AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 1 – The Company and Basis of Presentation

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements of AmBase Corporation and subsidiaries (“AmBase” or the “Company”) are unaudited and subject to year-end adjustments. All material intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated. In the opinion of management, these financial statements reflect all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments unless otherwise disclosed, necessary for a fair presentation of the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Results for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of results for the full year. The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 8 of Regulation S-X. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that it deems reasonable, that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from such estimates and assumptions. The unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements presented herein are condensed and should be read in conjunction with the Company’s consolidated financial statements filed in its Annual Report on Form 10‑K for the year ended December 31, 2021.

In June 2013, the Company purchased an equity interest in a real estate development property through a joint venture agreement to purchase and develop real property located at 105 through 111 West 57th Street in New York, New York (the “111 West 57th Property”). The Company is engaged in material disputes and litigation with regard to the 111 West 57th Property. Despite ongoing litigation challenging the legitimacy of the actions taken in connection with the “Strict Foreclosure”, (as defined and further discussed herein), the Company recorded an impairment for the full amount of its equity investment in the 111 West 57th Property in 2017. Prior to the Strict Foreclosure, the carrying value of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57th Property represented a substantial portion of the Company’s assets and net equity value.

For additional information concerning the Company’s recording of an impairment of its equity investment in the 111 West 57th Property in 2017 and the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57th Property, including the Company’s challenge to the Strict Foreclosure, see Note 3 and Note 6.

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 57th 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 if it will prevail with respect to any of its claims.

A fundamental principle of the preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP is the assumption that an entity will continue in existence as a going concern, which contemplates continuity of operations and the realization of assets and settlement of liabilities occurring in the ordinary course of business. In accordance with this requirement, the Company has prepared its accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements assuming the Company will continue as a going concern.

The Company has incurred operating losses for the past several years. The Company has continued to keep operating expenses at a reduced level; however, there can be no assurance that the Company’s current level of operating expenses will not increase or that other uses of cash will not be necessary. The Company believes that based on its current level of operating expenses its existing cash and cash equivalents may not be sufficient to cover operating cash needs through the twelve month period from the financial statement reporting date. Based on the above factors, management determined there is substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued. The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include adjustments to the carrying value of assets and liabilities which might be necessary should the Company not continue in operation.

Table of Contents

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

In order to continue as a going concern, the Company must take steps to manage its current level of cash and cash equivalents, through various ways, including but not limited to, raising additional capital through the sale of assets or long term borrowings, which may include additional borrowings from affiliates of the Company, reducing operating expenses, and seeking recoveries from various sources. There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to adequately implement these cash management measures, in whole or in part, or sell any of its assets or raise capital on terms acceptable to the Company, if at all.

Note 3 – Investment in 111 West 57th Partners LLC

In June 2013, the Company purchased an equity interest in the 111 West 57th Property. The Company is engaged in material disputes and litigation with regard to the 111 West 57th Property. Despite ongoing litigation challenging the legitimacy of the actions taken in connection with the “Strict Foreclosure” (as defined below and as further discussed herein), in accordance with GAAP, the Company recorded an impairment for the full amount of its equity investment in the 111 West 57th Property in 2017.

For additional information regarding the Company’s 111 West 57th Property equity investment, events leading up to the Strict Foreclosure, the Company’s recording of an impairment of its equity investment in the 111 West 57th Property and the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57th Property, including the Company’s challenge to the Strict Foreclosure, see herein below and Note 6.

In June 2013, 111 West 57th Investment LLC (“Investment LLC”), a then newly formed subsidiary of the Company, entered into a joint venture agreement (as amended, the “JV Agreement”) with 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC (the “Sponsor”), pursuant to which Investment LLC invested (the “Investment”) in a real estate development property to purchase and develop the 111 West 57th Property. In consideration for making the Investment, Investment LLC was granted a membership interest in 111 West 57th Partners LLC (“111 West 57th Partners”), which indirectly acquired the 111 West 57th Property on June 28, 2013 (the “Joint Venture,” and such date, the “Closing Date”). The Company also indirectly contributed an additional amount to the Joint Venture in exchange for an additional indirect interest in the Joint Venture. Other members and the Sponsor contributed additional cash and/or property to the Joint Venture. The Company recorded its investment in 111 West 57th Partners utilizing the equity method of accounting. The Joint Venture plans were to redevelop the 111 West 57th Property into a luxury residential tower and retail project.

Amounts relating to the Company’s initial June 2013 investment and other information relating to the 111 West 57th Property follow:

($ in thousands)
Company’s aggregate initial investment	$	57,250
Company’s aggregate initial membership interest %		60.3	%
Other members and Sponsor initial investment	$	37,750

The JV Agreement and related operating agreements generally provide that all distributable cash shall be distributed as follows: (i) first, 100% to the members in proportion to their percentage interests until Investment LLC has received distributions yielding a 20% internal rate of return as calculated; (ii) second, 100% to the Sponsor as a return of (but not a return on) any additional capital contributions made by the Sponsor on account of manager overruns; and (iii) thereafter, (a) 50% to the members in proportion to their respective percentage interests at the time of such distribution, and (b) 50% to the Sponsor.

Table of Contents

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

In March 2014, the Company entered into an amended and restated operating agreement for Investment LLC (the “Amended and Restated Investment Operating Agreement”) to grant a 10% subordinated participation interest in Investment LLC to Mr. R. A. Bianco as a contingent future incentive for Mr. R. A. Bianco’s past, current and anticipated ongoing role to develop and commercialize the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57th Property. Pursuant to the terms of the Amended and Restated Investment Operating Agreement, Mr. R.A. Bianco has no voting rights with respect to his interest in Investment LLC, and his entitlement to receive 10% of the distributions from Investment LLC is subject to the Company first receiving distributions equal to 150% of the Company’s initial aggregate investment in Investment LLC and the Joint Venture, plus any additional investments by the Company, and only with respect to any distributions thereafter. At the current time, the Company has not expensed nor accrued any amounts relating to this subordinated participation interest, as no amount or range of amounts can be reasonably estimated or assured.

During 2014, in connection with the funding of additional capital calls under the JV Agreement for required borrowing and development costs for the 111 West 57th Property, the Company’s management and its Board of Directors concluded that, given the continuing development risks of the 111 West 57th Property and the Company’s financial position, the Company should not at that time increase its already significant concentration and risk exposure to the 111 West 57th Property. Nonetheless, the Company sought to limit dilution of its interest in the Joint Venture resulting from any failure to fund the capital call requirements, but at the same time wished to avoid the time, expense and financial return requirements (with attendant dilution and possible loss of voting rights) that obtaining a replacement third-party investor would require. The Company, therefore, entered into a second amended and restated operating agreement for Investment LLC (“Second Amended and Restated Investment Operating Agreement”) pursuant to which Capital LLC was admitted as a member of Investment LLC. In exchange for Capital LLC contributing toward Investment LLC capital calls in respect of the 111 West 57th Property, available cash of Investment LLC will be distributed first to Capital LLC until it has received a 20% internal rate of return (calculated as provided for in the JV Agreement as noted above), second to the Company until it has received 150% of its capital, and, thereafter, available cash is split 10/90, with 10% going to Mr. R. A. Bianco as the subordinated participation interest noted above and 90% going to Capital LLC and the Company pari-passu, with Capital LLC receiving one-half of its pro-rata share based on capital contributed and the Company receiving the balance. No other material changes were made to the Amended and Restated Investment Operating Agreement, and neither Mr. R. A. Bianco nor Capital LLC has any voting rights with respect to their interest and investment in Investment LLC.

In accordance with the JV Agreement, shortfall capital contributions may be treated either as a member loan or as a dilutive capital contribution as set forth in the JV Agreement. The Sponsor deemed the shortfall capital contributions as dilutive capital contributions to the Company. The Company disagrees with the Sponsor’s investment percentage calculations. The Sponsor has taken the position that the capital contribution requests, if taken together, would have caused the Company’s combined ownership percentage to be diluted below the Company’s initial membership interest percentage. The parties have a dispute with regard to the calculation of the revised investment percentages resulting from the capital contribution requests, along with the treatment and allocation of these shortfall capital contribution amounts.

On June 30, 2015, 111 West 57th Partners obtained financing for the 111 West 57th Property. The financing was obtained in two parts: (i) a first mortgage construction loan with AIG Asset Management (US), LLC (along with its affiliates “AIG”); and (ii) a mezzanine loan with Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc. (along with its affiliates “Apollo”), as detailed herein. Both loans initially had certain repayment term dates with extension option(s) subject to satisfying certain conditions. The loan agreements (the “Loan Agreements”) also include customary events of default and other customary terms and conditions. Simultaneously with the closing of the AIG and the Apollo financing, 111 West 57th Partners repaid all outstanding liabilities and obligations to Annaly CRE, LLC under the initial mortgage and acquisition loan agreement, dated June 28, 2013, between the joint venture entities and Annaly CRE, LLC. The remaining loan proceeds were to be drawn down and used as necessary for construction and related costs, loan interest escrow and other related project expenses for development of the 111 West 57th Property.

In April 2016, the Company 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 57th Sponsor LLC, et al.”) (the “111 West 57th Action”). The defendants in that litigation include 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, Kevin Maloney, Michael Stern, and various members and affiliates, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (collectively, “Defendants”) and nominal defendants 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57th Mezz 1 LLC. For additional information with regard to the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57th Property, see Note 6.

Table of Contents

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

In December 2016, the Sponsor proposed for approval a “proposed budget” (the “Proposed Budget”), which the Sponsor claims reflected an increase in other costs resulting in the need for additional funding in order to complete the project. The Company disputes, among other items, the calculation of the percentage increase of hard costs shown in the Proposed Budget. The Company believes the aggregate projected hard costs in the Proposed Budget exceed a contractually stipulated limit as a percentage of the hard costs set forth in the prior approved budget, thus allowing Investment LLC the option to exercise its equity put right, as set forth in the JV Agreement (the “Equity Put Right”). Consequently, subsequent to the Sponsor’s presentation of the Proposed Budget, Investment LLC notified the Sponsor that it was exercising its Equity Put Right pursuant to the JV Agreement. The Sponsor refused to honor the exercise of Investment LLC’s Equity Put Right. The Sponsor claims, among other things, that the conditions precedent were not met because it claims that the increase in aggregate hard costs in the Proposed Budget does not exceed the contractually stipulated limit that would allow the exercise of the Equity Put Right.

The Company further contends that a portion of the Proposed Budget increases are manager overruns (as defined in the JV Agreement) and thus should be paid for by the Sponsor. The Sponsor denies that the Proposed Budget increases were manager overruns. The Company continues to challenge the nature and substance of the Proposed Budget increases and how they should be treated pursuant to the JV Agreement.

The Sponsor claimed that additional borrowings were needed to complete the project. Shortly thereafter, the Sponsor informed the Company that Apollo had indicated that due to budget increases, it believed the current loan was “out of balance” (meaning, according to Apollo, the projected budget exceeds the original budget approved in connection with the loan); and thus 111 West 57th Partners LLC, or its subsidiaries would need additional funding in order to bring the loan back into balance. The Company considered approving the additional financing but informed the Sponsor that it had concerns about the Proposed Budget and the implications of the Proposed Budget, as well as other questions which needed to be addressed first.

Around this time, Apollo provided loan forbearances to the borrowers and guarantors in order to allow the Sponsor time (while the building continued to be built) to raise the additional financing that Sponsor claimed would be needed in order to complete the 111 West 57th project. This forbearance period ended on June 29, 2017. Around this date, the Company was advised that Apollo sold a portion of the mezzanine loan—broken off as a junior mezzanine loan—to an affiliate of Spruce Capital Partners LLC, 111 W57 Mezz Investor, LLC (“Spruce”) (the “Junior Mezzanine Loan”).

On June 30, 2017, Spruce declared an event of default under the Junior Mezzanine Loan and demanded immediate payment of the full outstanding balance of the Junior Mezzanine Loan. Spruce then gave 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”).

On July 25, 2017, the Company filed a complaint against Spruce and the Sponsor and requested injunctive relief halting the Strict Foreclosure from the New York State Supreme Court for New York County, (the “NY Court”) Index No. 655031/2017, (the “111 West 57th Spruce Action”). The defendants in the 111 West 57th 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 57th 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 57th Spruce Action or any other action. For additional information with regard to the Spruce Action, see Note 6.

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 (the “Strict Foreclosure”). Despite ongoing litigation challenging the legitimacy of the actions taken in connection with the Strict Foreclosure, in accordance with GAAP, the Company recorded an impairment for the full amount of its equity investment in the 111 West 57th Property in 2017. Prior to the Strict Foreclosure, the carrying value of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57th Property represented a substantial portion of the Company’s assets and net equity value.

Table of Contents

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

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 57th Property and tortiously interfered with the JV Agreement. For additional information with regard to the Apollo Action, see Note 6.

For information concerning additional legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57th Property, see Note 6.

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 57th 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 57th 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 57th Street Property. For additional information with regard to the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57th Property, see Note 6.

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 57th 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.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 5 - Income Taxes

The Company and its domestic subsidiaries file a consolidated federal income tax return. The Company recognizes both the current and deferred tax consequences of all transactions that have been recognized in the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements, calculated based on the provisions of enacted tax laws, including the tax rates in effect for current and future years. Net deferred tax assets are recognized immediately when a more likely than not criterion is met; that is, a greater than 50% probability exists that the tax benefits will actually be realized sometime in the future.

State income tax amounts for the three months ended March 31, 2021, includes a provision for a tax on capital imposed by the state jurisdictions.

The Company’s management is continuing to work closely with outside advisors on the Company’s various federal tax return matters for the numerous interrelated tax years. The IRS typically has broad discretion to examine taxpayer tax returns, even after refunds have been paid to taxpayers, which could result in adjustments to AMT credit carryforward amounts refunded. The AMT credit carryforward amounts from prior tax years and related refund(s) received could potentially be subject to IRS or other tax authority audits. The Company cannot predict whether or not the IRS and/or other tax authorities will review the Company’s tax returns filed, to be filed and/or as filed in prior years, and/or if they will seek repayment from the Company of any amounts already refunded as a result of an IRS review, if any. Moreover, applicable provisions of the Code and IRS regulations permit the IRS to challenge Company tax positions and filed returns and seek recovery of refunded amounts or of additional taxes for an extended period of time after such returns are filed.

There is risk relating to assumptions regarding the outcome of tax matters, based in whole or in part upon consultation with outside advisors; risk relating to potential unfavorable decisions in tax proceedings; and risks regarding changes in, and/or interpretations of federal and state income tax laws. The Company can give no assurances as to the final outcome of any IRS review, if any, of the AMT credit carryforward refunds received.

The Company has a deferred tax asset arising primarily from NOL carryforwards. The Company has a full valuation allowance on the deferred tax asset amounts, as management has no basis to conclude that realization is more likely than not. Management does not believe that any significant changes in unrecognized income tax benefits are expected to occur over the next year.

The Company was a plaintiff in a legal proceeding seeking recovery of damages from the United States Government for the loss of the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Carteret Savings Bank, F.A. (the “SGW Legal Proceedings”). A settlement agreement in the SGW Legal Proceedings between the Company, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation-Receiver (“FDIC-R”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) on behalf of the United States of America (the “United States”), was executed (the “SGW 2012 Settlement Agreement”) which was approved by the United States Court of Federal Claims (the “Court of Federal Claims”) in October 2012. On August 6, 2013, Senior Judge Smith issued an opinion which addressed the relief sought by AmBase. In summary, the court held that the Settlement Agreement is a contract and that it entitles the Company to receive both “(1) the amount of the tax consequences resulting from taxation of the damages award plus (2) the tax consequences of receiving the first component.” But the Court of Federal Claims did not award an additional amount for the second component at that time given the remaining uncertainty surrounding the ultimate tax treatment of the settlement proceeds and the gross-up, as well as uncertainty relating to the Company’s future income. The Court of Federal Claims indicated that either the Company or the government is entitled to seek further relief “if, and when, the facts justify it.”

Table of Contents

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

As part of the SGW 2012 Settlement Agreement, the Company is entitled to a tax gross-up when any federal taxes are imposed on the settlement amount. Based on the Company’s 2012 federal income tax return as filed, in March 2013, the Company paid approximately $501,000 of federal income taxes attributable to AMT rate calculations (the “2012 Tax Amount”) resulting from the SGW 2012 Settlement Agreement. In September 2013, the Company received reimbursement for the 2012 Tax Amount. In 2019, the Company received a letter from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), requesting the Company reimburse the FDIC for the 2012 Tax Amount that the FDIC had previously reimbursed the Company. The Company is currently reviewing the FDIC request, along with the SGW 2012 Settlement Agreement and Court of Federal Claims August 2013 ruling, with its outside legal and tax advisors. The Company is unable to predict at this time whether the 2012 Tax Amount is refundable back to the FDIC in current and/or future years.

Note 6 - 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 57th Sponsor LLC, et al. In April 2016, AmBase and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) 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 57th Sponsor LLC, et al.”) (the “111 West 57th Action”). The defendants in that litigation include 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC (the Sponsor”), Kevin Maloney, Michael Stern, and various members and affiliates, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (collectively, “Defendants”) and nominal defendants 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57th Mezz 1 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 57th Property which the Sponsor refused, claiming they have provided all books and records as required.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss an earlier complaint, and on January 12, 2018, the NY Court issued an opinion allowing some of AmBase’s claims to go forward and dismissing others (“2018 Order”). 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 2018 Order to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Judicial Department (the “Appellate Division”). On January 22, 2020, the Company filed a motion with the Appellate Division seeking to enlarge the time to perfect the Company’s appeal of the 2018 Order, in light of an intervening removal to and remand from federal court. On July 2, 2020, the Appellate Division granted AmBase’s motion and enlarged the time to perfect the Company’s appeal to the October 2020 Term of the Appellate Division. On April 29, 2021, the Appellate Division affirmed Justice Bransten’s dismissal of the claims on appeal, while the claims that were not previously dismissed remain pending in the trial court.

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 Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Company’s RICO claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Company’s state-law claims, dismissing the latter claims without prejudice. 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.

Table of Contents

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

On June 11, 2020, Defendants filed a motion with the NY Court to dismiss some of the state law claims asserted by the Company in the third amended complaint. On July 28, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the third amended complaint, which Defendants opposed. The proposed complaint adds, among other things, claims arising from certain defendants’ role in the 2017 foreclosure of the junior mezzanine loan on the project. On July 22, 2021, the NY Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot in light of the Court’s decision granting Plaintiffs leave to amend.

On July 29, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint. On September 3, 2021, Defendants submitted a motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint in part. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and it was fully submitted as of October 13, 2021, and the court heard argument on October 27, 2021.

On September 30, 2021, the Liberty Mutual defendants answered the fourth amended complaint and filed a counterclaim against the Company’s subsidiaries for specific performance of a pledge agreement securing certain insurance policies issued for the Project. Plaintiffs replied to those counterclaims on October 20, 2021. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property, including the foreclosure, see Note 3.

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 57th Spruce Action”). The defendants in the 111 West 57th Spruce action were 111 W57 Mezz Investor, LLC (“Spruce”), Spruce Capital Partners LLC, 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, Michael Z. Stern, and Kevin P. Maloney and nominal defendants 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57th 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 57th 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 57th Spruce Action to obtain injunctive relief halting the Strict Foreclosure. For additional information on the events leading to this litigation see Note 3.

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 a response brief in support of their request for injunctive relief halting the Strict Foreclosure process and 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 affirmed the decision below in part and otherwise dismissed the appeal. It 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.

Table of Contents

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

On May 3, 2019, the Company’s subsidiary, Investment LLC, entered into a stipulation with 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 sought the entry of a declaratory judgment, the impression of a constructive trust, permanent injunctive relief restraining Spruce from disposing of or encumbering the 111 West 57th Property, and damages, including punitive damages. The amended complaint did 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 a decision and order granting in part and denying in part Spruce’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. 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 to the Appellate Division, seeking to appeal the January 29, 2020 order to the extent the NY Court dismissed some of Investment LLC’s claims. On March 30, 2021, the Appellate Division issued a decision and order revising the January 29, 2020, order by reinstating Investment LLC’s derivative claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and dismissing the remaining claims.

While the appeal was pending, the parties to the 111 West 57th Spruce Action conducted discovery. On April 13, 2021, Investment LLC moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to (1) bolster its factual allegations against the existing Defendant, (2) add claims against Spruce Capital Partners, Joshua Crane, Robert Schwartz, Arthur Becker and his affiliates, Apollo and its affiliates, and AIG and its affiliates. On September 30, 2021, the Court granted the motion, and Investment LLC filed its Second Amended Complaint on the same day. On November 22, 2021, four groups of defendants filed four separate motions to dismiss the claims against them. On December 13, 2021 Investment LLC filed a combined opposition to the motions. The defendants filed their replies on January 7, 2022. The motions remain pending.

Since the Company is not a 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 57th Property both under the JV Agreement and as part of the 111 West 57th Action and the 111 West 57th Spruce Action. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57th Property and the Company’s recording of an impairment of its equity investment in the 111 West 57th Property in 2017, see Note 3.

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 alleged 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 57th Property and tortiously interfered with the JV Agreement. The Company sought 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. 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 (the “Apollo Dismissal”) dismissing the Apollo Action in favor of the Apollo Defendants. On December 10, 2019, the Company filed a notice of appeal seeking the appeal of the Apollo Dismissal. On August 7, 2020, the Company perfected its appeal of the Apollo Dismissal. After Investment LLC filed its motion to amend the complaint in the 111 West 57th Spruce Action to add claims against Apollo, the parties to the Apollo Action filed a stipulation to withdraw the appeal in the Apollo Action. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57th Property, see Note 3.

Table of Contents

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

AmBase Corp., et al. v. Custom House Risk Advisors, Inc., et al. On April 2, 2020, the Company initiated litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-02763-VSB (the “Custom House Action”). The defendants in the Custom House Action were Custom House Risk Advisors, Inc. and Elizabeth Lowe (collectively, the “Custom House Defendants”). In the Custom House Action, the Company alleged that the Custom House Defendants (a) aided and abetted Sponsor, Stern, and Maloney in breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company by structuring an insurance policy to the personal benefit of Sponsor, Stern and Maloney and the detriment of the 111 West 57th Project and concealing the structure and ownership of the insurance policy from the Company and (b) committed fraud by making material misrepresentations about the terms of the policy to the Company, inducing the Company to contribute additional capital to the 111 West 57th Project to cover the costs of the insurance policy. The Company sought damages as well as disgorgement of profits the Custom House Defendants earned from their wrongful conduct. On April 10, 2020, the Custom House Defendants waived service of process. In an agreement dated July 31, 2020, the Company and the Custom House Defendants agreed to certain terms for a settlement and entered into a settlement agreement which requires that the Custom House Defendants satisfy certain conditions prior to any dismissal of the Custom House Action. On December 6, 2021, the Court approved a stipulation dismissing the Company’s claims and agreed to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57th Property, see Note 3.

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 57th 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 57th Street Property. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57th Property, see Note 3.

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 57th 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.

Table of Contents

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

Item 2.

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Cautionary Statement for Forward-Looking Information

This quarterly report together with other statements and information publicly disseminated by the Company may contain certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), or make oral statements that constitute forward-looking statements. The Company intends such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties, many of which cannot be predicted or quantified. The forward-looking statements may relate to such matters as anticipated financial performance, future revenues or earnings, business prospects, projected ventures, anticipated market performance, anticipated litigation results or the timing of pending litigation, and similar matters. When used in this Quarterly Report, the words “estimates,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “plans,” “intends” and variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. The Company cautions readers that a variety of factors could cause the Company’s actual results to differ materially from the anticipated results or other expectations expressed in the Company’s forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company’s control, include, but are not limited to those set forth in “Item 1A, Risk Factors” and elsewhere in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and in the Company’s other public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission including, but not limited to: (i) risks with regard to the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern; (ii) assumptions regarding the outcome of legal and/or tax matters, based in whole or in part upon consultation with outside advisors; (iii) risks arising from unfavorable decisions in tax, legal and/or other proceedings; (iv) transaction volume in the securities markets; (v) the volatility of the securities markets; (vi) fluctuations in interest rates; (vii) risks inherent in the real estate business, including, but not limited to, insurance risks, tenant defaults, risks associated with real estate development activities, changes in occupancy rates or real estate values; (viii) changes in regulatory requirements which could affect the cost of doing business; (ix) general economic conditions; (x) risks with regard to whether or not the Company’s current financial resources will be adequate to fund operations over the next twelve months from financial statement issuance date and/or continue operations; (xi) changes in the rate of inflation and the related impact on the securities markets; (xii) changes in federal and state tax laws and (xiii) additionally, there is risk relating to assumptions regarding the outcome of tax matters, based in whole or in part upon consultation with outside advisors; risk relating to potential unfavorable decisions in tax proceedings; risks regarding changes in, and/or interpretations of federal and state income tax laws; and risk of IRS and/or state tax authority assessment of additional tax plus interest. These are not the only risks that we face. There may be additional risks that we do not presently know of or that we currently believe are immaterial which could also impair our business and financial position.

Undue reliance should not be placed on these forward-looking statements, which are applicable only as of the date hereof. The Company undertakes no obligation to revise or update these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that arise after the date of this Quarterly Report or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. Accordingly, there is no assurance that the Company’s expectations will be realized.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, which follows, should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes, which are contained in Part I - Item 1, herein and in Part II – Item 8 in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021.

BUSINESS OVERVIEW

AmBase Corporation (the “Company” or “AmBase”) is a Delaware corporation that was incorporated in 1975. AmBase is a holding company. At March 31, 2022, the Company’s assets consisted primarily of cash and cash equivalents. The Company is engaged in the management of its assets and liabilities.

Table of Contents

In June 2013, the Company purchased an equity interest in a real estate development property through a joint venture agreement to purchase and develop real property located at 105 through 111 West 57^th Street in New York, New York (the “111 West 57^th Property”). The Company is engaged in material disputes and litigation with regard to the 111 West 57^th Property. Despite ongoing litigation challenging the legitimacy of the actions taken in connection with the “Strict Foreclosure”, (as defined and further discussed herein), the Company recorded an impairment for the full amount of its equity investment in the 111 West 57th Property in 2017. 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.

For additional information concerning the Company’s recording of an impairment of its equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property in 2017 and the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57^th Property, including the Company’s challenge to the Strict Foreclosure, see Part I – Item 1 – Note 3 and Note 6 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND LIQUIDITY

The Company’s assets at March 31, 2022, aggregated $2,161,000, consisting principally of cash and cash equivalents of $2,121,000. At March 31, 2022, the Company’s liabilities aggregated $819,000. Total stockholders’ equity was $1,342,000.

In 2019, the Company received a letter from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), requesting the Company reimburse the FDIC for 2012 federal taxes of approximately $501,000 that the FDIC had previously reimbursed the Company, pursuant to a 2012 settlement agreement which was approved by the United States Court of Federal Claims (the “Court of Federal Claims”) in October 2012 (the “2012 Tax Amount”). The Company is currently reviewing the FDIC request, along with the SGW 2012 Settlement Agreement and Court of Federal Claims August 2013 ruling, with its outside legal and tax advisors. The Company is unable to predict at this time whether the 2012 Tax Amount is refundable back to the FDIC in current and/or future years. For additional information, see Part I – Item 1 – Note 5 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

Table of Contents

As noted herein, in June 2013, the Company purchased an equity interest in the 111 West 57^th Property. The Company is engaged in material disputes and litigation with regard to the 111 West 57^th Property. Despite ongoing litigation challenging the legitimacy of the actions taken in connection with the “Strict Foreclosure”, (as defined and further discussed herein), in accordance with GAAP, the Company recorded an impairment for the full amount of its equity investment in the 111 West 57th Property of $63,745,000 in 2017. 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 has several legal proceedings pending against various parties with regard to the 111 West 57^th Street Property. For additional information concerning the Company’s recording of an impairment of its equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property and the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57^th Property, see Part I – Item 1 – Note 3 and Note 6 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

In 2017, the Company entered into a Litigation Funding Agreement (the “LFA”) with Mr. R. A. Bianco. Pursuant to the LFA, Mr. R. A. Bianco agreed to provide litigation funding to the Company, to satisfy actual documented litigation costs and expenses of the Company, including attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, consulting fees and disbursements in connection with the Company’s legal proceedings related to the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57th Street Property. In 2019, the Company and Mr. R. A. Bianco entered into an amendment to the LFA (the “Amendment). For additional information including the terms of the Litigation Funding Agreement, as amended by the Amendment, see Part I – Item 1 – Note 7 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

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 Sponsors 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 Sponsors’, 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. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property and the legal proceedings related thereto, see Part I – Item 1 – Note 3 and Note 6 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

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.

For the three months ended March 31, 2022, cash of $882,000 was used by operations as a result of the payment of operating expenses and prior year accruals.

For the three months ended March 31, 2021, cash of $1,378,000 was used by operations as a result of the payment of operating expenses and prior year accruals.

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities as of March 31, 2022 increased from December 31, 2021, principally relating to an increase in current period accruals for legal expenses in connection with the 111 West 57^th Property litigations.

There are no other material commitments for capital expenditures as of March 31, 2022. Inflation has had no material impact on the business and operations of the Company.

Table of Contents

Results of Operations for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2022 vs. the Three Months Ended March 31, 2021

The Company recorded a net loss of $1,057,000 or $0.03 per share in the three months ended March 31, 2022, compared to a net loss of $1,635,000, or $0.04 per share in the respective 2021 period.

Compensation and benefits decreased slightly to $407,000 in the three months ended March 31, 2022, compared to $417,000 in the respective 2021 period. The decrease in the 2022 three month period versus the respective 2021 period is due to a decrease in compensation related expenses recorded in the 2022 period. No stock based compensation expense was recorded in the three months ended March 31, 2022 or March 31, 2021.

Professional and outside services decreased to $563,000 in the three months ended March 31, 2022, compared to $1,135,000 in the respective 2021 period. The decrease in the 2022 period as compared to the 2021 period is principally the result of a lower level of legal and professional fees incurred in 2022 in connection with the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property and the legal proceedings related thereto, see Part I – Item 1 – Note 3 and Note 6 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

Property operating and maintenance expenses remained at similar levels for the three months ended March 31, 2022, compared to the respective March 31, 2021 period.

Insurance expenses increased to $67,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2022, compared with $61,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2021. The increase is due to a slight increase in insurance premium costs in the three months ended March 31, 2022, compared to the respective 2021 period.

Other operating expenses decreased to $11,000 in the three months ended March 31, 2022, compared with $13,000 in the respective 2021 period, due to a lower level of other expenses in the 2021 period.

Interest income in the three months ended March 31, 2022, decreased to $- from $1,000 in the respective 2021 period. The decreased interest income is due to a lower level of average cash and cash equivalents on hand in the 2022 period versus the 2021 period.

The Company recognized income tax expense of $- and $1,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2022, and March 31, 2021, respectively. State income tax amounts for the three months ended March 31, 2021, reflects a provision for a tax on capital imposed by the state jurisdictions.

Income taxes applicable to operating income (loss) are generally determined by applying the estimated effective annual income tax rates to pretax income (loss) for the year-to-date interim period. Income taxes applicable to unusual or infrequently occurring items are provided in the period in which such items occur. For additional information including a discussion of income tax matters, see Part I – Item 1 – Note 5 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

Table of Contents

Item 4.

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

Our disclosure controls and procedures include our controls and other procedures to ensure that information required to be disclosed in this and other reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure and to ensure that such information is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods.

Our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have conducted an evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of March 31, 2022. Based upon this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) promulgated under the Exchange Act) are effective to ensure that the information required to be disclosed by us in the reports we file under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported with adequate timeliness.

There have been no changes during the most recent fiscal quarter in our internal control over financial reporting, as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Exchange Act, that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

PART II - OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

For a discussion of the Company’s legal proceedings, see Part I - Item 1 - Note 6 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

Item 1A.

RISK FACTORS

There have been no material changes to the risk factors previously disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, in response to Item 1A of Part I of Form 10-K.

Item 2.

UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS

	a. Not applicable
	b. Not applicable
	c. None

Common Stock Repurchase Plan

The Company’s common stock repurchase plan (the “Repurchase Plan”) allows for the repurchase by the Company of up to 10 million shares of its common stock in the open market. The Repurchase Plan is conditioned upon favorable business conditions and acceptable prices for the common stock. Purchases under the Repurchase Plan may be made, from time to time, in the open market, through block trades or otherwise. Depending on market conditions and other factors, purchases may be commenced or suspended any time or from time to time without prior notice. No common stock repurchases have been made pursuant to the Repurchase Plan during the year to date 2022 period.

Item 3.

DEFAULTS UPON SENIOR SECURITIES

Not Applicable.

Item 4.

MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not Applicable.

Item 5.

OTHER INFORMATION

None.

Item 6.

EXHIBITS

31.1*	Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of Chief Executive Officer
31.2*	Rule 13a-14(a) Certification of Chief Financial Officer
32.1*	Section 1350 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
32.2*	Section 1350 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
101.1*	The following financial statements from AmBase Corporation’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2022 formatted in XBRL: (i) Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations (unaudited); (ii) Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (unaudited); (iii) Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flow (unaudited); and (iv) Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited).
104.1*	The Cover Page from this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, formatted in Inline XBRL.


	*	filed herewith

Table of Contents

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

AMBASE CORPORATION

	/s/ John Ferrara
By	JOHN FERRARA Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Controller (Duly Authorized Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

Date:	May 5, 2022

Delaware		95-2962743
(State of incorporation)		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

Large Accelerated Filer	☐	Accelerated Filer	☐	Non-Accelerated Filer	☒	Smaller Reporting Company	☒

Emerging Growth Company	☐

Assets:	March 31, 2022			December 31, 2021
Cash and cash equivalents	$	2,121		$	3,003

Other assets		40			80
Total assets	$	2,161		$	3,083

Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity:
Liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities	$	819		$	684

Total liabilities		819			684
Commitments and contingencies (Note 6)

Stockholders’ equity:
Common stock ($0.01 par value, 85,000 authorized in 2022 and 85,000 authorized in 2021, 46,410 issued and 40,738 outstanding in 2022 and 46,410 issued and 40,738 outstanding in 2021)		464			464
Additional paid-in capital		548,304			548,304
Accumulated deficit		(542,258	)		(541,201	)
Treasury stock, at cost – 2022 - 5,672 shares; and 2021 - 5,672 shares		(5,168	)		(5,168	)
Total stockholders’ equity		1,342			2,399

Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	2,161		$	3,083

(in thousands)	Common stock		Additional paid-in capital		Accumulated deficit			Treasury stock			Total

January 1, 2022	$	464	$	548,304	$	(541,201	)	$	(5,168	)	$	2,399
Net income (loss)		-		-		(1,057	)		-			(1,057	)
March 31, 2022	$	464	$	548,304	$	(542,258	)	$	(5,168	)	$	1,342

(in thousands)	Common stock		Additional paid-in capital		Accumulated deficit			Treasury stock			Total

January 1, 2021	$	464	$	548,304	$	(535,993	)	$	(5,168	)	$	7,607
Net income (loss)		-		-		(1,635	)		-			(1,635	)
March 31, 2021	$	464	$	548,304	$	(537,628	)	$	(5,168	)	$	5,972

PART I	FINANCIAL INFORMATION	Page

Item 1.	Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements (unaudited)	1

Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	16

Item 4.	Controls and Procedures	20

PART II	OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1.	Legal Proceedings	20

Item 1A.	Risk Factors	20

Item 2.	Unregistered Sales of Equity and Securities and Use of Proceeds	20

Item 3.	Defaults Upon Senior Securities	20

Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	20

Item 5.	Other Information	20

Item 6.	Exhibits	20

Signatures		21

	Three Months Ended March 31,
	2022			2021
Operating expenses:
Compensation and benefits	$	407		$	417
Professional and outside services		563			1,135
Property operating and maintenance		9			9
Insurance		67			61
Other operating		11			13
Total operating expenses		1,057			1,635
Operating income (loss)		(1,057	)		(1,635	)

Interest income		-			1
Income (loss) before income taxes		(1,057	)		(1,634	)

Income tax expense (benefit)		-			1
Net income (loss)	$	(1,057	)	$	(1,635	)

Net income (loss) per common share - basic	$	(0.03	)	$	(0.04	)

Weighted average common shares outstanding - basic		40,738			40,738

	Three months ended March 31,
(in thousands)	2022			2021

Cash flows from operating activities:
Net income (loss)	$	(1,057	)	$	(1,635	)
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided (used) by operating activities
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Other assets		40			32
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities		135			225
Net cash provided (used) by operating activities		(882	)		(1,378	)

Net change in cash and cash equivalents		(882	)		(1,378	)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period		3,003			7,925

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	2,121		$	6,547
Supplemental cash flow disclosure:
Income taxes refunded (paid)	$	-		$	-

($ in thousands)	Three Months Ended
	March 31, 2022			March 31, 2021
Company matching contributions	$	51		$	57
Employer match %		100	%		100	%