Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2018
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Note 9 - Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company and its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant in various lawsuits or proceedings. At the current time except as set forth below, the Company is unaware of any legal proceedings pending against the Company. The Company intends to aggressively contest all litigation and contingencies, as well as pursue all sources for contributions to settlements. The Company is a party to material legal proceedings as follows: AmBase Corp., et al. v. 111 West 57^th Sponsor LLC, et al. In April 2016, AmBase initiated a litigation in the New York State Supreme Court for New York County (the “NY Court”), Index No. 652301/2016, (“AmBase v. 111 West 57^th Sponsor LLC, et al.”) (the “111 West 57^th Action”). The defendants in that litigation are 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, 111 West 57th JDS LLC, PMG West 57th Street LLC, 111 West 57th Control LLC, 111 West 57th Developer LLC, 111 West 57^th KM Equity LLC, 111 West 57^th KM Group LLC, Kevin Maloney, Matthew Phillips, Michael Stern, Ned White, 111 Construction Manager LLC, Property Markets Group, Inc., JDS Development LLC, JDS Construction Group LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) and nominal defendant 111 West 57th Partners LLC. In the current version of the complaint, AmBase alleges that Defendants violated multiple provisions in the JV Agreement, including by failing to honor the exercise of AmBase’s contractual “equity put right” as set forth in the JV Agreement (the “Equity Put Right”), and committed numerous acts of fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty. AmBase is seeking compensatory damages, as well as treble damages under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), punitive damages, indemnification and equitable relief including a declaration of the parties’ rights, and an accounting. The Company has also demanded from the Sponsor access to the books and records for the 111 West 57^th Property which the Sponsor refused, claiming they have provided all books and records as required. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss, and on January 12, 2018, the NY Court issued an opinion allowing some of AmBase’s claims to go forward and dismissing others. Among other claims that the NY Court declined to dismiss was AmBase’s claim that the Defendants violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by frustrating AmBase’ s Equity Put Right. Claims that the NY Court dismissed included AmBase’s claim that the Defendants breached their contract with AmBase by financing capital contributions for the project through funds obtained from third parties. On January 16, 2018, some of the Defendants wrote to the NY Court suggesting that the opinion contained certain clerical errors and was missing a page. On January 18, 2018, the NY Court removed its previous opinion from the docket and on January 29, 2018, posted a revised opinion. A discovery conference in this case is was held on February 27, 2018. On April 27, 2018, the Company filed a third amended complaint adding federal RICO claims, and new claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty, based on information discovered during the course of discovery and events that have transpired since the Company filed its previous complaint in the 111 West 57th Action. On June 18, 2018, Defendants removed the complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Federal Court”), where it is docketed as case number 18-cv-5482-AT. On October 25, 2018, the Federal Court issued an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Company’s RICO claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Company’s state-law claims. The next month, the Company noticed an appeal, and on January 11, 2019, it served its opening brief in that appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Appeals Court”) granted the Company’s motion to file its brief under seal and on the public docket in redacted form. Subsequently, in February 2019 the Defendant’s filed their response brief and in March 2019, the Company filed its reply brief. The Company is awaiting a decision from the Appeals Court. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property, see Note 4. AmBase Corp., et al. v. Spruce Capital Partners, et al. In July 2017, the Company initiated a second litigation in the NY Court, Index No. 655031/2017, (the “111 West 57^th Spruce Action”). The defendants in the 111 West 57^th Spruce action were 111 W57 Mezz Investor, LLC, Spruce Capital Partners LLC, 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, Michael Z. Stern, and Kevin P. Maloney (collectively, “Defendants”) and nominal defendants 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57^th Mezz 1 LLC. The Company has since voluntarily discontinued its claims against Sponsor, Stern, and Maloney, without prejudice to reinstating them in the 111 West 57^th Spruce Action or any other action. Spruce had given notice to the junior mezzanine borrower that it proposed to accept the pledged collateral (including the joint venture members’ collective interest in the property) in full satisfaction of the joint venture’s indebtedness under the Junior Mezzanine Loan (i.e., a “Strict Foreclosure”). After the Sponsor refused to object to Spruce’s proposal on behalf of the junior mezzanine borrower, and Spruce refused to commit to honor Investment LLC’s objection on its own behalf, the Company initiated the 111 West 57^th Spruce Action to obtain injunctive relief halting the Strict Foreclosure. For additional information on the events leading to this litigation see Note 4. On July 26, 2017, the NY Court issued a temporary restraining order barring Spruce from accepting the collateral, pending a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for August 14, 2017. Spruce and the Sponsor subsequently filed papers in opposition to the request for a preliminary injunction and cross-motions to dismiss and quash subpoenas. On August 14, 2017, the NY Court postponed the hearing until August 28, 2017, keeping the temporary restraining order preventing a Strict Foreclosure in effect until the August 28, 2017 hearing. Subsequently the Company filed response briefs in support of their request for injunctive relief halting the Strict Foreclosure process and briefs in opposition to the motions to quash the subpoenas. On August 28, 2017, the NY Court held a preliminary injunction hearing, lifted the temporary restraining order, denied Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, and granted Defendants’ cross-motions. In order to prevent the Strict Foreclosure process from going forward, the Company immediately obtained an interim stay from the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Judicial Department (“Appellate Division”). That stay remained in place until four (4) P.M. August 29, 2017, permitting the Company to obtain an appealable order, notice an appeal, and move for a longer-term stay or injunctive relief pending appeal. The Appellate Division held a hearing on August 29, 2017, to consider the Company’s motion for an interim stay or injunctive relief pending appeal, both of which it denied, thus allowing the purported Strict Foreclosure to move forward. On August 30, 2017, Spruce issued a Notice of Retention of Pledged Collateral in Full Satisfaction of Indebtedness. By purporting to accept the pledged collateral, pursuant to a Strict Foreclosure process, Spruce claims to have completed the retention of the collateral pledged by the junior mezzanine borrower, and therefore, the Company’s interest in the 111 West 57th Street Property. Prior to the Strict Foreclosure, the carrying value of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property represented a substantial portion of the Company’s assets and net equity value. The Company will continue to challenge the validity of the actions that led to this purported transfer of title. The Appellate Division recently issued a decision that resolves the Company’s appeal from the order denying a preliminary injunction and dismissing its claims. The Appellate Division’s decision indicates that the Company’s request for a declaratory judgment is not moot “because plaintiff 111 West 57th Investment LLC (‘Investment’) might be entitled to damages from defendant 111 W57 Mezz Investor LLC (‘Junior Mezz Lender’) if it is judicially determined that Investment had the right to object to the Strict Foreclosure pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code.” The Appellate Division noted that the Company should be allowed to move for leave to amend to state claims for damages and/or the imposition of a constructive trust, as the dismissal of the Company’s claims was without prejudice. On March 20, 2019, the Company’s subsidiary, 111 West 57th Investment LLC, moved for leave to amend the complaint in the 111 West 57th Spruce Action to state claims for breaches of the Uniform Commercial Code and Pledge Agreement, various torts, and constructive trust. The proposed amended complaint seeks a declaratory judgment, the impression of a constructive trust, permanent injunctive relief restraining Spruce from disposing of or encumbering the Property, and damages, including punitive damages. The proposed amended complaint does not name the Company as a plaintiff or Spruce Capital Partners as a defendant. Since the Company is not party to the Loan Agreements, it does not have access to communications with the lenders, except for those individual communications that the Sponsor has elected to share or that have been produced in the ongoing litigation. The Company has continued to demand access to such information, including access to the books and records for the 111 West 57^th Property both under the JV Agreement and as part of the 111 West 57^th Action and the 111 West 57^th Spruce Action. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property and the Company’s recording of an impairment of its equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property in 2017; see Note 4. AmBase Corp., et al. v. ACREFI Mortgage Lending LLC, et al. In June 2018, the Company initiated another litigation in the NY Court, Index No. 655031/2017, (the “Apollo Action”). The defendants in the Apollo Action are ACREFI Mortgage Lending, LLC, Apollo Credit Opportunity Fund III AIV I LP, AGRE Debt 1 – 111 W 57, LLC, and Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc. (collectively, the “Apollo Defendants”). In the Apollo Action, the Company alleges that the Apollo Defendants aided and abetted the Sponsor, Stern, and Maloney in breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company in connection with the 111 West 57^th Property and tortuously interfered with the JV Agreement. The Company is seeking damages as well as punitive damages for tortious interference with the JV Agreement and aiding and abetting the Sponsor’s breaches of their fiduciary duties to the joint venture. The Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on August 17, 2018, and the Company filed its opposition brief on September 17, 2018, and the Defendants filed their reply brief on October 5, 2018. The Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss in March 2019. The Company is awaiting a decision on the motion to dismiss from the Court. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property and the JV Agreement; see Note 4. With respect to its disputes and litigation relating to its interest in the 111 West 57th Property, the Company is continuing to pursue various legal courses of action, as well as considering other possible economic strategies, including the possible sale of the Company’s interest in and/or rights with respect to the 111 West 57th Property. The Company is continuing to pursue other options to realize the Company’s investment value and/or protect its legal rights. The Company can give no assurances regarding the outcome of the matters described herein, including as to the effect of Spruce’s actions described herein, whether the Sponsor will perform their contractual commitments to the Company under the JV Agreement, as to what further action, if any, the lenders may take with respect to the project, as to the ultimate resolution of the ongoing litigation proceedings relating to the Company’s investment interest in the 111 West 57^th Property, as to the ultimate effect of the Sponsor’s, the Company’s or the lenders’ actions on the project, as to the completion or ultimate success of the project, or as to the value or ultimate realization of any portion of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Street Property. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property see Note 4. While the Company’s management is evaluating future courses of action to protect and/or recover the value of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property, the adverse developments make it uncertain as to whether any such courses of action will be successful. Any such efforts are likely to require sustained effort over a period of time, and require substantial additional financial resources. Inability to recover all or most of such value would in all likelihood have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and future prospects. For information relating to the Litigation Funding Agreement entered into between the Company and Mr. Richard A. Bianco, the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, see Note 10. IsZo Capital L.P. derivatively and on behalf of AmBase Corporation v. Richard A. Bianco, et al. In February 2018, IsZo Capital L.P. commenced an action, IsZo Capital L.P. derivatively and on behalf of AmBase Corporation v. Richard A. Bianco, et al., Index No. 650812/2018 in the New York State Supreme Court for New York County (the “IsZo Capital L.P. action”). The defendants in the action include all officers and directors of AmBase Corporation and AmBase Corporation as a nominal defendant. The plaintiff alleges various breaches of fiduciary duty against all of the directors and officers concerning the decisions made in the 111 West 57^th Street Property investment and a certain litigation funding agreement. IsZo Capital L.P. also seeks declaratory judgment relief concerning a litigation funding agreement and the 111 West 57^th Street Property. AmBase and the officers and directors intend to vigorously defend themselves. Service of the summons and complaint has been accepted by counsel on behalf of all defendants and a motion to dismiss was served and filed in early May 2018. The motion was returnable on July 17, 2018 and all motion papers have now been submitted to the Court. Oral argument on the Company’s motion to dismiss was held on the motion on October 19, 2018, at which time the Court decided that Alessandra Bianco, Richard Bianco, Jr., Jerry Carnegie, John Ferrara and Joseph Bianco should be dismissed as defendants in the case. The Court reserved decision as to dismissal of the balance of the case pending the Court’s receipt of a transcript of the oral argument. On December, 26, 2018, the Court issued its written decision on the balance of the motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed a cause of action against Richard Bianco, dismissed in part the single cause of action against Kenneth Schmidt, and dismissed a cause of action for declaratory judgment. What remains is a single cause of action against Richard Bianco, a single cause of action against Kenneth Schmidt (in part), and a single declaratory judgment cause of action. The remaining defendants moved for re-argument of the December 26, 2018 decision, which motion was fully submitted as of March 13, 2019. Defendants, upon re-argument, are seeking dismissal of the entirety of plaintiff’s action, and currently await a decision from the Court on that motion. Defendants, in addition, filed a Notice of Appeal as regards the December 26, 2018 decision on March 6, 2019, which appeal must be perfected on or before September 6, 2019. On January 15, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the surviving causes of action, as well as asserted counterclaims against the plaintiff. It also served initial discovery demands upon the plaintiff. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against plaintiff’s action and prosecute its counterclaims. The Company can give no assurances regarding the outcome of the matters described herein.

Note 9 - Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company and its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant in various lawsuits or proceedings. At the current time except as set forth below, the Company is unaware of any legal proceedings pending against the Company. The Company intends to aggressively contest all litigation and contingencies, as well as pursue all sources for contributions to settlements.

The Company is a party to material legal proceedings as follows:

AmBase Corp., et al. v. 111 West 57^th Sponsor LLC, et al. In April 2016, AmBase initiated a litigation in the New York State Supreme Court for New York County (the “NY Court”), Index No. 652301/2016, (“AmBase v. 111 West 57^th Sponsor LLC, et al.”) (the “111 West 57^th Action”). The defendants in that litigation are 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, 111 West 57th JDS LLC, PMG West 57th Street LLC, 111 West 57th Control LLC, 111 West 57th Developer LLC, 111 West 57^th KM Equity LLC, 111 West 57^th KM Group LLC, Kevin Maloney, Matthew Phillips, Michael Stern, Ned White, 111 Construction Manager LLC, Property Markets Group, Inc., JDS Development LLC, JDS Construction Group LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) and nominal defendant 111 West 57th Partners LLC. In the current version of the complaint, AmBase alleges that Defendants violated multiple provisions in the JV Agreement, including by failing to honor the exercise of AmBase’s contractual “equity put right” as set forth in the JV Agreement (the “Equity Put Right”), and committed numerous acts of fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty. AmBase is seeking compensatory damages, as well as treble damages under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), punitive damages, indemnification and equitable relief including a declaration of the parties’ rights, and an accounting. The Company has also demanded from the Sponsor access to the books and records for the 111 West 57^th Property which the Sponsor refused, claiming they have provided all books and records as required. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss, and on January 12, 2018, the NY Court issued an opinion allowing some of AmBase’s claims to go forward and dismissing others. Among other claims that the NY Court declined to dismiss was AmBase’s claim that the Defendants violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by frustrating AmBase’ s Equity Put Right. Claims that the NY Court dismissed included AmBase’s claim that the Defendants breached their contract with AmBase by financing capital contributions for the project through funds obtained from third parties. On January 16, 2018, some of the Defendants wrote to the NY Court suggesting that the opinion contained certain clerical errors and was missing a page. On January 18, 2018, the NY Court removed its previous opinion from the docket and on January 29, 2018, posted a revised opinion. A discovery conference in this case is was held on February 27, 2018. On April 27, 2018, the Company filed a third amended complaint adding federal RICO claims, and new claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty, based on information discovered during the course of discovery and events that have transpired since the Company filed its previous complaint in the 111 West 57th Action. On June 18, 2018, Defendants removed the complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Federal Court”), where it is docketed as case number 18-cv-5482-AT.

On October 25, 2018, the Federal Court issued an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Company’s RICO claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Company’s state-law claims. The next month, the Company noticed an appeal, and on January 11, 2019, it served its opening brief in that appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the “Appeals Court”) granted the Company’s motion to file its brief under seal and on the public docket in redacted form. Subsequently, in February 2019 the Defendant’s filed their response brief and in March 2019, the Company filed its reply brief. The Company is awaiting a decision from the Appeals Court. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property, see Note 4.

AmBase Corp., et al. v. Spruce Capital Partners, et al. In July 2017, the Company initiated a second litigation in the NY Court, Index No. 655031/2017, (the “111 West 57^th Spruce Action”). The defendants in the 111 West 57^th Spruce action were 111 W57 Mezz Investor, LLC, Spruce Capital Partners LLC, 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, Michael Z. Stern, and Kevin P. Maloney (collectively, “Defendants”) and nominal defendants 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57^th Mezz 1 LLC. The Company has since voluntarily discontinued its claims against Sponsor, Stern, and Maloney, without prejudice to reinstating them in the 111 West 57^th Spruce Action or any other action.

Spruce had given notice to the junior mezzanine borrower that it proposed to accept the pledged collateral (including the joint venture members’ collective interest in the property) in full satisfaction of the joint venture’s indebtedness under the Junior Mezzanine Loan (i.e., a “Strict Foreclosure”). After the Sponsor refused to object to Spruce’s proposal on behalf of the junior mezzanine borrower, and Spruce refused to commit to honor Investment LLC’s objection on its own behalf, the Company initiated the 111 West 57^th Spruce Action to obtain injunctive relief halting the Strict Foreclosure. For additional information on the events leading to this litigation see Note 4.

On July 26, 2017, the NY Court issued a temporary restraining order barring Spruce from accepting the collateral, pending a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for August 14, 2017. Spruce and the Sponsor subsequently filed papers in opposition to the request for a preliminary injunction and cross-motions to dismiss and quash subpoenas. On August 14, 2017, the NY Court postponed the hearing until August 28, 2017, keeping the temporary restraining order preventing a Strict Foreclosure in effect until the August 28, 2017 hearing. Subsequently the Company filed response briefs in support of their request for injunctive relief halting the Strict Foreclosure process and briefs in opposition to the motions to quash the subpoenas.

On August 28, 2017, the NY Court held a preliminary injunction hearing, lifted the temporary restraining order, denied Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, and granted Defendants’ cross-motions. In order to prevent the Strict Foreclosure process from going forward, the Company immediately obtained an interim stay from the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Judicial Department (“Appellate Division”). That stay remained in place until four (4) P.M. August 29, 2017, permitting the Company to obtain an appealable order, notice an appeal, and move for a longer-term stay or injunctive relief pending appeal. The Appellate Division held a hearing on August 29, 2017, to consider the Company’s motion for an interim stay or injunctive relief pending appeal, both of which it denied, thus allowing the purported Strict Foreclosure to move forward.

On August 30, 2017, Spruce issued a Notice of Retention of Pledged Collateral in Full Satisfaction of Indebtedness. By purporting to accept the pledged collateral, pursuant to a Strict Foreclosure process, Spruce claims to have completed the retention of the collateral pledged by the junior mezzanine borrower, and therefore, the Company’s interest in the 111 West 57th Street Property. Prior to the Strict Foreclosure, the carrying value of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property represented a substantial portion of the Company’s assets and net equity value. The Company will continue to challenge the validity of the actions that led to this purported transfer of title.

The Appellate Division recently issued a decision that resolves the Company’s appeal from the order denying a preliminary injunction and dismissing its claims. The Appellate Division’s decision indicates that the Company’s request for a declaratory judgment is not moot “because plaintiff 111 West 57th Investment LLC (‘Investment’) might be entitled to damages from defendant 111 W57 Mezz Investor LLC (‘Junior Mezz Lender’) if it is judicially determined that Investment had the right to object to the Strict Foreclosure pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code.” The Appellate Division noted that the Company should be allowed to move for leave to amend to state claims for damages and/or the imposition of a constructive trust, as the dismissal of the Company’s claims was without prejudice.

On March 20, 2019, the Company’s subsidiary, 111 West 57th Investment LLC, moved for leave to amend the complaint in the 111 West 57th Spruce Action to state claims for breaches of the Uniform Commercial Code and Pledge Agreement, various torts, and constructive trust. The proposed amended complaint seeks a declaratory judgment, the impression of a constructive trust, permanent injunctive relief restraining Spruce from disposing of or encumbering the Property, and damages, including punitive damages. The proposed amended complaint does not name the Company as a plaintiff or Spruce Capital Partners as a defendant.

Since the Company is not party to the Loan Agreements, it does not have access to communications with the lenders, except for those individual communications that the Sponsor has elected to share or that have been produced in the ongoing litigation. The Company has continued to demand access to such information, including access to the books and records for the 111 West 57^th Property both under the JV Agreement and as part of the 111 West 57^th Action and the 111 West 57^th Spruce Action.

For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property and the Company’s recording of an impairment of its equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property in 2017; see Note 4.

AmBase Corp., et al. v. ACREFI Mortgage Lending LLC, et al. In June 2018, the Company initiated another litigation in the NY Court, Index No. 655031/2017, (the “Apollo Action”). The defendants in the Apollo Action are ACREFI Mortgage Lending, LLC, Apollo Credit Opportunity Fund III AIV I LP, AGRE Debt 1 – 111 W 57, LLC, and Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc. (collectively, the “Apollo Defendants”). In the Apollo Action, the Company alleges that the Apollo Defendants aided and abetted the Sponsor, Stern, and Maloney in breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company in connection with the 111 West 57^th Property and tortuously interfered with the JV Agreement. The Company is seeking damages as well as punitive damages for tortious interference with the JV Agreement and aiding and abetting the Sponsor’s breaches of their fiduciary duties to the joint venture. The Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on August 17, 2018, and the Company filed its opposition brief on September 17, 2018, and the Defendants filed their reply brief on October 5, 2018. The Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss in March 2019. The Company is awaiting a decision on the motion to dismiss from the Court. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property and the JV Agreement; see Note 4.

With respect to its disputes and litigation relating to its interest in the 111 West 57th Property, the Company is continuing to pursue various legal courses of action, as well as considering other possible economic strategies, including the possible sale of the Company’s interest in and/or rights with respect to the 111 West 57th Property. The Company is continuing to pursue other options to realize the Company’s investment value and/or protect its legal rights.

The Company can give no assurances regarding the outcome of the matters described herein, including as to the effect of Spruce’s actions described herein, whether the Sponsor will perform their contractual commitments to the Company under the JV Agreement, as to what further action, if any, the lenders may take with respect to the project, as to the ultimate resolution of the ongoing litigation proceedings relating to the Company’s investment interest in the 111 West 57^th Property, as to the ultimate effect of the Sponsor’s, the Company’s or the lenders’ actions on the project, as to the completion or ultimate success of the project, or as to the value or ultimate realization of any portion of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Street Property. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property see Note 4.

While the Company’s management is evaluating future courses of action to protect and/or recover the value of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property, the adverse developments make it uncertain as to whether any such courses of action will be successful. Any such efforts are likely to require sustained effort over a period of time, and require substantial additional financial resources. Inability to recover all or most of such value would in all likelihood have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and future prospects.

For information relating to the Litigation Funding Agreement entered into between the Company and Mr. Richard A. Bianco, the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, see Note 10.

IsZo Capital L.P. derivatively and on behalf of AmBase Corporation v. Richard A. Bianco, et al. In February 2018, IsZo Capital L.P. commenced an action, IsZo Capital L.P. derivatively and on behalf of AmBase Corporation v. Richard A. Bianco, et al., Index No. 650812/2018 in the New York State Supreme Court for New York County (the “IsZo Capital L.P. action”). The defendants in the action include all officers and directors of AmBase Corporation and AmBase Corporation as a nominal defendant. The plaintiff alleges various breaches of fiduciary duty against all of the directors and officers concerning the decisions made in the 111 West 57^th Street Property investment and a certain litigation funding agreement. IsZo Capital L.P. also seeks declaratory judgment relief concerning a litigation funding agreement and the 111 West 57^th Street Property. AmBase and the officers and directors intend to vigorously defend themselves. Service of the summons and complaint has been accepted by counsel on behalf of all defendants and a motion to dismiss was served and filed in early May 2018. The motion was returnable on July 17, 2018 and all motion papers have now been submitted to the Court.

Oral argument on the Company’s motion to dismiss was held on the motion on October 19, 2018, at which time the Court decided that Alessandra Bianco, Richard Bianco, Jr., Jerry Carnegie, John Ferrara and Joseph Bianco should be dismissed as defendants in the case. The Court reserved decision as to dismissal of the balance of the case pending the Court’s receipt of a transcript of the oral argument. On December, 26, 2018, the Court issued its written decision on the balance of the motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed a cause of action against Richard Bianco, dismissed in part the single cause of action against Kenneth Schmidt, and dismissed a cause of action for declaratory judgment. What remains is a single cause of action against Richard Bianco, a single cause of action against Kenneth Schmidt (in part), and a single declaratory judgment cause of action.

The remaining defendants moved for re-argument of the December 26, 2018 decision, which motion was fully submitted as of March 13, 2019. Defendants, upon re-argument, are seeking dismissal of the entirety of plaintiff’s action, and currently await a decision from the Court on that motion. Defendants, in addition, filed a Notice of Appeal as regards the December 26, 2018 decision on March 6, 2019, which appeal must be perfected on or before September 6, 2019.

On January 15, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the surviving causes of action, as well as asserted counterclaims against the plaintiff. It also served initial discovery demands upon the plaintiff. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against plaintiff’s action and prosecute its counterclaims. The Company can give no assurances regarding the outcome of the matters described herein.