Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

12. Commitments and Contingencies

Ambac and certain of its present or former officers or directors have been named in lawsuits that allege violations of the federal securities laws and/or state law. Various putative class action suits alleging violations of the federal securities laws have been filed against Ambac and certain of its present or former directors and officers. These suits include four class actions filed in January and February of 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) that were consolidated on May 9, 2008 under the caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 08 CV 411. On July 25, 2008, another suit, Painting Industry Insurance and Annuity Funds v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al., case No. 08 CV 6602, was filed in the United States District for the Southern District of New York. On or about August 22, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in the consolidated action. The consolidated amended complaint includes the allegations presented by the original four class actions, the allegations presented by the Painting Industry action, and additional allegations. The consolidated amended complaint purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of Ambac’s common stock from October 25, 2006 to April 22, 2008, on behalf of purchasers of Ambac’s “DISCS”, issued in February of 2007, and on behalf of purchasers of equity units and common stock in Ambac’s March 2008 offerings. The suit names as defendants Ambac, the underwriters for the three offerings, Ambac’s independent Certified Public Accountants and certain present and former directors and officers of Ambac. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Ambac’s business and financial results and guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions and that the Registration Statements pursuant to which the three offerings were made contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of the securities laws. On August 27, 2009, Ambac and the individual defendants named in the consolidated securities action moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On February 22, 2010, the Court dismissed the claims arising out of the March 2008 equity units and common stock offering (resulting in the dismissal of Ambac’s independent Certified Public Accountants from the action), and otherwise denied the motions to dismiss. On December 9, 2010, Ambac and the present or former officers or directors who are defendants in these actions entered into a memorandum of understanding with Plaintiffs with respect to settlement and, as discussed in more detail below, on May 4, 2011, Ambac and the present or former officers or directors who are defendants in these actions entered in a stipulation of settlement to settle the claims asserted in these actions. As also discussed in more detail below, on September 13, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the stipulation of settlement and Ambac’s entry into the stipulation of settlement and performance of all of its obligations thereunder (which the District Court affirmed on December 29, 2011 and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Second Circuit”) in turn affirmed on July 12, 2012), and on September 28, 2011, the District Court entered a judgment approving the settlement (which the Second Circuit affirmed on July 12, 2012).

On December 24, 2008, a complaint in a putative class action entitled Stanley Tolin et al. v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. et al., asserting alleged violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Ambac, one former officer and director and one former officer, Case No. 08 CV 11241 (such action, together with the consolidated actions referred to above, the “Securities Class Actions”). An amended complaint was subsequently filed on January 20, 2009. This action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Structured Repackaged Asset-Backed Trust Securities, Callable Class A Certificates, Series 2007-1, STRATS(SM) Trust for Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities 2007-1 (“STRATS”) from June 29, 2007 through April 22, 2008. The STRATS are asset-backed securities that were allegedly issued by a subsidiary of Wachovia Corporation and are allegedly collateralized solely by Ambac’s DISCS. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Ambac’s business and financial results and Ambac’s guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions, in violation of the securities laws. On April 15, 2009, Ambac and the individual defendants named in Tolin moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 23, 2009, the Court initially denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, but later recalled that decision and requested further briefing from parties in the case before it rendered a decision on the motion to dismiss. On December 9, 2010, Ambac and the former officer and director and the former officer who are defendants in this action entered into a memorandum of understanding with Plaintiffs with respect to settlement and, as discussed in more detail below, on May 4, 2011, Ambac and the former officer and director and the former officer who are defendants in this action entered into a stipulation of settlement to settle the claims asserted in this action. As also discussed in more detail below, on September 13, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the stipulation of settlement and Ambac’s entry into the stipulation of settlement and performance of all of its obligations thereunder (which the District Court affirmed on December 29, 2011 and the Second Circuit in turn affirmed on July 12, 2012), and on September 28, 2011, the District Court entered a judgment approving the settlement (which the Second Circuit affirmed on July 12, 2012).

Various shareholder derivative actions have been filed against certain present or former officers or directors of Ambac, and against Ambac as a nominal defendant. These suits, which are brought purportedly on behalf of Ambac, are in many ways similar and allege violations of law for conduct occurring between October 2005 and the dates of suit regarding, among other things, Ambac’s guarantees of CDO and MBS transactions, Ambac’s public disclosures regarding such guarantees and Ambac’s financial condition, and certain defendants’ alleged insider trading on non-public information. The suits (the “Derivative Actions”) include (i) three actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that have been consolidated under the caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 08 CV 854; on June 30, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint that asserts violations of state and federal law, including breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and violations of the federal securities laws; on August 8, 2008, Ambac and the individual defendants named in the consolidated Southern District of New York derivative action moved to dismiss that action for want of demand and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; on December 11, 2008, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend the complaint and plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 17, 2008; on June 2, 2009 defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint; on November 22, 2010, the Court dismissed the consolidated derivative action without prejudice to its renewal when and if the automatic stay provided by the Bankruptcy Code is lifted; (ii) two actions filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery that have been consolidated under the caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Shareholders Derivative Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 3521; on May 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint that asserts claims including breaches of fiduciary duties, waste, reckless and gross mismanagement, and unjust enrichment; on December 30, 2008, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants’ motion to stay the Delaware shareholder derivative action in favor of the Southern District of New York Consolidated Derivative Action; plaintiffs in the Delaware action subsequently moved to intervene in the Southern District of New York derivative action and on May 12, 2009, the motion to intervene was denied; on August 15, 2011, the Delaware Court of Chancery modified the stay to permit the defendants to move for dismissal pursuant to the Bankruptcy Court 9019 Order approving the settlement (discussed further below); on September 27, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss; on December 15, 2011, the Court of Chancery dismissed the Delaware derivative action; one derivative plaintiff, the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit (“PFRS”), appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, which affirmed the Court of Chancery’s dismissal on May 7, 2012; and (iii) two actions filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, that have been consolidated under the caption In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Consolidated Index No. 650050/2008E; on September 22, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint that asserts claims including breaches of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, abuse of control, and waste; on January 5, 2010, the New York Supreme Court granted defendants motion to stay the New York Supreme Court action in favor of the Southern District of New York Consolidated Derivative Action; both actions are now listed on the Court’s docket as dismissed.

Pursuant to the terms of a memorandum of understanding entered into on December 9, 2010, on May 4, 2011, Ambac and all of its present or former officers or directors who are defendants in the Securities Class Actions or the Derivative Actions, entered into a stipulation of settlement (the “Stipulation”) with the lead plaintiffs in In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation and the named plaintiffs in Tolin v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc. for settlement of both of the Securities Class Actions. The Stipulation provides that the claims of the putative plaintiff classes, among other claims, will be settled for a cash payment of $27,100. Certain of the insurance carriers who provided directors and officers’ liability coverage to Ambac’s present and former officers and directors for the period July 2007-July 2009 have agreed to pay $24,600 of the settlement, pursuant to a separate agreement entered into between Ambac, the present or former officers or directors who are defendants in the Securities Class Actions or the Derivative Actions, and those insurance carriers. Ambac has agreed to pay $2,500 of the settlement and previously deposited that amount into an escrow account (classified as Restricted Cash on the Consolidated Balance Sheet since these amounts are held in escrow). Lead and named plaintiffs in the Securities Class Actions, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the settlement class, have agreed to releases of claims against, among others, Ambac and the present or former officers or directors who are parties to the Stipulation. The settlement provided for in the Stipulation is subject to various conditions, including, among others, approval by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and approval by the Bankruptcy Court of Ambac’s entry into the settlement and of certain releases and bar orders that would release and bar claims (among others) by or on behalf of Ambac, including by any shareholder or creditor of Ambac purportedly acting derivatively on behalf of Ambac, against present or former officers or directors of Ambac that were, could have been, might have been or might be in the future asserted in any of the Securities Actions or any of the Derivative Actions. The Stipulation further provides that nothing in the Stipulation shall be deemed an admission by any defendant of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing. The above description of terms of the Stipulation is qualified in its entirety by reference to the text of the Stipulation, which was filed in In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation on May 6, 2011. On May 19, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order lifting the automatic stay pursuant to section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code to permit inter alia the settling parties to seek preliminary approval of the settlement in the District Court. On June 14, 2011, the District Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On July 19, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtor’s motion pursuant to section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 9019 approving the Stipulation and related agreements and the Debtor’s entry into the Stipulation and related agreements and performance of all of its obligations thereunder. The Bankruptcy Court’s order also approved certain releases and bars that will, upon the effective date of the settlement, release and bar claims (among others) by or on behalf of Ambac, including by any shareholder or creditor of Ambac purportedly acting derivatively on behalf of Ambac, against present or former officers or directors of Ambac that were, could have been, might have been or might be in the future asserted in any of the Securities Actions or any of the Derivative Actions. On July 25, 2011, the Debtor sought by Notice of Presentment to enter an amended order pursuant to section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 9019. Certain objections were filed on behalf of putative shareholders who were plaintiffs in the derivative actions in the Delaware Court of Chancery or the Southern District of New York, including the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit (“PFRS”) (one of the plaintiffs in the Delaware Court of Chancery). Hearings on the proposed amended order were held before the Bankruptcy Court on August 10, 2011 and September 8 and 9, 2011. On September 13, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered the amended order pursuant to section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 9019, approving the Stipulation and related agreements and the Debtor’s entry into the Stipulation and related agreements and performance of all of its obligations thereunder. On September 23, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court issued an opinion explaining its reasons for entering the amended order and its reasons for overruling the objections filed on behalf of putative shareholders who are or were plaintiffs in the derivative actions in the Delaware Court of Chancery or the Southern District of New York. On September 28, 2011, the District Court held a settlement hearing to consider the proposed settlement. Counsel for PFRS, the same putative shareholder who had objected in the Bankruptcy Court, also appeared in the District Court and objected to the proposed settlement. The District Court overruled the objection, and on September 28, 2011 entered a judgment approving the class action settlement with Ambac and the individual defendants.

PFRS, the putative shareholder who objected to the proposed settlement in both the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court, then pursued appeals from both the Bankruptcy Court’s amended order and the District Court’s judgment. On September 26, 2011, counsel for PFRS filed a notice of appeal to the District Court from the Bankruptcy Court’s amended order. On October 28, 2011, counsel for PFRS filed a notice of appeal from the District Court’s September 28, 2011 judgment approving the settlement. PFRS’s appeal from the Bankruptcy Court’s amended order was considered first by the District Court, which affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s amended order on December 29, 2011. On January 4, 2012, PFRS filed a further notice of appeal from the District Court’s order affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s amended order. Thus, as of January 4, 2012, both of PFRS’s appeals were pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and were docketed as Case Nos. 11-4643 and 12-59. On January 19, 2012, Ambac and the individual defendants-appellees moved to consolidate the two appeals and to expedite the resolution of the consolidated appeal. On January 26, 2012, the Court granted certain relief sought in the motion to consolidate and expedite, and consolidated both appeals under Lead Case No. 11-4643. On March 23, 2012, the Court issued an expedited briefing schedule for the consolidated appeal. .The Court heard oral argument on June 27, 2012, and on July 12, 2012 affirmed both the District Court’s judgment approving the settlement as well as the District Court’s order affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s amended order.

Karthikeyan V. Veera v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc., et al., (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 10 CV 4191, filed on or about May 24, 2010, and amended on September 7, 2010). Plaintiff, a former employee and participant in Ambac’s Savings Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), asserts violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and names as defendants the Plan Administrative Committee, the Plan Investment Committee, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Ambac, and a number of current and former officers and directors of Ambac. This action is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons, excluding defendants and their immediate families, who were participants in the Plan from October 1, 2006 through July 2, 2008 and whose Plan accounts included an investment in Ambac stock. The complaint alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties by defendants in respect of the continued offering of Ambac stock as an investment option for the Plan and the failure to provide complete and accurate information to Plan participants regarding Ambac’s financial condition. This ERISA action seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, a constructive trust for amounts by which the fiduciaries allegedly benefited as a result of their breaches, and attorneys’ fees. On October 20, 2010, all of the defendants named in the amended complaint moved to dismiss all of the claims in the amended complaint. In an Opinion and Order issued January 6, 2011, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. On January 18, 2011, Ambac filed an adversary complaint in the Bankruptcy Court against Plaintiff, primarily seeking declaratory relief to confirm the applicability of the automatic stay under Bankruptcy Code section 362(a) to plaintiff’s claims. On February 11, 2011, Ambac filed a motion in the adversary proceeding for summary judgment declaring that the protections of the automatic stay apply or should be extended to the claims in the ERISA action and for injunctive relief. Following a hearing on Ambac’s motion on March 4, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting Ambac’s motion, holding that the automatic stay applied to the ERISA action, but also granted Plaintiff relief from the stay to pursue limited discovery during the extended exclusivity period in Ambac’s Chapter 11 case. On July 15, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for additional relief from the automatic stay. The Bankruptcy Court denied plaintiff’s motion on July 20, 2011 ordering that the automatic stay shall continue to apply to the ERISA action but granting plaintiff limited relief from the automatic stay in order to permit plaintiff to participate in mediation, which occurred in September 2011. Veera filed an objection to Ambac’s Reorganization Plan to the extent the releases in the Reorganization Plan sought to extinguish Veera’s claims against the defendants. On March 13, 2012, Veera and Ambac entered into a stipulation and agreed to an order resolving Veera’s objection. Pursuant to such Stipulation, Veera and Ambac agreed that the automatic stay could be lifted as it applies to the ERISA action with respect to certain discovery. On April 10, 2012, defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims based on the defendants’ alleged failure to act on material non-public information. Veera opposed the motion, and the court held oral argument on May 15, 2012. While defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment was pending, on June 8, 2012, Veera informed the court that the parties had agreed to a proposed settlement of the action. On June 11, 2012, the court endorsed the letter, granting the parties’ requests to cancel pre-trial deadlines and remove pending motions from the docket. The court also ordered that the case be removed from its docket within thirty days with a stipulation of discontinuance and instructed that, if not discontinued by July 11, 2012, the matter would be reinstated for trial scheduled for March 2013. Consistent with this order, the parties filed the settlement agreement and an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the court on July 11, 2012 and at the Court’s request, on August 2, 2012 submitted a revised preliminary approval order and notice to the court. The Court granted the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. Notice of the settlement will be sent to class members and a fairness hearing to determine if the settlement should receive final approval by the court is expected to occur on or about November 14, 2012.

County of Alameda et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, second amended complaint filed on or about August 23, 2011) (“Alameda Complaint”); Contra Costa County et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, third amended complaint filed on or about October 21, 2011) (“Contra Costa Complaint”); The Olympic Club v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, fourth amended complaint filed on or about October 21, 2011) (“Olympic Club Complaint”). The Contra Costa Complaint is brought on behalf of five California municipal entities and the non-profit Jewish Community Center of San Francisco. The Alameda Complaint is brought on behalf of nineteen California municipal entities. The Olympic Club Complaint is brought on behalf of the non-profit Olympic Club. The three actions make similar allegations against Ambac Assurance, various other financial guarantee insurance companies and employees thereof (collectively with Ambac Assurance, the “Bond Insurer Defendants”), and, in the case of the Contra Costa Complaint and the Olympic Club Complaint, the major credit rating agencies (the “Rating Agencies”). The actions allege that (1) Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants colluded with the Rating Agencies to perpetuate a “dual rating system” pursuant to which the Rating Agencies rated the debt obligations of municipal issuers differently from corporate debt obligations, thereby keeping municipal ratings artificially low relative to corporate ratings; (2) Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants issued false and misleading financial statements and failed to disclose the extent of the insurers’ respective exposures to mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations; and (3) as a result of these actions, plaintiffs incurred higher interest costs and bond insurance premiums in respect of their respective bond issues. Ambac Financial Group was originally a defendant in each of these actions, but on November 22, 2010, Ambac Financial Group was dismissed without prejudice as a defendant by the plaintiffs in each of these actions. Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of the current amended complaints on September 21, 2011, which was denied on October 20, 2011. (The October 20, 2011 denial applies to the Contra Costa Complaint and the Olympic Club Complaint, both of which were given a technical filing date of October 21, 2011). On December 2, 2011, Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants filed a special motion to strike the current amended complaints under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute (Calif. Code of Civ. Proc. Section 425.16). A hearing on the motion was held on March 23, 2012. On May 1, 2012, the Court ruled that the complaints were governed by the Anti-SLAPP statute to the extent they alleged conspiracy to influence the rating agencies’ rating methodologies, but not to the extent that the complaints alleged false or misleading statements or nondisclosures. The case will now proceed to a determination whether the conspiracy branch of the complaint can proceed given the requirement of the Anti-SLAPP statute that plaintiff show a probability of success on he merits.

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

On March 24, 2010, Ambac Assurance established a segregated account (the “Segregated Account”) and allocated to the Segregated Account certain financial guaranty insurance policies and other contingent liabilities, certain claims and other rights, and certain equity interests in subsidiaries. An insurance rehabilitation proceeding (the “Rehabilitation Proceeding”) was commenced with respect to the Segregated Account in the Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County (the “Rehabilitation Court”) on March 24, 2010 by the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Wisconsin (the “Commissioner”) and the Rehabilitation Court entered an order of rehabilitation for the Segregated Account, appointing the Commissioner as Rehabilitator, and entered orders enjoining certain actions that could have an adverse effect on the financial condition of the Segregated Account.

Various third parties have filed motions or objections in the Rehabilitation Court and/or moved to intervene in the Rehabilitation Proceeding. On January 24, 2011, the Rehabilitation Court issued its Decision and Final Order Confirming the Rehabilitator’s Plan of Rehabilitation, with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (the “Confirmation Order”). Notices of appeal from the Confirmation Order were filed by various parties, including policyholders. Such appeals are pending.

On November 10, 2011, the Rehabilitation Court issued an order authorizing the Commissioner, as Rehabilitator, and the Segregated Account to proceed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Mediation Agreement and its related agreements and to carry out all transactions necessary to effectuate those agreements. Notices of appeal from this order were filed by the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and a group describing itself as the “RMBS Holders,” which claims to own or manage funds that own residential mortgage-backed securities insured by Ambac Assurance.

On June 4, 2012, the Rehabilitation Court issued an order authorizing the Rehabilitator and the Segregated Account to make interim cash payments on permitted policy claims. Also, on June 4, 2012, the Rehabilitation Court issued an order approving Ambac Assurance’s purchase of approximately $789 million of principal amount of surplus notes at a price of approximately $188 million pursuant to the exercise of call options that were issued as part of the Settlement Agreement (“Surplus Notes Order”). Fannie Mae objected to the Motion to Approve the Purchase of the Surplus Notes and filed both a Petition for Leave to Appeal the Surplus Notes Order and a Notice of Appeal. The appeal is pending.

Ambac Assurance’s CDS portfolio experienced significant losses. The majority of these CDS contracts are on a “pay as you go” basis, and we believe that they are properly characterized as notional principal contracts for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Generally, losses on notional principal contracts are ordinary losses. However, the federal income tax treatment of CDS is an unsettled area of the tax law. In 2010, the IRS opened an examination into certain issues related to Ambac Assurance’s tax accounting methods with respect to such CDS contracts and Ambac Assurance’s related characterization of such losses as ordinary losses. As discussed above, Ambac Assurance believes these contracts are properly characterized as notional principal contracts. However, on May 4, 2011, as a result of its examination, the IRS issued to Ambac Notices of Proposed Adjustment asserting that these contracts should be characterized as capital assets or as generating capital losses. On June 3, 2011, Ambac notified the IRS that it disagreed with the proposed adjustments. On May 4, 2011 the IRS filed a proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Court in the amount of $807,244 relating to the tax treatment of the CDS contracts (the “IRS Claim”). Ambac filed its opposition to the proof of claim on June 14, 2011. If the IRS is successful in its claim, Ambac Assurance would be subject to both a substantial reduction in its net operating loss carryforwards and would suffer a material assessment for federal income taxes up to an estimated amount of $807,244.

On November 9, 2010, Ambac filed and served a complaint against the IRS for a declaratory judgment relating to the tax refunds, which resulted from the losses on the CDS portfolio. On the same date, Ambac and the IRS agreed to a stipulation on the record that provides that the IRS would give notice at least 5 business days prior to taking any action against Ambac’s non-debtor subsidiaries in the consolidated tax group that would violate the injunction entered by the Wisconsin Rehabilitation Court, whether or not such injunction is in effect. The stipulation permits the status quo to be maintained from November 9, 2010 until a hearing on the preliminary injunction under Bankruptcy Code section 105(a) barring assessment and collection of the 2003 through 2008 tax refunds by the IRS against Ambac’s non-debtor subsidiaries in the consolidated tax group.

On January 14, 2011, the IRS filed its answer and opposition to Ambac’s motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. As of this date, no hearing on such motion has been scheduled. On January 13, 2011, the IRS filed a motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“USDC SDNY”) to withdraw the adversary proceeding from the Bankruptcy Court to the USDC SDNY. Ambac has opposed such motion and no hearing on the motion has been scheduled. On February 1, 2011, Ambac filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court for Pretrial Conference and for Authorization to Implement Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures. The Bankruptcy Court on March 2, 2011 ordered the process of non-binding mediation to begin on or about May 1, 2011. Mediation was held in New York on July 6, 7 and 8, 2011. Mediation continued in New York on September 8 and 9, and October 18 and 20, 2011. The Bankruptcy Court also approved a scheduling order that, pursuant to further stipulation of the parties, required all discovery in the adversary proceeding to be completed by November 2, 2011, dispositive motions to be filed by November 4, 2011, and trial to be scheduled, thereafter, pursuant to further order of the Court. On October 12, 2011, Ambac filed a motion for an order (a) determining that the IRS Claim shall be estimated pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 502(c), and (b) setting procedures and a hearing date for such estimation inclusive of the determination pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 505(a) of, among other things, (i) the appropriate method to account for Ambac’s losses on its post-2004 CDS contracts and (ii) whether (A) an ownership change, within the meaning of section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Tax Code”), with respect to Ambac Assurance, or (B) any event that results in neither Ambac Assurance nor any entity that succeeds to the tax attributes of Ambac Assurance being characterized as an includible corporation with the affiliated group of corporations of which Ambac (or any successor thereto) is the common parent, within the meaning of the Tax Code, occurred during the 2010 taxable year as a result of the transactions consummated pursuant to the Settlement Agreement or for any other reason [Docket No. 362] (the “IRS Claim Estimation Motion”). The IRS Claim Estimation Motion was scheduled for hearing on December 13, 2011, but was adjourned pending settlement discussions with the United States.

The IRS has also sought to assert legal rights against Ambac Assurance, as joint and several obligor in respect of any assessment for federal income taxes against the consolidated tax group. On December 8, 2010, the IRS removed the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Proceedings to the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (the “District Court”). On December 17, 2010, the IRS filed a motion in the District Court to dissolve a supplemental injunction (the “Supplemental Injunction”) that had been entered by the Rehabilitation Court on November 8, 2010 to prevent certain actions by the IRS that could have an adverse effect on the financial condition of the Segregated Account. The Commissioner moved to remand the proceeding back to the Rehabilitation Court, and on January 14, 2011, that motion was granted by the District Court, which found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The IRS has appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On February 9, 2011, the IRS filed a complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction in the District Court seeking, inter alia, to enjoin enforcement against the IRS of the Supplemental Injunction and the Confirmation Order. The District Court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on February 18, 2011, and the IRS filed a notice of appeal on February 22, 2011. On August 22, 2011 the Seventh Circuit granted a motion by the IRS to consolidate the two appeals. Briefing on the consolidated appeals concluded on January 24, 2012, but oral argument has not been scheduled. The parties have jointly asked the Seventh Circuit not to schedule oral argument in light of the written settlement offer submitted to the IRS and the Department of Justice, Tax Division, which is described below.

On February 24, 2012, Ambac, the Creditors’ Committee, Ambac Assurance, the Segregated Account, OCI, and the Rehabilitator submitted to the IRS and the Department of Justice, Tax Division a proposal (the “Offer Letter”) to settle the IRS Dispute and related proceedings which includes the following terms that Ambac believes will be acceptable to the United States: (i) a payment by Ambac Assurance of $100,000; (ii) a payment by Ambac of $1,900; (iii) the Ambac Consolidated Group will relinquish its claim to all loss carry-forwards resulting from losses on credit default swap contracts and arising on or before December 31, 2010 to the extent such loss carry-forwards exceed $3.4 billion; and (iv) the IRS will be paid 12.5% of any payment to Ambac by Ambac Assurance associated with NOL Usage Tier C and the IRS will be paid 17.5% of any payment to Ambac by Ambac Assurance associated with NOL Usage Tier D (the “IRS Settlement”). Finality of the settlement will require the satisfaction of certain conditions and the approval of the United States, the Bankruptcy Court and the Rehabilitation Court. On June 14, 2012, the Rehabilitation Court entered an order authorizing the Rehabilitator and the Segregated Account to proceed with the IRS Settlement, but the settlement has not yet been approved by the United States or the Bankruptcy Court. As a result of the progress made toward a settlement framework, remaining discovery in the case was put on hold pending the parties’ further reports to the Bankruptcy Court. There can be no assurance that the IRS Settlement will be finalized on the terms described above, if at all, or as to the timing of any such settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the Offer Letter, on April 24, 2012 Ambac submitted to the IRS a private letter ruling request (“PLR”) seeking, in part, a favorable ruling from the IRS with respect to rulings under section 382 and section 269 of the Code regarding certain U.S. federal income tax consequences related to Ambac’s bankruptcy plan of reorganization. The IRS Settlement is conditioned on the IRS issuing a favorable ruling on the PLR request.

Ambac is involved from time to time in various routine legal proceedings, including proceedings related to litigation with present or former employees. Although Ambac’s litigation with present or former employees is routine and incidental to the conduct of its business, such litigation can result in large monetary awards when a civil jury is allowed to determine compensatory and/or punitive damages for, among other things, termination of employment that is wrongful or in violation of implied contracts.

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.

In connection with Ambac’s efforts to seek redress for breaches of representations and warranties and fraud related to the information provided by both the underwriters and the sponsors of various transactions and for failure to comply with the obligation by the sponsors to repurchase ineligible loans, Ambac Assurance has filed the following lawsuits:

• Ambac Assurance Corporation v. EMC Mortgage LLC (formerly known as EMC Mortgage Corporation), J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. (formerly known as Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.), and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed February 17, 2011). This case is the continuation of a case that was originally filed on November 5, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York but that was dismissed from federal court after Ambac Assurance was granted leave to amend its complaint to add certain new claims (but not others) and a new party, which deprived the federal court of jurisdiction over the litigation. After the decision by the federal judge, dated February 8, 2011, Ambac Assurance re-filed the suit in New York state court on February 17, 2011. On July 18, 2011, Ambac Assurance filed a First Amended Complaint in its state-court litigation. In its state-court action, Ambac Assurance asserts claims for breach of contract, indemnification and reimbursement against EMC, as well as claims of fraudulent conduct by EMC and J. P. Morgan Securities Inc. In its First Amended Complaint, Ambac Assurance asserts an additional claim for breach of contract against EMC and a claim for successor liability against a new defendant, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. The Defendants filed their answer to the First Amended Complaint on August 30, 2011, and the parties are currently engaged in discovery.

• Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. EMC Mortgage LLC (formerly known as EMC Mortgage Corporation), J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. (formerly known as Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.), and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed March 30, 2012). Ambac Assurance alleges claims for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract against EMC and J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., as well as claims against JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. as EMC’s successor in interest, arising from the defendants’ misrepresentations and breaches of contractual warranties regarding certain transactions that are not the subject of Ambac Assurance’s previously filed lawsuit against the same defendants (described above). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 8, 2012. Ambac Assurance intends to oppose the motion.

• 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, filed April 16, 2012). Ambac Assurance alleges breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, indemnification, reimbursement and requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts, as well as damages. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 13, 2012. Ambac Assurance intends to oppose the motion.

• Ambac Assurance Corporation and the Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed on January 12, 2010). Ambac Assurance alleged breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, indemnification, reimbursement and requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts, as well as damages. On July 8, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Ambac Assurance opposed the motion. In decisions dated April 7, 2011 and October 7, 2011, the Court granted the defendants’ motion in part striking only Ambac Assurance’s claim for consequential damages and jury demand. The Court otherwise denied the defendants’ motion. Ambac Assurance is appealing the court’s decision striking the jury demand for Ambac Assurance’s fraudulent inducement claim. Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been set.

• 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, filed on September 28, 2010). Ambac Assurance filed an Amended Complaint on September 8, 2011. Ambac Assurance has alleged breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, indemnification and reimbursement, breach of representations and warranties and has requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties as required under the contracts as well as damages and has asserted a successor liability claim against Bank of America. The defendants answered the Amended Complaint on or about November 3, 2011. Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been set.

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 certain litigation matters discussed above which are probable and reasonably estimable, and management’s estimated range of loss for such matters, are not material to the operating results or financial position of the Company. For the remaining litigation matters 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 but, 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 filed against it in these lawsuits 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.