Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The following commitments and contingencies provide an update of those discussed in Note 17: Commitments and Contingencies in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included Part II, Item 8 in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, and should be read in conjunction with the complete descriptions provided in the aforementioned Form 10-K. 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 a second amended complaint on December 17, 2018, 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. On September 26, 2019, the court issued a decision denying a motion to dismiss filed by defendants and sua sponte reconsidering its previous denial of defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”). On October 10, 2019, after the case was transferred to the SDNY, 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 March 31, 2021, the court granted defendants’ motions for reconsideration and, upon reconsideration, dismissed the claims against AAC and its former employee for breach of fiduciary duty and for aiding and abetting breach of AAC’s or its former employee’s fiduciary duty; dismissed two plaintiffs’ RICO claims against AAC and its former employee; and in all other respects denied defendants’ motions. Defendants served answers to the second amended complaint on April 21, 2021. 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. Oral argument on the Oversight Board’s 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. On May 5, 2021, monoline defendants Assured Guaranty Corporation, Assured Guaranty Municipal Corporation, and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (“Assured and National”) announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the treatment of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority ("PRHTA") and the Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority (“PRCCDA”) (the “PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement”). Per the terms of the agreement, AAC anticipates the Oversight Board, Assured, and National will seek to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. 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 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. Oral argument on the Oversight Board’s 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. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. Per the terms of the agreement, AAC anticipates the Oversight Board, Assured, and National will seek to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. 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. Oral argument on the Oversight Board’s 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. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. Per the terms of the agreement, AAC anticipates the Oversight Board, Assured, and National will seek to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. 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. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. Per the terms of the agreement, AAC anticipates the Oversight Board, Assured, and National will seek to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. 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 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. 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, and on March 31, 2021, the District Court denied the Amended Motion to Strike PSA without prejudice given the execution of the Second 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 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. On March 3, 2021, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s opinions denying the motion to lift the stay. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. Per the terms of the agreement, AAC anticipates the Oversight Board, Assured, and National will seek to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. 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. On March 3, 2021, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s opinions denying the motion to lift the stay. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. Per the terms of the agreement, AAC anticipates the Oversight Board, Assured, and National will seek to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. 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. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. Per the terms of the agreement, AAC anticipates the Oversight Board, Assured, and National will seek to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. 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; briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed 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 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 and oral argument was held on March 8, 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) (“PRHTA 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 PRHTA against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The PRHTA Trustee Motion attached a proposed complaint detailing the avoidance claims that movants would pursue. On August 11, 2020, the District Court denied the PRHTA Trustee Motion; on August 24, 2020, movants noticed an appeal of the denial of the PRHTA Trustee Motion to the First Circuit. Movants’ opening brief before the First Circuit was filed on February 17, 2021; briefing is expected to conclude on May 24, 2021. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. Per the terms of the agreement, AAC anticipates the Oversight Board, Assured, and National will seek to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. 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). On March 19, 2020, intervenor Transworld Systems Inc. filed a motion to dismiss this action by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) against fifteen National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts, regarding alleged improprieties and deficiencies in servicing practices 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. Additionally, on July 2, 2020, the CFPB submitted an application for entry of default against the Trusts. On March 26, 2021, the court granted intervenors’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also denied as moot the CFPB’s application for entry of default against the Trusts. The CFPB filed an amended complaint on April 30, 2021. 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. 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). Oral argument on AAC’s appeal of the court’s dismissal on December 4, 2020, of its fraud claim was held on April 20, 2021. We can provide no assurance as to the outcome of the appeal. Investors should not assume that AAC's fraud claim will be reinstated. • 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”)). On March 9, 2021, AAC filed its opening brief for its appeal of the granting by the court in the SDNY Action of U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment with respect to AAC’s repayment right in the trust waterfall. •

Finance Guarantee Corporation (“Assured and National”) announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the treatment of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority ("PRHTA") and the Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority (“PRCCDA”) (the “PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement”). Per the terms of the agreement, AAC anticipates the Oversight Board, Assured, and National will seek to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement.

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 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. Oral argument on the Oversight Board’s 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. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. Per the terms of the agreement, AAC anticipates the Oversight Board, Assured, and National will seek to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement.

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. Oral argument on the Oversight Board’s 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. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. Per the terms of the agreement, AAC anticipates the Oversight Board, Assured, and National will seek to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement.

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. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. Per the terms of the agreement, AAC anticipates the Oversight Board, Assured, and National will seek to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement.

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

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. 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, and on March 31, 2021, the District Court denied the Amended Motion to Strike PSA without prejudice given the execution of the Second 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 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. On March 3, 2021, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s opinions denying the motion to lift the stay. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. Per the terms of the agreement, AAC anticipates the Oversight Board, Assured, and National will seek to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement.

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. On March 3, 2021, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s opinions denying the motion to lift the stay. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. Per the terms of the agreement, AAC anticipates the Oversight Board, Assured, and National will seek to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement.

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. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. Per the terms of the agreement, AAC anticipates the Oversight Board, Assured, and National will seek to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement.

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; briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed 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 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 and oral argument was held on March 8, 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) (“PRHTA 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 PRHTA against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The PRHTA Trustee Motion attached a proposed complaint detailing the avoidance claims that movants would pursue. On August 11, 2020, the District Court denied the PRHTA Trustee Motion; on August 24, 2020, movants noticed an appeal of the denial of the PRHTA Trustee Motion to the First Circuit. Movants’ opening brief before the First Circuit was filed on February 17, 2021; briefing is expected to conclude on May 24, 2021. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. Per the terms of the agreement, AAC anticipates the Oversight Board, Assured, and National will seek to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement.

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). On March 19, 2020, intervenor Transworld Systems Inc. filed a motion to dismiss this action by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) against fifteen National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts, regarding

alleged improprieties and deficiencies in servicing practices 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. Additionally, on July 2, 2020, the CFPB submitted an application for entry of default against the Trusts. On March 26, 2021, the court granted intervenors’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also denied as moot the CFPB’s application for entry of default against the Trusts. The CFPB filed an amended complaint on April 30, 2021.

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. 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). Oral argument on AAC’s appeal of the court’s dismissal on December 4, 2020, of its fraud claim was held on April 20, 2021. We can provide no assurance as to the outcome of the appeal. Investors should not assume that AAC's fraud claim will be reinstated.

• 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”)). On March 9, 2021, AAC filed its opening brief for its appeal of the granting by the court in the SDNY Action of U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment with respect to AAC’s repayment right in the trust waterfall.

•