Commitments And Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2012

Commitments And Contingencies [Abstract]

Commitments And Contingencies

Note 13: Commitments and Contingencies

The following commitments and contingencies provide an update of those discussed in "Note 23: Commitments and Contingencies" in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the SEC on February 29, 2012, and should be read in conjunction with the complete descriptions provided in the aforementioned Form 10-K.

Corporate Litigation

Trustees of the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Clapp et al., No. 08-CV-1515 (S.D.N.Y.)

On June 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed an amended derivative complaint against certain of the Company's present and former officers and directors, and against the Company, as nominal defendant. The Company's response was filed on January 16, 2012.

Ambac Bond Insurance Coverage Cases, Coordinated Proceeding Case No. JCCP 4555 (Super. Ct. of Cal., County of San Francisco)

In August 2011, plaintiffs filed amended versions of their respective complaints. On October 20, 2011, the court overruled MBIA's demurrers to plaintiffs' amended complaints. Briefing is complete on MBIA and the other monoline defendants' special motion to strike pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute. A decision is pending.

Recovery Litigation

MBIA Insurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al.; Index No. 602825/08 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County)

On April 5, 2012, the Appellate Division, First Department, of the New York State Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the lower court's denial of Bank of America's motion to consolidate and/or sever successor liability claims against Bank of America, allowing deposition and expert discovery on the successor liability claim to proceed. On January 3, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part MBIA Corp.'s motion for partial summary judgment regarding proof of causation, holding that MBIA is not required to establish a direct causal link between Countrywide's misrepresentations and MBIA's claims payments made pursuant to the insurance policies at issue, but reserving judgment on the causation burden for the contractual repurchase claims. On January 25, 2012, Bank of America filed a Notice of Appeal against the January 3, 2012 order, and MBIA filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal on February 6, 2012. On February 27, 2012, the parties exchanged expert reports.

MBIA Insurance Corp. v. Residential Funding Company, LLC; Index No. 603552/2008 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County)

On April 16, 2012, the parties exchanged expert reports.

Transformation Litigation

Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. et al. v. MBIA Inc. et al., 09-cv-2242 (R.S.) (S.D.N.Y.)

On April 11, 2012, the Aurelius Plaintiffs and MBIA filed a Stipulation of Dismissal resolving the litigation and the case has been closed on the court's docket.

ABN AMRO Bank N.V. et al. v. MBIA Inc. et al.; Index No. 601475/09 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County)

On April 11, 2012, UBS AG, London Branch withdrew from the litigation. On May 7, 2012, Natixis withdrew from the litigation. Sixteen of the original eighteen plaintiffs have dismissed their claims, several of which dismissals were related to the commutation of certain of their MBIA-insured exposures. On April 20, 2012, Justice Kapnick indicated that the case would be stayed pending conclusion of the trial in the Article 78 proceeding discussed below.

ABN AMRO Bank N.V. et al. v. Eric Dinallo et al.; Index no. 601846/09 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County)

Submission of papers relating to the original petition was completed on March 16, 2012. A trial is scheduled for May 14, 2012. On April 11, 2012, UBS AG, London Branch withdrew from the litigation. On May 7, 2012, Natixis withdrew from the litigation. As described above, sixteen of the original eighteen plaintiffs have dismissed their claims.

Barclays Bank PLC., et al. v. Wrynn et al.; Index No. 651811/2010 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County)

The proceeding is currently stayed.

The Company is defending against the aforementioned actions in which it is a defendant and expects ultimately to prevail on the merits. There is no assurance, however, that the Company will prevail in these actions. Adverse rulings in these actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company's ability to implement its strategy and on its business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. At this stage of the litigation, there has not been a determination as to the amount, if any, of damages. Accordingly, the Company is not able to estimate any amount of loss or range of loss.

There are no other material lawsuits pending or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened, to which the Company or any of its subsidiaries is a party.