Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2011
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Note 10 - Legal Proceedings The Company is or has been a party in a number of lawsuits or proceedings, including the following: Supervisory Goodwill Litigation. During the third quarter of 1993, the Company filed a claim against the United States, in the United States Court of Federal Claims (the “Court of Federal Claims” or the “Court”), based upon the impact of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) on the Company’s investment in Carteret Savings Bank (“Carteret”). Approximately 120 other similar so-called “supervisory goodwill” cases were commenced by other financial institutions and/or their shareholders. Three of these cases, Winstar Corp. v. United States, Glendale Federal Bank, FSB v. United States, and Statesman Savings Holding Corp. v. United States (the “Consolidated Cases”), which involve many of the same issues raised in the Company’s suit, were appealed to the United States Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”). On July 1, 1996, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the Consolidated Cases. The Supreme Court’s decision affirmed the lower Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the issue of liability and remanded the cases for a determination of damages. Although the decision in the Consolidated Cases is beneficial to the Company’s case, it is not necessarily indicative of the ultimate outcome of the Company’s action. On September 18, 1996, the Court of Federal Claims entered an Omnibus Case Management Order that governed further pretrial proceedings in the Company’s action and most of the other so-called “Winstar-related” cases. On March 14, 1997, the Court entered an order permitting the Federal Deposit Insurance Company (“FDIC”) to intervene as an additional plaintiff in forty-three cases, including the Company’s case, but not allowing the FDIC to be substituted as the sole plaintiff in those cases. AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements On March 20, 1998, the FDIC filed a motion for partial summary judgment against the United States on certain liability issues, and the Company filed a memorandum in support of that motion. Fact discovery for the Company was completed on November 30, 1999 pursuant to an extension of time granted by the Court. On September 9, 1999, the Company filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability under a Fifth Amendment Takings claim theory of recovery. On November 24, 1999, the FDIC, as successor to the rights of Carteret and as Plaintiff-Intervener in the case, filed a response brief opposing the Company’s Motion. On December 6, 1999, the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) (on behalf of the United States) filed a brief opposing the Company’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability and Cross-Moved for Summary Judgment on the Company’s Takings claim. On January 25, 2000, the Company responded to the DOJ’s brief and the FDIC’s brief by filing a Brief (i) In Reply To Defendant’s Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Motion For Partial Summary Judgment, (ii) In Opposition To Defendant’s Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment, and (iii) In Reply To FDIC’s Response To Plaintiffs’ Motion For Partial Summary Judgment. On February 22, 2000 the DOJ filed a brief in Reply To Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Defendant’s Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment. On October 2, 2000, Senior Judge Loren Smith of the Court of Federal Claims (“Judge Smith”) heard oral arguments in the Company’s Supervisory Goodwill case against the United States government. The Court heard arguments both as to the contractual liability of the United States to Carteret Savings Bank, and as to the Company’s claim against the United States under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. On August 25, 2003, the Court of Federal Claims issued a decision in which it (i) ruled that the Government had entered into and breached its supervisory goodwill contracts with the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Carteret; (ii) rejected the Company’s claim that it was entitled to recover damages directly from the Government under the Takings Clause for the loss of Carteret; and (iii) rejected the Company’s claim that the Government had “illegally exacted” $62.5 million that the Company paid into Carteret subsequent to the Government’s breach of the Goodwill contracts. Specifically, the Court held that the Company could not recover damages under the Takings Clause because it could be restored to the position it was in before the breach through Carteret’s breach of contract action. On September 17, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the FDIC and to define the appropriate measure of Carteret’s contract damages. On September 30, 2003, the FDIC, as plaintiff-intervener in the case, and the United States, as defendant in the case, each filed a separate response to the Company’s motion. The Company argued in its motion that because Carteret would not have been seized but for the Government’s breach of contract, no receivership deficit would have been incurred. Accordingly, the Company argued that Carteret should be entitled to recover contract damages that include both: (i) the full amount of the receivership deficit, as an offset to the deficit and (ii) the full amount of the positive value it would have had but for the breach. Alternatively, the Company argued that, if Carteret is not entitled to recover both these amounts, or if any award must be offset by the amount of the receivership deficit, the Company should be entitled to demonstrate why the receivership deficit has been erroneously overstated. The DOJ responded in part with the argument that, among other things, Carteret would have failed even if Supervisory Goodwill was counted. The FDIC, who is both the receiver for the estate of Carteret (and hence claims to be its legal advocate in court) as well as a creditor of the estate, took the position that the Court of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction to review the accuracy, validity, or amount of the Carteret receivership deficit reported by the FDIC. That receivership deficit consists primarily of the FDIC’s subrogated claim against the thrift, interest, taxes, and administrative expenses charged by the FDIC to the thrift. Because the receivership deficit continues to accrue interest, it grows on a daily basis. On October 1, 2003, the Court held a telephonic status conference pursuant to an order set forth in the August 25, 2003 opinion. Pursuant to that status conference, the Court ordered that through their additional briefing on the Company’s Motion to Dismiss the FDIC and to define the appropriate measure of Carteret’s contract damages (i.e., through the Company’s reply brief and the surreply brief granted to the FDIC and the United States), the parties should address the question of, “whether the Court has the power to review the amount of the receivership deficit as administered by the FDIC.” In an order dated October 16, 2003, the Court modified the briefing schedule such that the Company filed its reply brief as required on October 31, 2003, and the surreply brief of the FDIC and the United States were filed as required in November, 2003. The Court held oral argument on this issue on November 20, 2003. The DOJ and the FDIC filed briefs arguing that (1) the Court of Federal Claims had no authority to scrutinize the validity of the receivership deficit reported by the FDIC and (2) the Court should dismiss AmBase’s remaining damages claims because they were allegedly waived. On August 31, 2004, the Court denied the Company’s Motion to Dismiss the FDIC, but granted the Company’s Motion to Define the Measure of Carteret’s Contract Damages to the extent it requested the Court to consider the size and value of the FDIC’s receivership deficit when calculating damages. The Court subsequently conducted a status conference on October 4, 2004, and ordered the Company to submit a proposed litigation time-line to the Court by October 22, 2004 which was timely submitted. The Court ordered the United States and the FDIC to respond to the Company’s proposed litigation time-line by November 5, 2004 which was timely submitted. A status conference was held on January 11, 2005. AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements On January 12, 2005, the Court ordered that pursuant to the Court’s order from the bench, the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the August 31, 2004 Ruling, and, in the Alternative, to dismiss the Stockholder Derivative Claim and the Complaint-in-Intervention was denied. The Court further ordered that this matter be stayed for 30 days for the Defendant and/or Plaintiff-Intervener to consider filing a Request for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal. The Court held a telephonic status conference on February 11, 2005 at which time the Court ordered that fact discovery was to resume on February 14, 2005 and would continue for at least three (3) months. The Court further scheduled a telephonic status conference for May 2005, to discuss the need for further discovery. On January 12, 2005, Judge Smith denied the government’s motion to dismiss the Company’s remaining claims arising out of damages for breach of contract. On March 15, 2005, the DOJ and the FDIC each filed motions requesting that Judge Smith certify for immediate appeal his ruling that the Company is entitled to challenge the validity of the receivership deficit. The Company filed its reply to these motions on March 29, 2005. In April 2005, Judge Smith heard oral argument on the DOJ and FDIC motions requesting that Judge Smith certify for immediate appeal his ruling that the Company is entitled to challenge the validity of the receivership deficit. Because Judge Smith’s ruling on the receivership deficit issue was not a final order, both Judge Smith and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit would have to agree to an appeal of that issue at that time. Following the April 2005 oral argument, Judge Smith entered an order, on April 25, 2005, staying resolution of the motions to certify an interlocutory appeal pending the holding of a “show cause” hearing. Judge Smith indicated at the oral argument that the purpose of the show cause hearing was to allow the Company to outline the evidence and arguments it was prepared to offer in order to challenge the validity and size of the receivership deficit. Judge Smith directed the parties to attempt to reach agreement regarding a schedule for the completion of discovery on receivership deficit issues, and he directed the parties to submit to the Court such an agreed proposed discovery schedule, or, if the parties were unable to reach agreement, separate proposed schedules for discovery, in early May 2005. Judge Smith further encouraged the parties to discuss the procedures and schedule for the show cause hearing, and to provide the Court with a proposed order on such matters. In accordance with the Court’s direction, the parties agreed upon a schedule for the completion of fact discovery and procedures for the show cause proceeding. In accordance with the parties’ agreement, Judge Smith entered an order on May 23, 2005, providing that fact discovery would be completed within 45 days of the completion of document production by the Government. The May 23, 2005, order further provided that (i) 45 days after the close of discovery, the Company was to file a statement of issues summarizing the respects in which the receivership books allegedly overstate or misstate the receivership deficit; (ii) 45 days after the filing of the Company’s statement of issues, the United States and the FDIC were to file responses; and (iii) 15 days after the filing of such responses, the Company was to file a reply. In May and June of 2005, the Government provided the Company with access to Carteret’s documents and documents relating to the management of the receivership. The Company selected approximately 3 million pages of documents to be imaged at the Government’s expense. In September 2005, a status conference was held before Judge Smith. The Government indicated that it would complete production of all the images of the selected materials by the end of September 2005. Additionally, at the status conference, all parties agreed that the schedule previously set forth by the Court’s May 23, 2005 order should be changed in one respect: the Company would be given 75 days from the completion of the document production to complete discovery. The Court issued an order on September 26, 2005 memorializing this agreement. On January 11, 2006, the Court held a status conference. At that time, the Court indicated that the document production would be deemed complete as of that date. The Court’s order of January 13, 2006, memorialized this ruling. Accordingly, fact discovery was completed in April 2006, and the Company’s statement of issues was ultimately filed in June of 2006. In May 2006, the Company served on the Government an expert report in support of some of the arguments the Company made regarding the size of the receivership deficit. The Company’s expert was deposed in July 2006. In early August 2006, the Government submitted its own expert report on receivership deficit issues, and in October 2006, the Company deposed the Government’s expert. In late August 2006, the Government filed a response to the Company’s Statement of Issues, and in September 2006, the FDIC filed its own response to the Statement of Issues. The Company filed its reply in support of its Statement of Issues in October 2006. A status conference was held in November 2006 and December 2006, to discuss further proceedings. On December 13, 2006, the Court entered an order denying defendant’s request that the Court allow an immediate appeal of the Court’s ruling that it had jurisdiction to consider the validity of the receivership deficit. The Court also found that it continued to have jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court also ordered the parties to enter a schedule for expert discovery. AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIAIRES Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements On April 13, 2007, Judge Smith issued an order scheduling pretrial, and trial deadlines and dates, including scheduling a trial to commence on February 11, 2008. In accordance with the Court’s scheduling in May 2007, the Company submitted its expert report. The Government deposed the Company’s expert in June 2007. In July 2007, the Government identified its damages experts and submitted its expert reports in September 2007. The Company deposed the Government’s experts in October 2007. Pursuant to the Court order, the Court heard oral argument on November 14, 2007 at the Court of Federal Claims, to decide whether the trial could be avoided by summary judgment, pursuant to papers filed by the parties on November 7, 2007 and November 19, 2007. On November 30, 2007, the Court ordered the parties to continue with the trial schedule as previously set forth. Subsequently on December 7, 2007, the parties exchanged exhibit and witness lists; on December 14, 2007 the parties submitted an hour-by-hour anticipated trial schedule to the Court; on December 21, 2007 Plaintiffs and FDIC-R filed Appendix A submissions; on January 8, 2008 a pretrial conference was held in the Court of Federal Claims; on January 21, 2008 the Defendant filed Appendix A submissions; and on February 11, 2008 trial was commenced. Trial testimony of fact and expert witnesses for the Company, the DOJ, and the FDIC was completed on April 4, 2008. At trial, fact witness and expert witness testimony was presented by the Company, and by the United States Government represented by the DOJ. In addition, the FDIC-Receiver (purporting to act as a plaintiff-intervener in its capacity as successor-in-interest to Carteret) participated in the trial and the examination of witnesses. The Company put forth various theories of damages, including claims for the recovery of the value of Carteret as of the date of the breach or the date of judgment, as well as for the recovery of certain so-called “wounded bank” damages incurred by Carteret as a result of the breach. The DOJ responded with various theories, including, among other things that Carteret would have failed even if Supervisory Goodwill was counted. The DOJ also challenged the Company’s calculations of the value of Carteret and the damages theories and evidence underlying the Company’s “wounded bank” claims. The FDIC essentially adopted the Company’s damages claims evidence, but has continued to argue (along with DOJ) that the FDIC-Receiver is entitled to recover on these claims. After the completion of trial testimony, the Court held a status conference in April 2008 pursuant to which the Court issued a post trial scheduling order providing for the filing of post trial briefs and proposed findings of fact by the Company, and DOJ and the FDIC. Pursuant to the Court’s post-trial scheduling order as revised on July 1, 2008, the Company filed its post-trial brief and proposed findings of fact. The FDIC also filed its post-trial brief on July 1, 2008. In September 2008, the DOJ filed its post-trial brief and proposed findings of fact. In October 2008, the Company filed its post-trial reply brief and the FDIC filed its post-trial reply brief in November 2008. Post-trial briefing was concluded in December 2008, with the filing of sur-reply briefs by both the Company and DOJ. On February 12 and 17, 2009, the Court heard closing arguments. At the conclusion of closing arguments, the Court ruled that the FDIC and DOJ could file short supplemental briefs addressing certain limited issues by March 6, 2009, and that the Company could file a short responsive brief on March 25, 2009. In May 2009, the DOJ requested and simultaneously filed with the Court an additional supplemental brief. The Court granted the DOJ’s motion and permitted the DOJ’s additional supplemental brief. The Company subsequently requested and the Court allowed the Company to file a responsive supplemental brief to the DOJ brief which was filed in June 2009. AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIAIRES Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements On August 31, 2011, Judge Smith of the Court of Federal Claims issued a damages opinion in the Company’s Supervisory Goodwill legal proceedings. Pursuant to Judge Smith’s opinion, the Plaintiffs were awarded directly $205,013,000 in lost value expectancy damages, plus tax gross-up if applicable. The decision indicates that the damages were awarded net any receivership deficit and outside the statutory receivership distribution scheme. A copy of the Court’s damages opinion is available on the Court of Claims website at www.uscfc.uscourts.gov. The Company has no contingent fee agreements in place with its attorneys or any outside advisor in connection with the Supervisory Goodwill legal proceedings or award. On September 28, 2011, the DOJ filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Opinion and Order Dated August 31, 2011. The Company filed its opposition to the DOJ’s motion on October 17, 2011. The DOJ filed its reply brief on October 26, 2011. On October 31, 2011, Judge Smith issued an order denying the DOJ’s Motion to Reconsider and the Court clarified its opinion with regard to mitigation. On December 29, 2011, the DOJ, on behalf of the United States, filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the judgment in No. 93-531C, entered on August 31, 2011, including (but not limited to): (1) the published opinion and order in No. 93-531, entered on August 31, 2011; and (2) the order denying the motion for reconsideration in No. 93-531, entered on October 31, 2011 with regard to the Company’s Supervisory Goodwill case. In January 2012, both the Company and the FDIC-Receiver filed cross-appeals from the Court of Federal Claims’ judgment. Briefing before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the various appeals has not yet commenced, and there is no timetable for the Court of Appeals to issue a decision in the case. On March 8, 2012, the DOJ, on behalf of the United States of America, filed a motion to extend the deadline for filing its initial appellate brief, which was due to expire on March 19, 2012, to May 18, 2012. Preliminary discussions between representatives of the Company and of the DOJ regarding a possible settlement of the Supervisory Goodwill legal proceedings have taken place in recent months. In light of those discussions, the Company did not contest the DOJ’s motion to extend the briefing deadline. Settlement discussions may not progress, and may be discontinued or continued, at any time or from time to time. The outcome of any settlement discussions cannot be predicted. The Company expressly disclaims any obligation to update, in its public filings with the Commission, or via other forms of public dissemination, the status or progress of any informal or formal settlement discussions with respect to the Supervisory Goodwill legal proceedings, and no inference regarding the status of any such settlement proceedings should be drawn from the absence or frequency of any such updates. The Company, with its outside advisors, will continue to take appropriate steps on behalf of AmBase’s interest. The Court of Federal Claims decisions and certain filings in the Company’s case, as well as other decisions in Winstar related cases, are publicly available on the Court of Federal Claims web site at www.uscfc.uscourts.gov. In addition, decisions in Winstar-related cases that have been issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court that hears appeals from decisions by the Court of Federal Claims, may be found on that court’s website at www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Decisions in other Winstar related cases may be relevant to the Company’s Supervisory Goodwill claims, but are not necessarily indicative of the ultimate outcome of the Company’s actions. The Company can give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of the Supervisory Goodwill legal proceedings, the final amount of any award or when it might be received. AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements Federal income tax refund suit on Carryback Claims. In March 2000, the Company filed with the IRS several claims and amendments to previously filed claims with respect to the Carryback Claims, seeking refunds from the IRS of alternative minimum tax and other federal income taxes paid by the Company in prior years, plus applicable IRS interest, based on the filing of the 1992 Amended Return. In February 2005, the IRS formally disallowed the Carryback Claims. On April 29, 2008, the Company filed suit with respect to the Carryback Claims in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking federal tax refunds for tax year 1989, plus interest. On September 29, 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice, representing defendant United States in the suit, filed a Motion to Dismiss. In response, on October 19, 2009, the Company filed its opposition to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss, as well as the Company’s own Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. In June 2010, the Court issued a Memorandum Decision conditionally granting the United States’ Motion to Dismiss the case but allowing the Company to conduct limited discovery to establish whether the Court has jurisdiction. On August 30, 2010, the Company filed a Motion to Set Aside the Court’s Conditional Order of Dismissal. On February 28, 2011, the Court granted the Company’s motion and issued a Memorandum of Decision concluding that the Company had timely filed a refund claim for tax year 1992 seeking to adjust the amount of bad debt deduction and that the case should not be dismissed. In March 2011, the Company filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment based on the Court’s ruling that the Company’s refund claims were timely filed. In May 2011, the Government filed a Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and an opposition to the Company’s Summary Judgment Motion. In June 2011, the Company filed a Memorandum in Opposition to the Government’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and a Reply to the Governments Opposition to the Company’s Summary Judgment Motion, and the Government in June 2011, subsequently filed a response brief. The Court granted the Company’s motion in part and denied it in part, in a Memorandum Decision dated November 30, 2011. On January 26, 2012, the Company filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the amount of additional bad debt deduction that should be allowed. On February 16, 2012, the Government filed an Opposition to the Company’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On February 28, 2012, the Company filed a Reply to the Government’s Opposition to the Company’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Company expects the Court to issue a ruling that may or may not be dispositive of the case. The Company can give no assurances as to the final amount of refunds, if any, or when they might be received. The accompanying financial statements exclude legal fees in connection with the Carryback Claims proceedings as these legal fees are payable pursuant to a contingency fee arrangement with the attorneys upon a final recovery received. See Note 9 – Income Taxes for further information.

Supervisory Goodwill Litigation. During the third quarter of 1993, the Company filed a claim against the United States, in the United States Court of Federal Claims (the “Court of Federal Claims” or the “Court”), based upon the impact of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) on the Company’s investment in Carteret Savings Bank (“Carteret”). Approximately 120 other similar so-called “supervisory goodwill” cases were commenced by other financial institutions and/or their shareholders. Three of these cases, Winstar Corp. v. United States, Glendale Federal Bank, FSB v. United States, and Statesman Savings Holding Corp. v. United States (the “Consolidated Cases”), which involve many of the same issues raised in the Company’s suit, were appealed to the United States Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”). On July 1, 1996, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the Consolidated Cases. The Supreme Court’s decision affirmed the lower Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the issue of liability and remanded the cases for a determination of damages. Although the decision in the Consolidated Cases is beneficial to the Company’s case, it is not necessarily indicative of the ultimate outcome of the Company’s action.

On September 18, 1996, the Court of Federal Claims entered an Omnibus Case Management Order that governed further pretrial proceedings in the Company’s action and most of the other so-called “Winstar-related” cases. On March 14, 1997, the Court entered an order permitting the Federal Deposit Insurance Company (“FDIC”) to intervene as an additional plaintiff in forty-three cases, including the Company’s case, but not allowing the FDIC to be substituted as the sole plaintiff in those cases.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

On March 20, 1998, the FDIC filed a motion for partial summary judgment against the United States on certain liability issues, and the Company filed a memorandum in support of that motion. Fact discovery for the Company was completed on November 30, 1999 pursuant to an extension of time granted by the Court. On September 9, 1999, the Company filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability under a Fifth Amendment Takings claim theory of recovery. On November 24, 1999, the FDIC, as successor to the rights of Carteret and as Plaintiff-Intervener in the case, filed a response brief opposing the Company’s Motion. On December 6, 1999, the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) (on behalf of the United States) filed a brief opposing the Company’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability and Cross-Moved for Summary Judgment on the Company’s Takings claim. On January 25, 2000, the Company responded to the DOJ’s brief and the FDIC’s brief by filing a Brief (i) In Reply To Defendant’s Opposition To Plaintiffs’ Motion For Partial Summary Judgment, (ii) In Opposition To Defendant’s Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment, and (iii) In Reply To FDIC’s Response To Plaintiffs’ Motion For Partial Summary Judgment. On February 22, 2000 the DOJ filed a brief in Reply To Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Defendant’s Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment.

On October 2, 2000, Senior Judge Loren Smith of the Court of Federal Claims (“Judge Smith”) heard oral arguments in the Company’s Supervisory Goodwill case against the United States government. The Court heard arguments both as to the contractual liability of the United States to Carteret Savings Bank, and as to the Company’s claim against the United States under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

On August 25, 2003, the Court of Federal Claims issued a decision in which it (i) ruled that the Government had entered into and breached its supervisory goodwill contracts with the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Carteret; (ii) rejected the Company’s claim that it was entitled to recover damages directly from the Government under the Takings Clause for the loss of Carteret; and (iii) rejected the Company’s claim that the Government had “illegally exacted” $62.5 million that the Company paid into Carteret subsequent to the Government’s breach of the Goodwill contracts. Specifically, the Court held that the Company could not recover damages under the Takings Clause because it could be restored to the position it was in before the breach through Carteret’s breach of contract action.

On September 17, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the FDIC and to define the appropriate measure of Carteret’s contract damages. On September 30, 2003, the FDIC, as plaintiff-intervener in the case, and the United States, as defendant in the case, each filed a separate response to the Company’s motion. The Company argued in its motion that because Carteret would not have been seized but for the Government’s breach of contract, no receivership deficit would have been incurred. Accordingly, the Company argued that Carteret should be entitled to recover contract damages that include both: (i) the full amount of the receivership deficit, as an offset to the deficit and (ii) the full amount of the positive value it would have had but for the breach. Alternatively, the Company argued that, if Carteret is not entitled to recover both these amounts, or if any award must be offset by the amount of the receivership deficit, the Company should be entitled to demonstrate why the receivership deficit has been erroneously overstated. The DOJ responded in part with the argument that, among other things, Carteret would have failed even if Supervisory Goodwill was counted. The FDIC, who is both the receiver for the estate of Carteret (and hence claims to be its legal advocate in court) as well as a creditor of the estate, took the position that the Court of Federal Claims has no jurisdiction to review the accuracy, validity, or amount of the Carteret receivership deficit reported by the FDIC. That receivership deficit consists primarily of the FDIC’s subrogated claim against the thrift, interest, taxes, and administrative expenses charged by the FDIC to the thrift. Because the receivership deficit continues to accrue interest, it grows on a daily basis.

On October 1, 2003, the Court held a telephonic status conference pursuant to an order set forth in the August 25, 2003 opinion. Pursuant to that status conference, the Court ordered that through their additional briefing on the Company’s Motion to Dismiss the FDIC and to define the appropriate measure of Carteret’s contract damages (i.e., through the Company’s reply brief and the surreply brief granted to the FDIC and the United States), the parties should address the question of, “whether the Court has the power to review the amount of the receivership deficit as administered by the FDIC.” In an order dated October 16, 2003, the Court modified the briefing schedule such that the Company filed its reply brief as required on October 31, 2003, and the surreply brief of the FDIC and the United States were filed as required in November, 2003. The Court held oral argument on this issue on November 20, 2003. The DOJ and the FDIC filed briefs arguing that (1) the Court of Federal Claims had no authority to scrutinize the validity of the receivership deficit reported by the FDIC and (2) the Court should dismiss AmBase’s remaining damages claims because they were allegedly waived. On August 31, 2004, the Court denied the Company’s Motion to Dismiss the FDIC, but granted the Company’s Motion to Define the Measure of Carteret’s Contract Damages to the extent it requested the Court to consider the size and value of the FDIC’s receivership deficit when calculating damages. The Court subsequently conducted a status conference on October 4, 2004, and ordered the Company to submit a proposed litigation time-line to the Court by October 22, 2004 which was timely submitted. The Court ordered the United States and the FDIC to respond to the Company’s proposed litigation time-line by November 5, 2004 which was timely submitted. A status conference was held on January 11, 2005.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

On January 12, 2005, the Court ordered that pursuant to the Court’s order from the bench, the Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of the August 31, 2004 Ruling, and, in the Alternative, to dismiss the Stockholder Derivative Claim and the Complaint-in-Intervention was denied. The Court further ordered that this matter be stayed for 30 days for the Defendant and/or Plaintiff-Intervener to consider filing a Request for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal. The Court held a telephonic status conference on February 11, 2005 at which time the Court ordered that fact discovery was to resume on February 14, 2005 and would continue for at least three (3) months. The Court further scheduled a telephonic status conference for May 2005, to discuss the need for further discovery.

On January 12, 2005, Judge Smith denied the government’s motion to dismiss the Company’s remaining claims arising out of damages for breach of contract. On March 15, 2005, the DOJ and the FDIC each filed motions requesting that Judge Smith certify for immediate appeal his ruling that the Company is entitled to challenge the validity of the receivership deficit. The Company filed its reply to these motions on March 29, 2005. In April 2005, Judge Smith heard oral argument on the DOJ and FDIC motions requesting that Judge Smith certify for immediate appeal his ruling that the Company is entitled to challenge the validity of the receivership deficit. Because Judge Smith’s ruling on the receivership deficit issue was not a final order, both Judge Smith and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit would have to agree to an appeal of that issue at that time. Following the April 2005 oral argument, Judge Smith entered an order, on April 25, 2005, staying resolution of the motions to certify an interlocutory appeal pending the holding of a “show cause” hearing. Judge Smith indicated at the oral argument that the purpose of the show cause hearing was to allow the Company to outline the evidence and arguments it was prepared to offer in order to challenge the validity and size of the receivership deficit. Judge Smith directed the parties to attempt to reach agreement regarding a schedule for the completion of discovery on receivership deficit issues, and he directed the parties to submit to the Court such an agreed proposed discovery schedule, or, if the parties were unable to reach agreement, separate proposed schedules for discovery, in early May 2005. Judge Smith further encouraged the parties to discuss the procedures and schedule for the show cause hearing, and to provide the Court with a proposed order on such matters.

In accordance with the Court’s direction, the parties agreed upon a schedule for the completion of fact discovery and procedures for the show cause proceeding. In accordance with the parties’ agreement, Judge Smith entered an order on May 23, 2005, providing that fact discovery would be completed within 45 days of the completion of document production by the Government. The May 23, 2005, order further provided that (i) 45 days after the close of discovery, the Company was to file a statement of issues summarizing the respects in which the receivership books allegedly overstate or misstate the receivership deficit; (ii) 45 days after the filing of the Company’s statement of issues, the United States and the FDIC were to file responses; and (iii) 15 days after the filing of such responses, the Company was to file a reply.

In May and June of 2005, the Government provided the Company with access to Carteret’s documents and documents relating to the management of the receivership. The Company selected approximately 3 million pages of documents to be imaged at the Government’s expense. In September 2005, a status conference was held before Judge Smith. The Government indicated that it would complete production of all the images of the selected materials by the end of September 2005. Additionally, at the status conference, all parties agreed that the schedule previously set forth by the Court’s May 23, 2005 order should be changed in one respect: the Company would be given 75 days from the completion of the document production to complete discovery. The Court issued an order on September 26, 2005 memorializing this agreement. On January 11, 2006, the Court held a status conference. At that time, the Court indicated that the document production would be deemed complete as of that date. The Court’s order of January 13, 2006, memorialized this ruling. Accordingly, fact discovery was completed in April 2006, and the Company’s statement of issues was ultimately filed in June of 2006. In May 2006, the Company served on the Government an expert report in support of some of the arguments the Company made regarding the size of the receivership deficit. The Company’s expert was deposed in July 2006. In early August 2006, the Government submitted its own expert report on receivership deficit issues, and in October 2006, the Company deposed the Government’s expert. In late August 2006, the Government filed a response to the Company’s Statement of Issues, and in September 2006, the FDIC filed its own response to the Statement of Issues. The Company filed its reply in support of its Statement of Issues in October 2006. A status conference was held in November 2006 and December 2006, to discuss further proceedings. On December 13, 2006, the Court entered an order denying defendant’s request that the Court allow an immediate appeal of the Court’s ruling that it had jurisdiction to consider the validity of the receivership deficit. The Court also found that it continued to have jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court also ordered the parties to enter a schedule for expert discovery.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIAIRES

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

On April 13, 2007, Judge Smith issued an order scheduling pretrial, and trial deadlines and dates, including scheduling a trial to commence on February 11, 2008. In accordance with the Court’s scheduling in May 2007, the Company submitted its expert report. The Government deposed the Company’s expert in June 2007. In July 2007, the Government identified its damages experts and submitted its expert reports in September 2007. The Company deposed the Government’s experts in October 2007.

Pursuant to the Court order, the Court heard oral argument on November 14, 2007 at the Court of Federal Claims, to decide whether the trial could be avoided by summary judgment, pursuant to papers filed by the parties on November 7, 2007 and November 19, 2007. On November 30, 2007, the Court ordered the parties to continue with the trial schedule as previously set forth.

Subsequently on December 7, 2007, the parties exchanged exhibit and witness lists; on December 14, 2007 the parties submitted an hour-by-hour anticipated trial schedule to the Court; on December 21, 2007 Plaintiffs and FDIC-R filed Appendix A submissions; on January 8, 2008 a pretrial conference was held in the Court of Federal Claims; on January 21, 2008 the Defendant filed Appendix A submissions; and on February 11, 2008 trial was commenced.

Trial testimony of fact and expert witnesses for the Company, the DOJ, and the FDIC was completed on April 4, 2008. At trial, fact witness and expert witness testimony was presented by the Company, and by the United States Government represented by the DOJ. In addition, the FDIC-Receiver (purporting to act as a plaintiff-intervener in its capacity as successor-in-interest to Carteret) participated in the trial and the examination of witnesses. The Company put forth various theories of damages, including claims for the recovery of the value of Carteret as of the date of the breach or the date of judgment, as well as for the recovery of certain so-called “wounded bank” damages incurred by Carteret as a result of the breach. The DOJ responded with various theories, including, among other things that Carteret would have failed even if Supervisory Goodwill was counted. The DOJ also challenged the Company’s calculations of the value of Carteret and the damages theories and evidence underlying the Company’s “wounded bank” claims. The FDIC essentially adopted the Company’s damages claims evidence, but has continued to argue (along with DOJ) that the FDIC-Receiver is entitled to recover on these claims.

After the completion of trial testimony, the Court held a status conference in April 2008 pursuant to which the Court issued a post trial scheduling order providing for the filing of post trial briefs and proposed findings of fact by the Company, and DOJ and the FDIC. Pursuant to the Court’s post-trial scheduling order as revised on July 1, 2008, the Company filed its post-trial brief and proposed findings of fact. The FDIC also filed its post-trial brief on July 1, 2008. In September 2008, the DOJ filed its post-trial brief and proposed findings of fact. In October 2008, the Company filed its post-trial reply brief and the FDIC filed its post-trial reply brief in November 2008. Post-trial briefing was concluded in December 2008, with the filing of sur-reply briefs by both the Company and DOJ.

On February 12 and 17, 2009, the Court heard closing arguments. At the conclusion of closing arguments, the Court ruled that the FDIC and DOJ could file short supplemental briefs addressing certain limited issues by March 6, 2009, and that the Company could file a short responsive brief on March 25, 2009. In May 2009, the DOJ requested and simultaneously filed with the Court an additional supplemental brief. The Court granted the DOJ’s motion and permitted the DOJ’s additional supplemental brief. The Company subsequently requested and the Court allowed the Company to file a responsive supplemental brief to the DOJ brief which was filed in June 2009.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIAIRES

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

On August 31, 2011, Judge Smith of the Court of Federal Claims issued a damages opinion in the Company’s Supervisory Goodwill legal proceedings. Pursuant to Judge Smith’s opinion, the Plaintiffs were awarded directly $205,013,000 in lost value expectancy damages, plus tax gross-up if applicable. The decision indicates that the damages were awarded net any receivership deficit and outside the statutory receivership distribution scheme. A copy of the Court’s damages opinion is available on the Court of Claims website at www.uscfc.uscourts.gov. The Company has no contingent fee agreements in place with its attorneys or any outside advisor in connection with the Supervisory Goodwill legal proceedings or award. On September 28, 2011, the DOJ filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Opinion and Order Dated August 31, 2011. The Company filed its opposition to the DOJ’s motion on October 17, 2011. The DOJ filed its reply brief on October 26, 2011. On October 31, 2011, Judge Smith issued an order denying the DOJ’s Motion to Reconsider and the Court clarified its opinion with regard to mitigation.

On December 29, 2011, the DOJ, on behalf of the United States, filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from the judgment in No. 93-531C, entered on August 31, 2011, including (but not limited to): (1) the published opinion and order in No. 93-531, entered on August 31, 2011; and (2) the order denying the motion for reconsideration in No. 93-531, entered on October 31, 2011 with regard to the Company’s Supervisory Goodwill case. In January 2012, both the Company and the FDIC-Receiver filed cross-appeals from the Court of Federal Claims’ judgment. Briefing before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the various appeals has not yet commenced, and there is no timetable for the Court of Appeals to issue a decision in the case.

On March 8, 2012, the DOJ, on behalf of the United States of America, filed a motion to extend the deadline for filing its initial appellate brief, which was due to expire on March 19, 2012, to May 18, 2012. Preliminary discussions between representatives of the Company and of the DOJ regarding a possible settlement of the Supervisory Goodwill legal proceedings have taken place in recent months. In light of those discussions, the Company did not contest the DOJ’s motion to extend the briefing deadline.

Settlement discussions may not progress, and may be discontinued or continued, at any time or from time to time. The outcome of any settlement discussions cannot be predicted. The Company expressly disclaims any obligation to update, in its public filings with the Commission, or via other forms of public dissemination, the status or progress of any informal or formal settlement discussions with respect to the Supervisory Goodwill legal proceedings, and no inference regarding the status of any such settlement proceedings should be drawn from the absence or frequency of any such updates. The Company, with its outside advisors, will continue to take appropriate steps on behalf of AmBase’s interest.

The Court of Federal Claims decisions and certain filings in the Company’s case, as well as other decisions in Winstar related cases, are publicly available on the Court of Federal Claims web site at www.uscfc.uscourts.gov. In addition, decisions in Winstar-related cases that have been issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court that hears appeals from decisions by the Court of Federal Claims, may be found on that court’s website at www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Decisions in other Winstar related cases may be relevant to the Company’s Supervisory Goodwill claims, but are not necessarily indicative of the ultimate outcome of the Company’s actions. The Company can give no assurances regarding the ultimate outcome of the Supervisory Goodwill legal proceedings, the final amount of any award or when it might be received.