Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2023
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	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. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail with respect to any of its claims. 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 “Sponsor 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 Sponsor 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. 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, which Plaintiffs opposed. On May 9, 2022, the NY Court issued a Decision and Order on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, allowing some of AmBase’s claims to go forward and dismissing others (“May 9, 2022 Order”). The NY Court declined to dismiss AmBase’s claims that the Defendants breached their contracts with AmBase by permitting transfers or encumbrances upon 111 West 57th Control LLC’s membership interests in connection with third-party financing without seeking or obtaining prior written approval. The Court also declined to dismiss AmBase’s claim that Defendants breached their obligations under the Development Agreement by, among other things, failing to use “commercially reasonable efforts” to plan, design, develop, construct, and obtain permits for the Property in a timely manner and failing to devote sufficient time and attention to its obligations under the Development Agreement. Claims that the NY Court dismissed included AmBase’s claims that Defendants breached their contract with AmBase by making capital contributions to Sponsor from third parties; consenting to the strict foreclosure without obtaining AmBase’s prior written approval in violation of the “Major Decisions” provision; refusing to cooperate and share information with AmBase’s construction consultant; and engaging in fraud and intentional misconduct in violation of Joint Venture Agreement section 8.5. The NY Court also dismissed AmBase’s claim that Defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions (as duplicative of the breach of contract claims) and three claims whose dismissal was compelled by a prior decision of the First Department, namely, AmBase’s claims that Sponsor, Stern, and Maloney breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty; to impose a constructive trust on the insurance loss fund; and to impose a constructive trust on Stern’s, Maloney’s, JDS’s, PMG’s, and the construction manager’s construction management fees and Stern’s and Maloney’s equity interest in the Project. Finally, the Court dismissed AmBase’s current allegations that piercing certain of Defendants’ corporate veils is warranted. On January 18, 2023, the Company filed a notice of appeal appealing the May 9, 2022 Order with regard to all defendants in the Sponsor Action. 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. On January 30, 2023, Sponsor, Stern, Maloney, and various defendant members and affiliates filed their answer and asserted two counterclaims against the Company’s subsidiaries for breach of the Joint Venture Agreement in connection with a proposed refinancing of the Project in 2016. Plaintiffs replied to those counterclaims on February 21, 2023. The parties are continuing to discuss discovery scheduling and outstanding disclosures but attempts to meet and confer have thus far failed. A conference with the NY Court might be scheduled to further discuss discovery issues. 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 “Lender 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. On May 3, 2019, the Company’s subsidiary, Investment LLC, entered into a stipulation with Spruce to amend the complaint in the Lender 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 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 Lender 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, and Robert Schwartz (“Spruce Defendants”), Arthur Becker and his affiliates (“Atlantic Defendants”), Apollo and its affiliates (“Apollo Defendants”), and AIG and its affiliates (“AIG Defendants”). 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, the various defendants filed 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. On May 17, 2022, Plaintiffs in the Lender Action filed a motion requesting that the court hold oral argument on the pending motions to dismiss. The court granted the motion and heard argument on July 22, 2022. During argument, counsel for Plaintiffs made an oral motion to amend the complaint to add an express allegation that Defendants committed the tort of interference with contractual relations by procuring Sponsor’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the JV Agreement. The court called for supplemental briefs on the issue, which were filed on August 5, 2022. On December 15, 2022, the NY Court issued a decision and order granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss (“December 15, 2022 Order”). Specifically, the NY Court declined to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against Spruce and ACREFI Mortgage Lending, LLC, Apollo Credit Opportunity Fund III AIV I LP, and AGRE Debt 1 – 111 W 57, LLC (“Apollo Lenders”) for breach of the Pledge Agreement in connection with the strict foreclosure. The NY Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for tortious interference with contract against the Spruce Defendants, AIG Defendants, and Apollo Defendants, and Plaintiffs’ claim for unjust enrichment against the Atlantic Defendants. On January 3, 2023, the Apollo Lenders filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division seeking appeal of the December 15, 2022 Order. On January 18, 2023, the Company filed notices of appeal and cross-appeal appealing the December 15, 2022, Order with regard to all Defendants. On January 30, 2023, the Apollo Lenders filed their opening brief. On March 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed its combined opposition and opening brief as to all Defendants. On January 13, 2023, the Apollo Lenders filed their answer and affirmative defenses to the Company’s Second Amended Complaint together with crossclaims against 111 W57th Mezz Investor LLC, Spruce Capital Partners LLC, Joshua Crane, Robert Schwartz, Michael Stern, Kevin Maloney, 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, 111 West 57th Control LLC, and 111 West 57th Manager LLC (the “Crossclaim Defendants”). The crossclaims are for (1) contribution against all Crossclaim Defendants; (2) indemnification against 111 W57th Mezz Investor LLC, Spruce Capital, Crane, and Schwartz; and (3) a declaratory judgment that 111 W57th Mezz Investor LLC, through Spruce Capital, Crane, and Schwartz, has indemnified the Apollo Lenders against any and all loss that the Apollo Lenders have incurred or may incur in defending against this case. On January 23, 2023, the Apollo Lenders filed a notice of voluntary discontinuance without prejudice, voluntarily discontinuing their first crossclaim for contribution only as it is brought against Stern, Maloney, Sponsor, 111 West 57th Control LLC, and 111 West 57th Manager LLC. On January 30, 2023, Defendant 111 W57 Mezz Investor LLC filed its answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. Because the Court has resolved the motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs expect that discovery will recommence soon. 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 Sponsor Action and the Lender 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 were 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 was 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. 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 Lender 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. 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 are Custom House Risk Advisors, Inc. and Elizabeth Lowe (collectively, the “Custom House Defendants”). In the Custom House Action, the Company alleges 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 is seeking 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. The Custom House Defendants were required to respond to the complaint by June 8, 2020. The Custom House Defendants have not responded to the Company’s complaint. 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. 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 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 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.

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. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail with respect to any of its claims.

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 “Sponsor 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 Sponsor 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.

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, which Plaintiffs opposed. On May 9, 2022, the NY Court issued a Decision and Order on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, allowing some of AmBase’s claims to go forward and dismissing others (“May 9, 2022 Order”). The NY Court declined to dismiss AmBase’s claims that the Defendants breached their contracts with AmBase by permitting transfers or encumbrances upon 111 West 57th Control LLC’s membership interests in connection with third-party financing without seeking or obtaining prior written approval. The Court also declined to dismiss AmBase’s claim that Defendants breached their obligations under the Development Agreement by, among other things, failing to use “commercially reasonable efforts” to plan, design, develop, construct, and obtain permits for the Property in a timely manner and failing to devote sufficient time and attention to its obligations under the Development Agreement.

Claims that the NY Court dismissed included AmBase’s claims that Defendants breached their contract with AmBase by making capital contributions to Sponsor from third parties; consenting to the strict foreclosure without obtaining AmBase’s prior written approval in violation of the “Major Decisions” provision; refusing to cooperate and share information with AmBase’s construction consultant; and engaging in fraud and intentional misconduct in violation of Joint Venture Agreement section 8.5. The NY Court also dismissed AmBase’s claim that Defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions (as duplicative of the breach of contract claims) and three claims whose dismissal was compelled by a prior decision of the First Department, namely, AmBase’s claims that Sponsor, Stern, and Maloney breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty; to impose a constructive trust on the insurance loss fund; and to impose a constructive trust on Stern’s, Maloney’s, JDS’s, PMG’s, and the construction manager’s construction management fees and Stern’s and Maloney’s equity interest in the Project. Finally, the Court dismissed AmBase’s current allegations that piercing certain of Defendants’ corporate veils is warranted. On January 18, 2023, the Company filed a notice of appeal appealing the May 9, 2022 Order with regard to all defendants in the Sponsor Action.

On January 30, 2023, Sponsor, Stern, Maloney, and various defendant members and affiliates filed their answer and asserted two counterclaims against the Company’s subsidiaries for breach of the Joint Venture Agreement in connection with a proposed refinancing of the Project in 2016. Plaintiffs replied to those counterclaims on February 21, 2023. The parties are continuing to discuss discovery scheduling and outstanding disclosures but attempts to meet and confer have thus far failed. A conference with the NY Court might be scheduled to further discuss discovery issues.

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 “Lender 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.

On May 3, 2019, the Company’s subsidiary, Investment LLC, entered into a stipulation with Spruce to amend the complaint in the Lender 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 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 Lender 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, and Robert Schwartz (“Spruce Defendants”), Arthur Becker and his affiliates (“Atlantic Defendants”), Apollo and its affiliates (“Apollo Defendants”), and AIG and its affiliates (“AIG Defendants”). 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, the various defendants filed 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.

On May 17, 2022, Plaintiffs in the Lender Action filed a motion requesting that the court hold oral argument on the pending motions to dismiss. The court granted the motion and heard argument on July 22, 2022. During argument, counsel for Plaintiffs made an oral motion to amend the complaint to add an express allegation that Defendants committed the tort of interference with contractual relations by procuring Sponsor’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the JV Agreement. The court called for supplemental briefs on the issue, which were filed on August 5, 2022.

On December 15, 2022, the NY Court issued a decision and order granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss (“December 15, 2022 Order”). Specifically, the NY Court declined to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against Spruce and ACREFI Mortgage Lending, LLC, Apollo Credit Opportunity Fund III AIV I LP, and AGRE Debt 1 – 111 W 57, LLC (“Apollo Lenders”) for breach of the Pledge Agreement in connection with the strict foreclosure. The NY Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for tortious interference with contract against the Spruce Defendants, AIG Defendants, and Apollo Defendants, and Plaintiffs’ claim for unjust enrichment against the Atlantic Defendants.

On January 3, 2023, the Apollo Lenders filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division seeking appeal of the December 15, 2022 Order. On January 18, 2023, the Company filed notices of appeal and cross-appeal appealing the December 15, 2022, Order with regard to all Defendants. On January 30, 2023, the Apollo Lenders filed their opening brief. On March 1, 2023, Plaintiff filed its combined opposition and opening brief as to all Defendants.

On January 13, 2023, the Apollo Lenders filed their answer and affirmative defenses to the Company’s Second Amended Complaint together with crossclaims against 111 W57th Mezz Investor LLC, Spruce Capital Partners LLC, Joshua Crane, Robert Schwartz, Michael Stern, Kevin Maloney, 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, 111 West 57th Control LLC, and 111 West 57th Manager LLC (the “Crossclaim Defendants”). The crossclaims are for (1) contribution against all Crossclaim Defendants; (2) indemnification against 111 W57th Mezz Investor LLC, Spruce Capital, Crane, and Schwartz; and (3) a declaratory judgment that 111 W57th Mezz Investor LLC, through Spruce Capital, Crane, and Schwartz, has indemnified the Apollo Lenders against any and all loss that the Apollo Lenders have incurred or may incur in defending against this case. On January 23, 2023, the Apollo Lenders filed a notice of voluntary discontinuance without prejudice, voluntarily discontinuing their first crossclaim for contribution only as it is brought against Stern, Maloney, Sponsor, 111 West 57th Control LLC, and 111 West 57th Manager LLC.

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 Sponsor Action and the Lender 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 were 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 was 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. 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 Lender 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.

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 are Custom House Risk Advisors, Inc. and Elizabeth Lowe (collectively, the “Custom House Defendants”). In the Custom House Action, the Company alleges 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 is seeking 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. The Custom House Defendants were required to respond to the complaint by June 8, 2020. The Custom House Defendants have not responded to the Company’s complaint. 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.

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 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 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.