute in this case. The COFINA Plan became effective on February 12, 2019. Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 20, 2019, on the joint motion of BNY and COFINA, the District Court dismissed this case with prejudice. On April 12, 2019, the Oversight Board and AAFAF moved to dismiss these appeals as equitably moot because the COFINA Plan has been consummated. On February 8, 2021, the First Circuit dismissed the appeals of the confirmation order. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Whyte (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-ap-00257, filed September 8, 2017) (the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute). On August 10, 2017, the court approved a stipulation between the Oversight Board, the Commonwealth, COFINA, and certain creditor parties, including AAC, to resolve the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute regarding entitlement to sales and use taxes. The stipulation provided that separate agents for COFINA and the Commonwealth would litigate the dispute while preserving the ability of interested parties, to participate in the litigation. On September 8, 2017, the Commonwealth Agent filed an adversary proceeding against the COFINA Agent challenging the COFINA structure on various grounds. The Commonwealth Agent filed a revised complaint on October 25, 2017, making technical corrections to the original complaint. AAC made a motion to intervene in this action, which the court granted on November 21, 2017. The Commonwealth Agent filed an amended complaint on January 16, 2018, largely re-stating its original causes of action to fall within the parameters of the dispute set by the court. After extensive motion practice, on September 27, 2018, the court terminated competing summary judgment motions without prejudice in light of a pending agreement in principle between the Commonwealth Agent and COFINA Agent. On October 19, 2018, the Oversight Board filed (i) a disclosure statement and the COFINA Plan in the COFINA Title III case incorporating a resolution of the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute, and (ii) the 9019 Motion in the Commonwealth Title III case for approval of the settlement of the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute. On February 4, 2019, the District Court granted the 9019 Motion and confirmed the COFINA Plan, which resolves the dispute in this case. The COFINA Plan became effective on February 12, 2019. On February 21, 2019, on the joint motion of the agents for the Commonwealth and COFINA, the Oversight Board, AAFAF, and all participating interested parties, the District Court dismissed this case with prejudice. Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 12, 2019, the Oversight Board and AAFAF moved to dismiss these appeals as equitably moot because the COFINA Plan has been consummated. On February 8, 2021, the First Circuit dismissed the appeals of the confirmation order. 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, AAC 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 “Amended 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 be 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 AAC. The court subsequently ordered certain consolidated procedures permitting parties in interest an opportunity to participate in litigation of the objection. On April 11, 2019, AAC 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 Amended 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. On July 19, 2020, the Committee filed a motion to lift the stay on this claim objection in light of the changes to the fiscal plan and likely changes to the Commonwealth plan of adjustment in light of COVID-19. On September 1, 2020, AAC filed a partial joinder to the Committee’s motion. On September 17, 2020, the District Court denied the Committee’s motion without prejudice, indicating that the stay likely would remain in place until at least March 2021. On October 1, 2020, the Committee moved the District Court to reconsider its denial of the Committee’s motion to lift the stay in light of materials released by the parties to the Amended PSA that the Committee argued demonstrate a lack of agreement between those parties. On October 5, 2020, the District Court denied the Committee’s motion for reconsideration. On October 16, 2020, the Committee appealed to the First Circuit the District Court’s order denying the Committee’s motion to lift the stay on its claim objection. On February 22, 2021, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal. 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. 13573, filed July 7, 2020) (“Amended 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, AAC 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 (Dkt. No. 8020) (Original Motion to Strike PSA). On February 9, 2020, the Oversight Board executed the Amended PSA and on March 10, 2020, the District Court denied the Original Motion to Strike PSA without prejudice given the execution of the Amended PSA. On July 7, 2020, AAC filed the Amended Motion to Strike PSA seeking similar relief with respect to the Amended PSA. Briefing on the Amended Motion to Strike PSA concluded on October 20, 2020, and the District Court has taken the matter on submission. On February 23, 2021, the Oversight Board announced that it entered into a further revised PSA (the “Second Amended PSA”), and that all parties to the Amended PSA had jointly terminated the Amended 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, AAC filed a motion seeking an order that the automatic stay does not apply to certain lawsuits AAC 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 AAC'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 AAC, 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 AAC filed the amended motion the same day. On July 2, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on certain grounds. Briefing regarding additional grounds on which AAC and other movants seek stay relief concluded on August 5, 2020; on September 9, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on the additional grounds. On September 23, 2020, AAC and the other movants appealed this decision to the First Circuit. Oral argument was held before the First Circuit on February 4, 2021. 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, AAC, 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. On July 2, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on certain grounds. Briefing regarding additional grounds on which AAC and other movants seek stay relief concluded on August 5, 2020; on September 9, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on the additional grounds. On September 23, 2020, AAC and the other movants appealed this decision to the First Circuit. Oral argument was held before the First Circuit on February 4, 2021. 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, AAC, 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. On July 2, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on certain grounds, but found that the movants had stated a colorable claim that a certain account was the “Transfer Account” on which movants hold a lien. Briefing regarding additional grounds on which AAC and other movants seek stay relief concluded on August 5, 2020; on September 9, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on the additional grounds, and found that a final determination on issues related to the identity of the Transfer Account would be made in the decision on the motions for summary judgment issued in the CCDA-related adversary proceeding, No. 20-ap-00004. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Oriental Financial Services LLC; Popular Securities LLC; Raymond James & Associates, Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC; Samuel A. Ramirez & Co. Inc., Santander Securities LLC; UBS Financial Services Inc.; and UBS Securities LLC (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Court of First Instance, San Juan Superior Court, Case No. SJ-2020-CV-01505, filed February 19, 2020). On February 19, 2020, AAC 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. AAC 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 AAC regarding systemic deficiencies in the Commonwealth’s financial reporting. AAC seeks damages in compensation for claims paid by AAC 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, AAC moved to remand the case back to the Court of First Instance. On July 29, 2020, the District Court granted AAC’s motion to remand the case to the Commonwealth court. AAC filed an amended complaint in the Commonwealth court on October 28, 2020. In the Amended Complaint, AAC added claims on bonds issued by the Commonwealth, PBA and PRHTA and added defendants that had underwritten these bonds. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on December 8 and 14, 2020; AAC filed its opposition to the motions to dismiss on January 15, 2021. Defendants filed replies to their motions to dismiss on February 5 and 16, 2021. AAC will file its sur-reply to the motion to dismiss on March 5, 2021. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Autopistas Metropolitanas de Puerto Rico, LLC (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 3:20-cv-01094, filed February 19, 2020). On February 19, 2020, AAC 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. AAC 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. On June 16, 2020, the Title III Court ordered AAC to withdraw its complaint. AAC withdrew its complaint on June 23, 2020, and noticed an appeal from the Title III Court’s order to withdraw on June 30, 2020. AAC’s opening appeal brief was filed before the First Circuit on October 19, 2020; briefing was completed on February 12, 2021. Oral argument is scheduled to be heard on March 8, 2021. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 3:20-ap-00068, filed May 26, 2020). On May 26, 2020, AAC filed an adversary complaint before the Title III Court seeking (i) a declaration that titles I, II, and III of PROMESA are unconstitutional because they violate the Bankruptcy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (which requires all bankruptcy laws to be uniform) and (ii) dismissal of the pending Title III petitions. On August 17, 2020, the Oversight Board filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; on August 18, 2020, the Official Committee of Retired Employees of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “Retiree Committee”) and the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority (“AAFAF”) filed joinders to the motion to dismiss. The United States filed a motion to dismiss on October 2, 2020. Oral argument on the motions to dismiss was held on January 12, 2021. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Urgent Motion for Bridge Order, and Motion for Appointment as Trustees Under 11 U.S.C. § 926, of Ambac Assurance Corporation, Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (Dkt. No. 13708, filed July 17, 2020) (“HTA Trustee Motion”). On July 17, 2020, AAC, together with Assured Guaranty Corporation, Assured Guaranty Municipal Corporation, and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, filed a motion seeking appointment as trustees under Section 926 of the Bankruptcy Code to pursue certain avoidance actions on behalf of HTA against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The HTA Trustee Motion attached a proposed complaint detailing the avoidance claims that movants would pursue. On August 11, 2020, the District Court denied the HTA Trustee Motion; on August 24, 2020, movants noticed an appeal of the denial of the HTA Trustee Motion to the First Circuit. On September 30, 2020, movants filed a motion with the First Circuit to hold this appeal in abeyance pending the First Circuit’s resolution of the appeal from the District Court’s denial of the HTA Lift-Stay Motion. On October 13, 2020, the Oversight Board opposed the motion to hold the appeal in abeyance and cross-moved to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing that the statute of limitations on the avoidance actions movants wish to pursue has expired. Briefing on both motions concluded on October 27, 2020. On December 22, 2020, the First Circuit denied the motion to hold the appeal in abeyance, and referred the motion to dismiss to the panel determining the merits of the appeal. Movants’ opening brief before the First Circuit was filed on February 17, 2021; briefing is expected to conclude on May 10, 2021. 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 to approve a proposed consent judgment that would have granted monetary damages and injunctive relief against the Trusts. AAC guaranteed certain securities issued by three of the Trusts and indirectly insures six other Trusts. On September 20, 2017, AAC filed a motion to intervene in the action, which motion was granted on October 19, 2018. Following discovery and briefing, on May 31, 2020, the District Court denied the CFPB’s motion to approve the proposed consent judgment. On March 19, 2020, Intervenor Transworld Systems Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On July 10, 2020, AAC and several other intervenors filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Briefing on both motions to dismiss is complete. Additionally, on July 2, 2020, the CFPB submitted an application for entry of default against the Trusts. AAC and the Owner Trustee opposed the CFPB’s application, which remains pending. Nat’l Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust v. Pa. Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) (Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No. 12111-VCS, filed March 21, 2016). Plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of fifteen National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts filed a lawsuit against PHEAA, a servicer of loans in the Trusts, alleging improprieties and deficiencies in servicing practices and seeking an order compelling PHEAA to submit to an emergency audit. PHEAA submitted papers contesting the validity of certain transfers to Plaintiffs of beneficial ownership interests in the Trusts. In addition, the Owner Trustee of the Trusts, Wilmington Trust Company, WTC, citing irreconcilable differences with Plaintiffs, has resigned from its role as Owner Trustee and moved for appointment of a successor Owner Trustee. On October 9, 2017, the court directed the parties to meet and confer to develop a process for selecting an interim Owner Trustee. AAC guaranteed certain securities issued by three of the Trusts and indirectly insures certain securities in six other Trusts. AAC filed a motion to intervene in the action on October 23, 2017, for the limited purpose of being heard regarding the appointment of a successor Owner Trustee and regarding WTC’s contractual commitment and obligation to remain in that role until such appointment is made. On October 30, 2017, the court denied without prejudice a stipulation filed by Plaintiffs and WTC purporting to address the Owner Trustee issue, and instructed that all interested parties be given notice and an opportunity to participate in discussions to formulate a process for selecting a successor Owner Trustee. On November 7, 2017, the court ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor and confirmed the validity of the ownership transfers that PHEAA had disputed. On January 12, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for injunctive or declaratory relief requiring WTC, as Owner Trustee, and GSS Data Services, Inc., as Administrator, to resume processing for payment bills submitted by lawyers purporting to act on the Trusts’ behalf. At a hearing on April 3, 2018, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice and on April 16, 2018 entered an order memorializing its oral ruling. The court also granted AAC’s motion to intervene on April 10, 2018 and AAC filed its complaint in intervention on April 16, 2018. On January 21, 2020, Vice Chancellor Slights entered an order consolidating the action with later-filed litigation pending in Delaware Chancery Court relating to the Trusts, including a declaratory judgment action in which AAC was named as a defendant, NC Residuals Owners Trust, et al. v. Wilmington Trust Co., et al. (Del. Ct. Ch., C.A. No. 2019-0880, filed Nov. 1, 2019). RMBS Litigation In connection with AAC’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, AAC 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). AAC has asserted claims for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, indemnification, reimbursement and has requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts. On July 18, 2013 the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss (filed on July 13, 2012). The court dismissed AAC’s claims for indemnification and limited AAC’s claim for breach of loan-level warranties to the repurchase protocol, but denied dismissal of AAC’s other contractual claims and fraudulent inducement claim. 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). AAC’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 AAC opposed. On June 11, 2020, the First Department denied Countrywide’s motion for leave to appeal. On January 14, 2020, the trial court granted AAC’s motion to supplement and amend certain of its expert reports. After supplemental expert discovery, on August 12, 2020, Countrywide filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment on, Ambac’s fraud claim and on December 4, 2020, the Court granted Countrywide’s motion, resulting in dismissal of AAC's fraud claim. On December 17, 2020, Ambac filed a notice of appeal from this decision. On February 22, 2021, Ambac filed its opening brief for this appeal. This appeal remains pending. Trial of this matter had been scheduled to commence on February 22, 2021, but on December 23, 2020 the Court adjourned the trial due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A new trial date has not been set. •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). AAC has asserted claims for material breach of contract and has requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties under the contracts. AAC also asserted alter ego claims against Nomura Holding America, Inc. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 12, 2013. On September 22, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which added (in addition to the claims previously asserted) a claim for fraudulent inducement. On October 31, 2014 defendants filed a motion to strike the amended complaint and on November 10, 2014 also filed a motion to dismiss the fraudulent-inducement claim. On June 3, 2015, the court denied defendants’ July 2013 motion to dismiss AAC’s claim for breaches of representations and warranties, but granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss AAC’s claims for breach of the repurchase protocol and for alter ego liability against Nomura Holding. On December 29, 2016, the court denied Nomura’s motion to strike AAC’s amended complaint and its motion to dismiss the fraudulent-inducement claim. Nomura appealed the June 2015 decision to the extent it denied its motion to dismiss, filing its opening appellate brief on March 23, 2017. On December 7, 2017, the First Department affirmed the trial court’s June 3, 2015 decision. Discovery is ongoing. •Ambac Assurance Corporation and the Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Case No. 652321/2015, filed on June 30, 2015). On June 30, 2015, AAC and the Segregated Account filed a Summons with Notice in New York Supreme Court (the “2015 New York Action”), asserting claims identical to claims they asserted in a litigation filed on December 30, 2014 in Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County, Case No 14 CV 3511 (the “Wisconsin Action”). Specifically, in each action AAC asserted a claim for fraudulent inducement in connection with its issuance of insurance policies relating to five residential mortgage-backed securitizations that are not the subject of AAC’s previously filed lawsuit against the same defendant. 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. Countrywide opposed plaintiffs’ motion to stay and on August 10, 2015, Countrywide filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 20, 2016, the court granted AAC’s motion to stay and held Countrywide’s motion to dismiss in abeyance pending resolution of the Wisconsin Action. Following the dismissal of the Wisconsin Action on March 13, 2018, the court in the 2015 New York Action vacated its stay on March 30, 2018, and restored Countrywide’s motion to dismiss to the calendar. The parties submitted supplemental letter briefs on April 11, 2018 addressing newly-issued relevant authority. On December 8, 2020, the court granted Countrywide’s motion to dismiss the complaint. AAC filed a notice of appeal from this decision on January 7, 2021. The court entered judgment in Countrywide’s favor on January 29, 2021 and AAC filed a notice of appeal from the judgment on February 2, 2021. •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). AAC asserted a claim for fraudulent inducement in connection with AAC’s issuance of insurance policies relating to eight residential mortgage-backed securitizations that are not the subject of AAC’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. On December 20, 2016, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. Discovery has been completed. The court has not yet set a schedule for summary judgment or for trial. •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 AAC 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. AAC 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 AAC and certain other certificateholders objected to, or otherwise responded to, the petition. Trial, which was previously scheduled to begin February 1, 2021, has been rescheduled to October 11 through 15, 2021. On June 8, 2018, AAC filed the SDNY Action asserting claims arising out of U.S. Bank’s acceptance of the proposed settlement and treatment of trust recoveries. AAC asserted claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. On July 16, 2019, the court dismissed AAC's breach-of-contract and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims based on U.S. Bank's acceptance of the settlement; and dismissed AAC'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 AAC'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, AAC cross-moved for summary judgment. On December 7, 2020, the court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Ambac’s repayment right in the trust waterfall, and granted Ambac’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the use of a write-up first method and the offsetting of recoveries against realized losses. On December 22, 2020, the court entered final judgment consistent with its prior decisions, and awarded Ambac nominal damages. On January 12, 2021, Ambac filed a notice of appeal of that judgment. •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). AAC has asserted 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 AAC issued insurance policies. On September 15, 2017, U.S. Bank filed a motion to dismiss. On June 29, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the breach-of-fiduciary duty claim in part as duplicative of the breach-of-contract claim; dismissed the breach-of-contract claim as untimely only to the extent that it was premised on U.S. Bank's obligation to certify that mortgage documents were properly delivered to the Trusts; dismissed the Streit Act claims; and otherwise denied the motion to dismiss. Discovery is ongoing. •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 2006-9”). 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, AAC and other interested persons filed notices of intention to appear and answers to DBNT’s petition. AAC sought a period of discovery before resolution on the merits. Discovery is now complete. Under the operative case schedule, merits briefing was

was held on September 23, 2020. On January 20, 2021, the District Court granted defendants’ request for deferral of the adjudication of the summary judgment motion until defendants have the opportunity to conduct certain discovery. Discovery is ongoing.

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, AAC 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 AAC. 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, AAC, the Owner Trustee, the Indenture Trustee, and other parties filed declaratory judgment counterclaims. Several parties, including Plaintiffs and Ambac Assurance, filed motions for judgment on the pleadings in support of their requested judicial determinations. On August 27, 2020, the Vice Chancellor issued an opinion addressing all of the pending motions for judgment on the pleadings, which granted certain of the parties’ requested judicial determinations and denied others. He deferred judgment on still other declarations pending further factual development. Trial on the unresolved contractual interpretation issues has been scheduled for September 13–17, 2021.

AAC’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.

AAC has periodically received various regulatory inquiries and requests for information with respect to investigations and inquiries that such regulators are conducting. AAC 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

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 January 7, 2016). AAC, 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 moved to dismiss on January 29, 2016. On October 4, 2016, the court denied the Defendants’ motions to dismiss. 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 was 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. PROMESA’s litigation stay expired on May 2, 2017. On May 3, 2017, the Oversight Board filed a petition to adjust the Commonwealth’s debts under Title III of PROMESA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against the Commonwealth. On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 16-cv-1893, filed May 10, 2016). AAC 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. AAC also filed related motions seeking the appointment of a provisional receiver for PRHTA and expedited discovery. On May 21, 2017, the Oversight Board filed a petition to adjust PRHTA’s debts under Title III of PROMESA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against PRHTA. On May 24, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court.

Lex Claims, LLC et al. v. Alejandro Garcia Padilla et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 16-2374, filed July 20, 2016). On October 7, 2016, certain General Obligation bondholder Plaintiffs in an action to which AAC was not then a party filed a motion for leave to amend an existing complaint, adding the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation ("COFINA"), COFINA’s executive director, and the trustee for the COFINA bonds as Defendants, and asserting numerous claims that challenged 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. On February 17, 2017, the court permitted AAC to intervene. On May 3, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and on May 5, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of COFINA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against the Commonwealth and COFINA (respectively). On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. On October 19, 2018, the Oversight Board filed (i) a disclosure statement and a plan of adjustment for COFINA (the “COFINA Plan”) in the COFINA Title III case incorporating a resolution

of the dispute between the Commonwealth and COFINA concerning entitlement to sales and use taxes (the “Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute”), and (ii) a motion under Bankruptcy Rule 9019 in the Commonwealth Title III case for approval of the settlement of the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute (the “9019 Motion”). On February 4, 2019 the District Court granted the 9019 Motion and confirmed the COFINA Plan, which resolves the dispute in this case. The COFINA Plan became effective on February 12, 2019. Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order. On April 12, 2019, the Oversight Board and the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority ("AAFAF") moved to dismiss these appeals as equitably moot because the COFINA Plan has been consummated. On February 8, 2021, the First Circuit dismissed the appeals of the confirmation order.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 17-1567, filed May 2, 2017). On May 2, 2017, AAC filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the Commonwealth’s Fiscal and Economic Growth Plan (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. On May 3, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and on May 5, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of COFINA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against COFINA. On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. On February 4, 2019, the District Court granted the 9019 Motion and confirmed the COFINA Plan. The COFINA Plan became effective on February 12, 2019. Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order. AAC anticipates that this case will be voluntarily dismissed given the effectiveness of the COFINA Plan.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 17-1568, filed May 2, 2017). On May 2, 2017, AAC filed a complaint alleging that various moratorium laws and executive orders enacted by the Commonwealth to claw back funds from 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. On May 3, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and on May 21, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of PRHTA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against the Commonwealth and PRHTA (respectively). On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. U.S. Department of Treasury et al. (United States District Court, District of Columbia, No. 17-809, filed May 2, 2017). On May 2, 2017, AAC 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. On May 3, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. On May 24, 2017, the Oversight Board filed a statement requesting that the court take notice of the stay resulting from the Commonwealth’s Title III filing. On May 25, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case as a result of the Title III proceedings.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Bank of New York Mellon (United States District Court, Southern District of New York. No. 1:17-cv-03804, filed May 2, 2017). On May 2, 2017, AAC filed a complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, 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 AAC-insured senior COFINA bonds. On May 19, 2017, BNY filed a notice of removal of this action from New York state court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On May 30, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico entered an order in an adversary proceeding brought by BNY (No. 1:17-ap-00133) staying this litigation pending further order of the court. The COFINA Plan became effective on February 12, 2019, and, pursuant to the District Court’s confirmation order, this litigation is permitted to continue, with Ambac’s claims against BNYM being limited to those for gross negligence, willful misconduct and intentional fraud. Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 12, 2019, the Oversight Board and AAFAF moved to dismiss these appeals as equitably moot because the COFINA Plan has been consummated. On February 8, 2021, the First Circuit dismissed the appeals of the confirmation order.

Bank of New York Mellon v. COFINA, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-ap-00133, filed May 16, 2017). On May 16, 2017, BNY filed an interpleader action styled as an adversary proceeding against COFINA and certain creditors of COFINA, including AAC, that have made competing claims of entitlement to funds held by BNY in order to determine the parties’ respective entitlements to the funds. BNY also sought a release of liability in association with the COFINA funds in its possession.. On September 27, 2018, the court terminated competing motions for summary judgment without prejudice in light of the pending agreement in principle between the agent for COFINA and the agent for the Commonwealth in adversary proceeding no. 1:17-ap-00257 (the “Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute,” discussed below). On October 19, 2018, the Oversight Board filed (i) a disclosure statement and the COFINA Plan in the COFINA Title III case incorporating a resolution of the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute, and (ii) the 9019 Motion in the Commonwealth Title III case for approval of the settlement of the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute. On February 4, 2019 the District Court

granted the 9019 Motion and confirmed the COFINA Plan, which resolves the dispute in this case. The COFINA Plan became effective on February 12, 2019. Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 20, 2019, on the joint motion of BNY and COFINA, the District Court dismissed this case with prejudice. On April 12, 2019, the Oversight Board and AAFAF moved to dismiss these appeals as equitably moot because the COFINA Plan has been consummated. On February 8, 2021, the First Circuit dismissed the appeals of the confirmation order.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Whyte (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-ap-00257, filed September 8, 2017) (the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute). On August 10, 2017, the court approved a stipulation between the Oversight Board, the Commonwealth, COFINA, and certain creditor parties, including AAC, to resolve the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute regarding entitlement to sales and use taxes. The stipulation provided that separate agents for COFINA and the Commonwealth would litigate the dispute while preserving the ability of interested parties, to participate in the litigation. On September 8, 2017, the Commonwealth Agent filed an adversary proceeding against the COFINA Agent challenging the COFINA structure on various grounds. The Commonwealth Agent filed a revised complaint on October 25, 2017, making technical corrections to the original complaint. AAC made a motion to intervene in this action, which the court granted on November 21, 2017. The Commonwealth Agent filed an amended complaint on January 16, 2018, largely re-stating its original causes of action to fall within the parameters of the dispute set by the court. After extensive motion practice, on September 27, 2018, the court terminated competing summary judgment motions without prejudice in light of a pending agreement in principle between the Commonwealth Agent and COFINA Agent. On October 19, 2018, the Oversight Board filed (i) a disclosure statement and the COFINA Plan in the COFINA Title III case incorporating a resolution of the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute, and (ii) the 9019 Motion in the Commonwealth Title III case for approval of the settlement of the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute. On February 4, 2019, the District Court granted the 9019 Motion and confirmed the COFINA Plan, which resolves the dispute in this case. The COFINA Plan became effective on February 12, 2019. On February 21, 2019, on the joint motion of the agents for the Commonwealth and COFINA, the Oversight Board, AAFAF, and all participating interested parties, the District Court dismissed this case with prejudice. Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 12, 2019, the Oversight Board and AAFAF moved to dismiss these appeals as equitably moot because the COFINA Plan has been consummated. On February 8, 2021, the First Circuit dismissed the appeals of the confirmation order.

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, AAC 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 “Amended 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 be 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 AAC. The court subsequently ordered certain consolidated procedures permitting parties in interest an opportunity to participate in litigation of the objection. On April 11, 2019, AAC 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 Amended 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. On July 19, 2020, the Committee filed a motion to lift the stay on this claim objection in light of the changes to the fiscal plan and likely changes to the Commonwealth plan of adjustment in light of COVID-19. On September 1, 2020, AAC filed a partial joinder to the Committee’s motion. On September 17, 2020, the District Court denied the Committee’s motion without prejudice, indicating that the stay likely would remain in place until at least March 2021. On October 1, 2020, the Committee moved the District Court to reconsider its denial of the Committee’s motion to lift the stay in light of materials released by the parties to the Amended PSA that the Committee argued demonstrate a lack of agreement between those parties. On October 5, 2020, the District Court denied the Committee’s motion for reconsideration. On October 16, 2020, the Committee appealed to the First Circuit the District Court’s order denying the Committee’s motion to lift the stay on its claim objection. On February 22, 2021, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal.

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. 13573, filed July 7, 2020) (“Amended 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, AAC 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 (Dkt. No. 8020) (Original Motion to Strike PSA). On February 9, 2020, the Oversight Board executed the Amended PSA and on March 10, 2020, the District Court denied the Original Motion to Strike PSA without prejudice given the execution of the Amended PSA. On July 7, 2020, AAC filed the Amended Motion to Strike PSA seeking similar relief with respect to the Amended PSA. Briefing on the Amended Motion to Strike PSA concluded on October 20, 2020, and the District Court has taken the matter on submission. On February 23, 2021, the Oversight Board announced that it entered into a further revised PSA (the “Second Amended PSA”), and that all parties to the Amended PSA had jointly terminated the Amended 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, AAC filed a motion seeking an order that the automatic stay does not apply to certain

lawsuits AAC 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 AAC'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 AAC, 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 AAC filed the amended motion the same day. On July 2, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on certain grounds. Briefing regarding additional grounds on which AAC and other movants seek stay relief concluded on August 5, 2020; on September 9, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on the additional grounds. On September 23, 2020, AAC and the other movants appealed this decision to the First Circuit. Oral argument was held before the First Circuit on February 4, 2021.

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, AAC, 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. On July 2, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on certain grounds. Briefing regarding additional grounds on which AAC and other movants seek stay relief concluded on August 5, 2020; on September 9, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on the additional grounds. On September 23, 2020, AAC and the other movants appealed this decision to the First Circuit. Oral argument was held before the First Circuit on February 4, 2021.

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, AAC, 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. On July 2, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on certain grounds, but found that the movants had stated a colorable claim that a certain account was the “Transfer Account” on which movants hold a lien. Briefing regarding additional grounds on which AAC and other movants seek stay relief concluded on August 5, 2020; on September 9, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on the additional grounds, and found that a final determination on issues related to the identity of the Transfer Account would be made in the decision on the motions for summary judgment issued in the CCDA-related adversary proceeding, No. 20-ap-00004.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Oriental Financial Services LLC; Popular Securities LLC; Raymond James & Associates, Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC; Samuel A. Ramirez & Co. Inc., Santander Securities LLC; UBS Financial Services Inc.; and UBS Securities LLC (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Court of First Instance, San Juan Superior Court, Case No. SJ-2020-CV-01505, filed February 19, 2020). On February 19, 2020, AAC 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. AAC 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 AAC regarding systemic deficiencies in the Commonwealth’s financial reporting. AAC seeks damages in compensation for claims paid by AAC 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, AAC moved to remand the case back to the Court of First Instance. On July 29, 2020, the District Court granted AAC’s motion to remand the case to the Commonwealth court. AAC filed an amended complaint in the Commonwealth court on October 28, 2020. In the Amended Complaint, AAC added claims on bonds issued by the Commonwealth, PBA and PRHTA and added defendants that had underwritten these bonds. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on December 8 and 14, 2020; AAC filed its opposition to the motions to dismiss on January 15, 2021. Defendants filed replies to their motions to dismiss on February 5 and 16, 2021. AAC will file its sur-reply to the motion to dismiss on March 5, 2021.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Autopistas Metropolitanas de Puerto Rico, LLC (United States District Court, District of

Puerto Rico, No. 3:20-cv-01094, filed February 19, 2020). On February 19, 2020, AAC 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. AAC 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. On June 16, 2020, the Title III Court ordered AAC to withdraw its complaint. AAC withdrew its complaint on June 23, 2020, and noticed an appeal from the Title III Court’s order to withdraw on June 30, 2020. AAC’s opening appeal brief was filed before the First Circuit on October 19, 2020; briefing was completed on February 12, 2021. Oral argument is scheduled to be heard on March 8, 2021.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 3:20-ap-00068, filed May 26, 2020). On May 26, 2020, AAC filed an adversary complaint before the Title III Court seeking (i) a declaration that titles I, II, and III of PROMESA are unconstitutional because they violate the Bankruptcy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (which requires all bankruptcy laws to be uniform) and (ii) dismissal of the pending Title III petitions. On August 17, 2020, the Oversight Board filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; on August 18, 2020, the Official Committee of Retired Employees of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “Retiree Committee”) and the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority (“AAFAF”) filed joinders to the motion to dismiss. The United States filed a motion to dismiss on October 2, 2020. Oral argument on the motions to dismiss was held on January 12, 2021.

In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Urgent Motion for Bridge Order, and Motion for Appointment as Trustees Under 11 U.S.C. § 926, of Ambac Assurance Corporation, Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (Dkt. No. 13708, filed July 17, 2020) (“HTA Trustee Motion”). On July 17, 2020, AAC, together with Assured Guaranty Corporation, Assured Guaranty Municipal Corporation, and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, filed a motion seeking appointment as trustees under Section 926 of the Bankruptcy Code to pursue certain avoidance actions on behalf of HTA against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The HTA Trustee Motion attached a proposed complaint detailing the avoidance claims that movants would pursue. On August 11, 2020, the District Court denied the HTA Trustee Motion; on August 24,

2020, movants noticed an appeal of the denial of the HTA Trustee Motion to the First Circuit. On September 30, 2020, movants filed a motion with the First Circuit to hold this appeal in abeyance pending the First Circuit’s resolution of the appeal from the District Court’s denial of the HTA Lift-Stay Motion. On October 13, 2020, the Oversight Board opposed the motion to hold the appeal in abeyance and cross-moved to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing that the statute of limitations on the avoidance actions movants wish to pursue has expired. Briefing on both motions concluded on October 27, 2020. On December 22, 2020, the First Circuit denied the motion to hold the appeal in abeyance, and referred the motion to dismiss to the panel determining the merits of the appeal. Movants’ opening brief before the First Circuit was filed on February 17, 2021; briefing is expected to conclude on May 10, 2021.

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 to approve a proposed consent judgment that would have granted monetary damages and injunctive relief against the Trusts. AAC guaranteed certain securities issued by three of the Trusts and indirectly insures six other Trusts. On September 20, 2017, AAC filed a motion to intervene in the action, which motion was granted on October 19, 2018. Following discovery and briefing, on May 31, 2020, the District Court denied the CFPB’s motion to approve the proposed consent judgment. On March 19, 2020, Intervenor Transworld Systems Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On July 10, 2020, AAC and several other intervenors filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Briefing on both motions to dismiss is complete. Additionally, on July 2, 2020, the CFPB submitted an application for entry of default against the Trusts. AAC and the Owner Trustee opposed the CFPB’s application, which remains pending.

Nat’l Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust v. Pa. Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) (Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No. 12111-VCS, filed March 21, 2016). Plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of fifteen National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts filed a lawsuit against PHEAA, a servicer of loans in the Trusts, alleging improprieties and deficiencies in servicing practices and seeking an order compelling PHEAA to submit to an emergency audit. PHEAA submitted papers contesting the validity of certain transfers to Plaintiffs of beneficial ownership interests in the Trusts. In addition, the Owner Trustee of the Trusts, Wilmington Trust Company, WTC, citing irreconcilable differences with Plaintiffs, has resigned from its role as Owner Trustee and moved for appointment of a successor Owner Trustee. On October 9, 2017, the court directed the parties to meet and confer to develop a process for selecting an interim Owner Trustee. AAC guaranteed certain securities issued by three of the Trusts and indirectly insures certain securities in six other Trusts. AAC filed a motion to intervene in the action on

October 23, 2017, for the limited purpose of being heard regarding the appointment of a successor Owner Trustee and regarding WTC’s contractual commitment and obligation to remain in that role until such appointment is made. On October 30, 2017, the court denied without prejudice a stipulation filed by Plaintiffs and WTC purporting to address the Owner Trustee issue, and instructed that all interested parties be given notice and an opportunity to participate in discussions to formulate a process for selecting a successor Owner Trustee. On November 7, 2017, the court ruled in Plaintiffs’ favor and confirmed the validity of the ownership transfers that PHEAA had disputed. On January 12, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for injunctive or declaratory relief requiring WTC, as Owner Trustee, and GSS Data Services, Inc., as Administrator, to resume processing for payment bills submitted by lawyers purporting to act on the Trusts’ behalf. At a hearing on April 3, 2018, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice and on April 16, 2018 entered an order memorializing its oral ruling. The court also granted AAC’s motion to intervene on April 10, 2018 and AAC filed its complaint in intervention on April 16, 2018. On January 21, 2020, Vice Chancellor Slights entered an order consolidating the action with later-filed litigation pending in Delaware Chancery Court relating to the Trusts, including a declaratory judgment action in which AAC was named as a defendant, NC Residuals Owners Trust, et al. v. Wilmington Trust Co., et al. (Del. Ct. Ch., C.A. No. 2019-0880, filed Nov. 1, 2019).

RMBS Litigation

In connection with AAC’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, AAC 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). AAC has asserted claims for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, indemnification, reimbursement and has requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts. On July 18, 2013 the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss (filed on July 13, 2012). The court dismissed AAC’s claims for indemnification and limited AAC’s claim for breach of loan-level warranties to the repurchase protocol, but denied dismissal of AAC’s other contractual claims and fraudulent inducement claim. 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). AAC’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 AAC opposed. On June 11, 2020, the First Department denied Countrywide’s motion for leave to appeal. On January 14, 2020, the trial court granted AAC’s motion to supplement and amend certain of its expert reports. After supplemental expert discovery, on August 12, 2020, Countrywide filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary judgment on, Ambac’s fraud claim and on December 4, 2020, the Court granted Countrywide’s motion, resulting in dismissal of AAC's fraud claim. On December 17, 2020, Ambac filed a notice of appeal from this decision. On February 22, 2021, Ambac filed its opening brief for this appeal. This appeal remains pending. Trial of this matter had been scheduled to commence on February 22, 2021, but on December 23, 2020 the Court adjourned the trial due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A new trial date has not been set.

•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). AAC has asserted claims for material breach of contract and has requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties under the contracts. AAC also asserted alter ego claims against Nomura Holding America, Inc. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 12, 2013. On September 22, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which added (in addition to the claims previously asserted) a claim for fraudulent inducement. On October 31, 2014 defendants filed a motion to strike the amended complaint and on November 10, 2014 also filed a motion to dismiss the fraudulent-inducement claim. On June 3, 2015, the court denied defendants’ July 2013 motion to dismiss AAC’s claim for breaches of representations and warranties, but granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss AAC’s claims for breach of the repurchase protocol and for alter ego liability against Nomura Holding. On December 29, 2016, the court denied Nomura’s motion to strike AAC’s amended complaint and its motion to dismiss the fraudulent-inducement claim. Nomura appealed the June 2015 decision to the extent it

denied its motion to dismiss, filing its opening appellate brief on March 23, 2017. On December 7, 2017, the First Department affirmed the trial court’s June 3, 2015 decision. Discovery is ongoing.

•Ambac Assurance Corporation and the Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Case No. 652321/2015, filed on June 30, 2015). On June 30, 2015, AAC and the Segregated Account filed a Summons with Notice in New York Supreme Court (the “2015 New York Action”), asserting claims identical to claims they asserted in a litigation filed on December 30, 2014 in Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County, Case No 14 CV 3511 (the “Wisconsin Action”). Specifically, in each action AAC asserted a claim for fraudulent inducement in connection with its issuance of insurance policies relating to five residential mortgage-backed securitizations that are not the subject of AAC’s previously filed lawsuit against the same defendant. 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. Countrywide opposed plaintiffs’ motion to stay and on August 10, 2015, Countrywide filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 20, 2016, the court granted AAC’s motion to stay and held Countrywide’s motion to dismiss in abeyance pending resolution of the Wisconsin Action. Following the dismissal of the Wisconsin Action on March 13, 2018, the court in the 2015 New York Action vacated its stay on March 30, 2018, and restored Countrywide’s motion to dismiss to the calendar. The parties submitted supplemental letter briefs on April 11, 2018 addressing newly-issued relevant authority. On December 8, 2020, the court granted Countrywide’s motion to dismiss the complaint. AAC filed a notice of appeal from this decision on January 7, 2021. The court entered judgment in Countrywide’s favor on January 29, 2021 and AAC filed a notice of appeal from the judgment on February 2, 2021.

•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). AAC asserted a claim for fraudulent inducement in connection with AAC’s issuance of insurance policies relating to eight residential mortgage-backed securitizations that are not the subject of AAC’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. On December 20, 2016, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. Discovery has been completed. The court has not yet set a schedule for summary judgment or for trial.

•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 AAC 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. AAC 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 AAC and certain other certificateholders objected to, or otherwise responded to, the petition. Trial, which was previously scheduled to begin February 1, 2021, has been rescheduled to October 11 through 15, 2021. On June 8, 2018, AAC filed the SDNY Action asserting claims arising out of U.S. Bank’s acceptance of the proposed settlement and treatment of trust recoveries. AAC asserted claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. On July 16, 2019, the court dismissed AAC's breach-of-contract and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims based on U.S. Bank's acceptance of the settlement; and dismissed AAC'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 AAC'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, AAC cross-moved for summary judgment. On December 7, 2020, the court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Ambac’s repayment right in the trust waterfall, and granted Ambac’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the use of a write-up first method and the offsetting of recoveries against realized losses. On December 22, 2020, the court entered final judgment consistent with its prior decisions, and awarded Ambac nominal damages. On

January 12, 2021, Ambac filed a notice of appeal of that judgment.

•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). AAC has asserted 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 AAC issued insurance policies. On September 15, 2017, U.S. Bank filed a motion to dismiss. On June 29, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the breach-of-fiduciary duty claim in part as duplicative of the breach-of-contract claim; dismissed the breach-of-contract claim as untimely only to the extent that it was premised on U.S. Bank's obligation to certify that mortgage documents were properly delivered to the Trusts; dismissed the Streit Act claims; and otherwise denied the motion to dismiss. Discovery is ongoing.

•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 2006-9”). 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, AAC and other interested persons filed notices of intention to appear and answers to DBNT’s petition. AAC sought a period of discovery before resolution on the merits. Discovery is now complete. Under the operative case schedule, merits briefing was