Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
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 include 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, Kevin Maloney, Michael Stern, and various members and affiliates (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, 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. On April 13, 2018, AmBase filed a notice of appeal of the NY Court Order entered on January 29, 2018 to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Judicial Department (the “Appellate Division”). 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 was 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. On August 30, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Federal Court’s dismissal of the federal RICO claims, vacated the Federal Court’s dismissal of the state-law claims, and remanded with instructions for the Federal Court to remand those claims to the NY Court. On September 25, 2019, the Federal Court remanded the case to the NY Court, where it was assigned to the Honorable O. Peter Sherwood. On January 22, 2020, AmBase filed a motion with the Appellate Division seeking to enlarge the time to perfect the Company’s appeal of the NY Court’s January 29, 2018 Order to be heard during the September 2020 Term of the Appellate Division. The motion to enlarge the time to perfect was fully briefed on March 9, 2020 and is pending a ruling by the Appellate Division. 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. In January 2019, the Appellate Division 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 plaintiff 111 West 57th Investment LLC (“Investment LLC”) might be entitled to damages from defendant 111 W57 Mezz Investor LLC if it is judicially determined that Investment LLC 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 May 3, 2019, the Company’s subsidiary, Investment LLC, entered into a stipulation with 111 W57 Mezz Investor LLC (“Spruce”) to amend the complaint in the 111 West 57th Spruce Action to state claims against Spruce for breaches of the Uniform Commercial Code and Pledge Agreement and various torts. The amended complaint seeks the entry of 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 amended complaint does not name the Company as a plaintiff or Spruce Capital Partners as a defendant. On May 31, 2019, Spruce filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 29, 2020, the Court entered an decision and order denying most of Spruce’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint and determined that Investment LLC sufficiently pleaded claims for declaratory relief, constructive trust and damages based on the unlawful strict foreclosure, thus allowing Investment LLC’s action against Spruce to continue. On February 26, 2020, Spruce filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division seeking the appeal of the January 29, 2020 order. On March 4, 2020, Investment LLC filed a notice of cross-appeal the Appellate Division, seeking to appeal the January 29, 2020 order to the extent the NY Court dismissed some of Investment LLC’s claims. 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 Apollo Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 17, 2018. The Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on March 12, 2019. On October 22, 2019, the NY Court entered an order dismissing the Company’s complaint in the Apollo Action in its entirety. On November 8, 2019, the NY Court entered judgment dismissing the Apollo Action in favor of the Apollo Defendants. On December 10, 2019, the Company filed a notice of appeal seeking the Appellate Division’s review of the NY Court’s order dismissing the complaint in the Apollo Action. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property and the JV Agreement, see Note 4. 111 West 57th Investment, LLC v. 111 West 57th Property Owner LLC. In May 2019, the Company’s subsidiary, 111 West 57th Investment LLC (“Investment LLC”) initiated a case in the New York State Supreme Court for New York County (the “NY Court”), Index No. 653067/2019 (the “Property Owner Action”). The defendant in that litigation is 111 West 57th Property Owner LLC (“Property Owner”), which owns title to the 111 West 57^th Property, and the nominal defendants are 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57th Mezz 1 LLC. Investment LLC alleges that the Strict Foreclosure was invalid and seeks to impose a constructive trust over the 111 West 57^th Property, requiring Property Owner to hold that property for the benefit of 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57th Mezz 1 LLC, its rightful indirect parents. Investment LLC also alleges that Property Owner aided and abetted Michael Stern, Kevin Maloney, and 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC in their breach of fiduciary duties. In addition to filing a complaint, Investment LLC filed a notice of pendency (the “Notice of Pendency”) on the title to the 111 West 57^th Property. On July 8, 2019, Property Owner filed a motion, by order to show cause, to cancel the Notice of Pendency (“Motion to Cancel”). On July 10, 2019, the NY Court entered an order to show cause (the “Order Show Cause”) why the notice of pendency should not be cancelled. On August 8, 2019, the NY Court entered a decision and order canceling the Notice of Pendency (the “Cancellation Order”). The same day, Investment LLC immediately filed a motion with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Judicial Department (“Appellate Division”) for a stay, pending appeal, of the Cancellation Order, or in the alternative an injunction restraining Property Owner from selling the from the 111 West 57^th Property (the “First Stay Motion”). On August 8, 2019, the Appellate Division granted an interim stay of the Cancellation Order pending determination of the First Stay Motion. On October 10, 2019, a panel of the Appellate Division vacated the interim stay and granted the First Stay Motion “to the extent of staying, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, the sale or transfer of the subject property, other than the sale of individual condominium units in the ordinary course of business, on the condition that plaintiff-appellate perfect the appeal for the February 2020 Term” (the “Appellate Injunction Order”). On December 2, 2019, Investment LLC perfected its appeal of the Cancellation Order. On January 17, 2020, Property Owner filed its brief in response to Investment LLC’s appeal of the Cancellation Order, and, on February 7, 2020, Investment LLC filed its reply brief in further support of its appeal of the Cancellation Order. On February 5, 2020, Investment LLC and Property Owner stipulated to adjourn the oral argument on the appeal of the Cancellation Order to the Appellate Division’s April 2020 Term. On July 31, 2019, Property Owner filed a motion to dismiss Investment LLC’s complaint in the Property Owner Action. On March 2, 2020, the NY Court entered a decision and order (the “Property Owner Dismissal Order”) granting Property Owner’s motion to dismiss and dismissing the Property Owner Action in its entirety. On March 4, 2020, Investment LLC filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division seeking an appeal of the March 2, 2020 order (the “Property Owner Dismissal Appeal”). On March 11, 2020, Investment LLC filed a motion (the “Second Stay Motion”) with the Appellate Division for a stay, pending appeal, of the Property Owner Dismissal Order, or, in the alternative, extending the Appellate Injunction Order pending the appeal of the Property Owner Dismissal Order. In addition, Investment LLC requested interim relief until the Second Stay Motion is determined by the Appellate Division. On March 12, 2020, the Appellate Division granted interim relief to the extent of continuing the Appellate Injunction Order until the Second Stay Motion is resolved by the Appellate Division. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property, see Note 4. With respect to its disputes and litigation relating to its interest in the 111 West 57th Property, the Company is pursuing, and will continue to pursue, other options to realize the Company’s investment value, various legal courses of action to protect its legal rights, recovery of its asset value from various sources of recovery, 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 57^th Property; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail with respect to any of its claims. 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 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. The Company can give no assurances with regard to if it will prevail with respect to any of its claims. 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 included all officers and directors of AmBase Corporation and AmBase Corporation as a nominal defendant. The plaintiff alleged 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 the Litigation Funding Agreement. IsZo Capital L.P. also sought declaratory judgment relief concerning the Litigation Funding Agreement and the 111 West 57^th Street Property. Service of the summons and complaint was 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. 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 R. A. Bianco, dismissed in part the single cause of action against Kenneth Schmidt, and dismissed a cause of action for declaratory judgment. What remained was a single cause of action against R. A. Bianco, a single cause of action against Kenneth Schmidt (in part), and a single declaratory judgment cause of action. On January 15, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the surviving causes of action, as well as asserted counterclaims against the plaintiff. The remaining defendants moved for re-argument of the December 26, 2018 decision, which motion was denied by the Court by Decision and Order entered on April 24, 2019. The remaining defendants, in addition, filed a Notice of Appeal as regards the December 26, 2018 decision on March 6, 2019 (plaintiff also filed a Notice of Appeal on March 7, 2019), and the time to perfect the appeals was extended to January 27, 2020. On December 30, 2019, plaintiff sold all of its shares of stock in the Company and thereby lost standing to continue prosecuting the IsZo Capital L.P. Action. The Court entered an Order on January 10, 2020, which was filed with the Court Clerk on January 13, 2020, dismissing the IsZo Capital L.P. Action in its entirety. Defendants filed Notice of Entry of the Order on January 13, 2020. The IsZo Capital L.P. Action is, therefore concluded.

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 include 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, Kevin Maloney, Michael Stern, and various members and affiliates (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, 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. On April 13, 2018, AmBase filed a notice of appeal of the NY Court Order entered on January 29, 2018 to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Judicial Department (the “Appellate Division”). 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 was 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. On August 30, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Federal Court’s dismissal of the federal RICO claims, vacated the Federal Court’s dismissal of the state-law claims, and remanded with instructions for the Federal Court to remand those claims to the NY Court. On September 25, 2019, the Federal Court remanded the case to the NY Court, where it was assigned to the Honorable O. Peter Sherwood. On January 22, 2020, AmBase filed a motion with the Appellate Division seeking to enlarge the time to perfect the Company’s appeal of the NY Court’s January 29, 2018 Order to be heard during the September 2020 Term of the Appellate Division. The motion to enlarge the time to perfect was fully briefed on March 9, 2020 and is pending a ruling by the Appellate Division. 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.

In January 2019, the Appellate Division 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 plaintiff 111 West 57th Investment LLC (“Investment LLC”) might be entitled to damages from defendant 111 W57 Mezz Investor LLC if it is judicially determined that Investment LLC 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 May 3, 2019, the Company’s subsidiary, Investment LLC, entered into a stipulation with 111 W57 Mezz Investor LLC (“Spruce”) to amend the complaint in the 111 West 57th Spruce Action to state claims against Spruce for breaches of the Uniform Commercial Code and Pledge Agreement and various torts. The amended complaint seeks the entry of 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 amended complaint does not name the Company as a plaintiff or Spruce Capital Partners as a defendant. On May 31, 2019, Spruce filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 29, 2020, the Court entered an decision and order denying most of Spruce’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint and determined that Investment LLC sufficiently pleaded claims for declaratory relief, constructive trust and damages based on the unlawful strict foreclosure, thus allowing Investment LLC’s action against Spruce to continue. On February 26, 2020, Spruce filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division seeking the appeal of the January 29, 2020 order. On March 4, 2020, Investment LLC filed a notice of cross-appeal the Appellate Division, seeking to appeal the January 29, 2020 order to the extent the NY Court dismissed some of Investment LLC’s claims.

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 Apollo Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 17, 2018. The Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on March 12, 2019. On October 22, 2019, the NY Court entered an order dismissing the Company’s complaint in the Apollo Action in its entirety. On November 8, 2019, the NY Court entered judgment dismissing the Apollo Action in favor of the Apollo Defendants. On December 10, 2019, the Company filed a notice of appeal seeking the Appellate Division’s review of the NY Court’s order dismissing the complaint in the Apollo Action. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property and the JV Agreement, see Note 4.

111 West 57th Investment, LLC v. 111 West 57th Property Owner LLC. In May 2019, the Company’s subsidiary, 111 West 57th Investment LLC (“Investment LLC”) initiated a case in the New York State Supreme Court for New York County (the “NY Court”), Index No. 653067/2019 (the “Property Owner Action”). The defendant in that litigation is 111 West 57th Property Owner LLC (“Property Owner”), which owns title to the 111 West 57^th Property, and the nominal defendants are 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57th Mezz 1 LLC. Investment LLC alleges that the Strict Foreclosure was invalid and seeks to impose a constructive trust over the 111 West 57^th Property, requiring Property Owner to hold that property for the benefit of 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57th Mezz 1 LLC, its rightful indirect parents. Investment LLC also alleges that Property Owner aided and abetted Michael Stern, Kevin Maloney, and 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC in their breach of fiduciary duties. In addition to filing a complaint, Investment LLC filed a notice of pendency (the “Notice of Pendency”) on the title to the 111 West 57^th Property. On July 8, 2019, Property Owner filed a motion, by order to show cause, to cancel the Notice of Pendency (“Motion to Cancel”). On July 10, 2019, the NY Court entered an order to show cause (the “Order Show Cause”) why the notice of pendency should not be cancelled. On August 8, 2019, the NY Court entered a decision and order canceling the Notice of Pendency (the “Cancellation Order”). The same day, Investment LLC immediately filed a motion with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Judicial Department (“Appellate Division”) for a stay, pending appeal, of the Cancellation Order, or in the alternative an injunction restraining Property Owner from selling the from the 111 West 57^th Property (the “First Stay Motion”). On August 8, 2019, the Appellate Division granted an interim stay of the Cancellation Order pending determination of the First Stay Motion. On October 10, 2019, a panel of the Appellate Division vacated the interim stay and granted the First Stay Motion “to the extent of staying, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, the sale or transfer of the subject property, other than the sale of individual condominium units in the ordinary course of business, on the condition that plaintiff-appellate perfect the appeal for the February 2020 Term” (the “Appellate Injunction Order”).

On December 2, 2019, Investment LLC perfected its appeal of the Cancellation Order. On January 17, 2020, Property Owner filed its brief in response to Investment LLC’s appeal of the Cancellation Order, and, on February 7, 2020, Investment LLC filed its reply brief in further support of its appeal of the Cancellation Order. On February 5, 2020, Investment LLC and Property Owner stipulated to adjourn the oral argument on the appeal of the Cancellation Order to the Appellate Division’s April 2020 Term.

On July 31, 2019, Property Owner filed a motion to dismiss Investment LLC’s complaint in the Property Owner Action. On March 2, 2020, the NY Court entered a decision and order (the “Property Owner Dismissal Order”) granting Property Owner’s motion to dismiss and dismissing the Property Owner Action in its entirety. On March 4, 2020, Investment LLC filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division seeking an appeal of the March 2, 2020 order (the “Property Owner Dismissal Appeal”).

On March 11, 2020, Investment LLC filed a motion (the “Second Stay Motion”) with the Appellate Division for a stay, pending appeal, of the Property Owner Dismissal Order, or, in the alternative, extending the Appellate Injunction Order pending the appeal of the Property Owner Dismissal Order. In addition, Investment LLC requested interim relief until the Second Stay Motion is determined by the Appellate Division. On March 12, 2020, the Appellate Division granted interim relief to the extent of continuing the Appellate Injunction Order until the Second Stay Motion is resolved by the Appellate Division. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property, see Note 4.

With respect to its disputes and litigation relating to its interest in the 111 West 57th Property, the Company is pursuing, and will continue to pursue, other options to realize the Company’s investment value, various legal courses of action to protect its legal rights, recovery of its asset value from various sources of recovery, 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 57^th Property; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail with respect to any of its claims.

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 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. The Company can give no assurances with regard to if it will prevail with respect to any of its claims.

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 included all officers and directors of AmBase Corporation and AmBase Corporation as a nominal defendant. The plaintiff alleged 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 the Litigation Funding Agreement. IsZo Capital L.P. also sought declaratory judgment relief concerning the Litigation Funding Agreement and the 111 West 57^th Street Property. Service of the summons and complaint was 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.

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 R. A. Bianco, dismissed in part the single cause of action against Kenneth Schmidt, and dismissed a cause of action for declaratory judgment. What remained was a single cause of action against R. A. Bianco, a single cause of action against Kenneth Schmidt (in part), and a single declaratory judgment cause of action. On January 15, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the surviving causes of action, as well as asserted counterclaims against the plaintiff.

The remaining defendants moved for re-argument of the December 26, 2018 decision, which motion was denied by the Court by Decision and Order entered on April 24, 2019. The remaining defendants, in addition, filed a Notice of Appeal as regards the December 26, 2018 decision on March 6, 2019 (plaintiff also filed a Notice of Appeal on March 7, 2019), and the time to perfect the appeals was extended to January 27, 2020.

On December 30, 2019, plaintiff sold all of its shares of stock in the Company and thereby lost standing to continue prosecuting the IsZo Capital L.P. Action. The Court entered an Order on January 10, 2020, which was filed with the Court Clerk on January 13, 2020, dismissing the IsZo Capital L.P. Action in its entirety. Defendants filed Notice of Entry of the Order on January 13, 2020. The IsZo Capital L.P. Action is, therefore concluded.