Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Text Block [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 21: Commitments and Contingencies MBIA has received subpoenas or informal inquiries from a variety of regulators, regarding a variety of subjects. MBIA has cooperated fully with each of these regulators and has or is in the process of satisfying all such requests. MBIA may receive additional inquiries from these or other regulators and expects to provide additional information to such regulators regarding their inquiries in the future. On December 14, 2009, MBIA Corp. commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Credit Suisse. The complaint seeks damages for fraud and breach of contractual obligations in connection with the procurement of financial guarantee insurance on the HEMT securitization. On January 30, 2013, MBIA Corp. filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges, among other claims, that Credit Suisse falsely represented: (i) the attributes of the securitized loans; (ii) that the loans complied with the governing underwriting guidelines; and (iii) that Credit Suisse had conducted extensive due diligence on and quality control reviews of the securitized loans to ensure compliance with the underwriting guidelines. The complaint further alleges that the defendants breached their contractual obligations to cure or repurchase loans found to be in breach of the representations and warranties applicable thereto and denied MBIA the requisite access to all records and documents regarding the securitized loans. On March 8, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. On April 19, 2013, the court issued an order scheduling fact discovery to close by June 30, 2014. On September 14, 2012, MBIA Insurance Corp. filed a complaint alleging fraud against J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (f/k/a Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.) relating to Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.'s role as lead securities underwriter on the GMAC Mortgage Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-HE4. Oral argument on J.P. Morgan Securities LLC's motion for summary judgment was held on November 22, 2013. A decision is pending. On September 10, 2012, CQS ABS Master Fund Ltd., CQS Select ABS Master Fund Ltd., and CQS ABS Alpha Master Fund Ltd. as holders of MBIA-insured residential mortgage-backed bonds filed suit against MBIA Inc., MBIA Corp. and National. The complaint alleges that certain of the terms of the transactions entered into by MBIA Corp., which were approved by the New York State Department of Insurance, constituted fraudulent conveyances under §§ 273, 274, 276 and 279(c) of New York Debtor and Creditor Law and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under New York common law. On October 19, 2012, MBIA filed its answer. On August 13, 2013, the court entered a revised Management Plan and Scheduling Order setting a fact discovery deadline of April 4, 2014. On July 18, 2013, the City of Detroit, Michigan filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 9 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; Case No. 13-53846-swr. On December 5, 2013, Judge Steven W. Rhodes entered an order finding the City of Detroit eligible to be a debtor under Chapter 9. On November 8, 2013, National, together with Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. (“Assured”), commenced an adversary proceeding, captioned National Public Finance Guarantee Corp. et al. v City of Detroit, Michigan et al.; Adv. Pro. No 13-05309, against the City of Detroit and certain individuals. On December 23, 2013, National and Assured filed an amended complaint seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that the City of Detroit and its employees/managers must comply with Michigan state law in the collection, segregation and use of restricted ad valorem tax proceeds levied and pledged to repay the principal and interest on several series of Detroit's unlimited tax general obligation bonds, as well as declaratory relief with respect to National's and Assured's rights and interests in the ad valorem tax proceeds. On January 17, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Oral argument on the motion was heard on February 19, 2014, and a decision is pending. On January 30, 2013, National and MBIA Corp. filed a petition in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 215th Judicial District; Case No. 2013-05829, against the Harris County - Houston Sports Authority (the "Sports Authority") for damages and declaratory relief arising from the Sports Authority's failure to raise sufficient revenues and maintain adequate reserves necessary to support bonds issued by the Sports Authority. On March 12, 2013, the court granted the Sports Authority's motion to dismiss on grounds of governmental immunity. On May 9, 2013, National and MBIA Corp. appealed the dismissal order. Oral argument was heard on February 11, 2014, and an opinion is pending. On July 23, 2008, the City of Los Angeles filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against a number of financial guarantee insurers, including MBIA. At the same time and subsequently, additional complaints against MBIA and nearly all of the same co-defendants were filed by various municipal entities and quasi-municipal entities, mostly in California. These cases are part of a coordination proceeding in Superior Court, San Francisco County, before Judge Richard A. Kramer, referred to as the Ambac Bond Insurance Cases. In August 2011, the plaintiffs filed amended versions of their respective complaints. The claims allege participation by all the defendants in a conspiracy in violation of California's antitrust laws to maintain a dual credit rating scale that misstated the credit default risk of municipal bond issuers and not-for-profit issuers and thus created market demand for bond insurance. The plaintiffs also allege that the individual bond insurers participated in risky financial transactions in other lines of business that damaged each bond insurer's financial condition (thereby undermining the value of each of their guaranties), and each failed to adequately disclose the impact of those transactions on their financial condition. In addition to the statutory antitrust claim, the plaintiffs assert common law claims of breach of contract and fraud against MBIA and the other monoline defendants. The non-municipal plaintiffs also allege a California unfair competition cause of action. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the March 22, 2013 decision that granted the Bond Insurer defendants' motion to strike pursuant to California's Anti-SLAPP statute dismissing the plaintiffs' claims under California's Cartwright Act. On October 1, 2013, the Bond Insurer defendants' filed a notice of cross-appeal. On July 23, 2008, the City of Los Angeles filed a separate complaint in the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, naming as defendants MBIA and other financial institutions, and alleging fraud and violations of California's antitrust laws through bid-rigging in the sale of guaranteed investment contracts and what plaintiffs call “municipal derivatives” to municipal bond issuers. The case was removed to federal court and transferred by order dated November 26, 2008 to the Southern District of New York for inclusion in the multidistrict litigation, Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. No. 1950. Complaints making the same allegations against MBIA and nearly all of the same co-defendants were then, or subsequently, filed by municipal entities and quasi-municipal entities, mostly in California, and three not-for-profit retirement community operators. These cases have all been added to the multidistrict litigation. The plaintiffs in all of the cases assert federal and either California or New York state antitrust claims. As of May 31, 2011, MBIA has answered all of the existing complaints. 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.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2013

Note 21: Commitments and Contingencies

MBIA has received subpoenas or informal inquiries from a variety of regulators, regarding a variety of subjects. MBIA has cooperated fully with each of these regulators and has or is in the process of satisfying all such requests. MBIA may receive additional inquiries from these or other regulators and expects to provide additional information to such regulators regarding their inquiries in the future.

On December 14, 2009, MBIA Corp. commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Credit Suisse. The complaint seeks damages for fraud and breach of contractual obligations in connection with the procurement of financial guarantee insurance on the HEMT securitization. On January 30, 2013, MBIA Corp. filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges, among other claims, that Credit Suisse falsely represented: (i) the attributes of the securitized loans; (ii) that the loans complied with the governing underwriting guidelines; and (iii) that Credit Suisse had conducted extensive due diligence on and quality control reviews of the securitized loans to ensure compliance with the underwriting guidelines. The complaint further alleges that the defendants breached their contractual obligations to cure or repurchase loans found to be in breach of the representations and warranties applicable thereto and denied MBIA the requisite access to all records and documents regarding the securitized loans. On March 8, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. On April 19, 2013, the court issued an order scheduling fact discovery to close by June 30, 2014.

On September 14, 2012, MBIA Insurance Corp. filed a complaint alleging fraud against J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (f/k/a Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.) relating to Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.'s role as lead securities underwriter on the GMAC Mortgage Corporation Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-HE4. Oral argument on J.P. Morgan Securities LLC's motion for summary judgment was held on November 22, 2013. A decision is pending.
On September 10, 2012, CQS ABS Master Fund Ltd., CQS Select ABS Master Fund Ltd., and CQS ABS Alpha Master Fund Ltd. as holders of MBIA-insured residential mortgage-backed bonds filed suit against MBIA Inc., MBIA Corp. and National. The complaint alleges that certain of the terms of the transactions entered into by MBIA Corp., which were approved by the New York State Department of Insurance, constituted fraudulent conveyances under §§ 273, 274, 276 and 279(c) of New York Debtor and Creditor Law and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under New York common law. On October 19, 2012, MBIA filed its answer. On August 13, 2013, the court entered a revised Management Plan and Scheduling Order setting a fact discovery deadline of April 4, 2014.
On July 18, 2013, the City of Detroit, Michigan filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 9 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; Case No. 13-53846-swr. On December 5, 2013, Judge Steven W. Rhodes entered an order finding the City of Detroit eligible to be a debtor under Chapter 9. On November 8, 2013, National, together with Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. (“Assured”), commenced an adversary proceeding, captioned National Public Finance Guarantee Corp. et al. v City of Detroit, Michigan et al.; Adv. Pro. No 13-05309, against the City of Detroit and certain individuals. On December 23, 2013, National and Assured filed an amended complaint seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that the City of Detroit and its employees/managers must comply with Michigan state law in the collection, segregation and use of restricted ad valorem tax proceeds levied and pledged to repay the principal and interest on several series of Detroit's unlimited tax general obligation bonds, as well as declaratory relief with respect to National's and Assured's rights and interests in the ad valorem tax proceeds. On January 17, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Oral argument on the motion was heard on February 19, 2014, and a decision is pending.

On January 30, 2013, National and MBIA Corp. filed a petition in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 215th Judicial District; Case No. 2013-05829, against the Harris County - Houston Sports Authority (the "Sports Authority") for damages and declaratory relief arising from the Sports Authority's failure to raise sufficient revenues and maintain adequate reserves necessary to support bonds issued by the Sports Authority. On March 12, 2013, the court granted the Sports Authority's motion to dismiss on grounds of governmental immunity. On May 9, 2013, National and MBIA Corp. appealed the dismissal order. Oral argument was heard on February 11, 2014, and an opinion is pending.

On July 23, 2008, the City of Los Angeles filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against a number of financial guarantee insurers, including MBIA. At the same time and subsequently, additional complaints against MBIA and nearly all of the same co-defendants were filed by various municipal entities and quasi-municipal entities, mostly in California. These cases are part of a coordination proceeding in Superior Court, San Francisco County, before Judge Richard A. Kramer, referred to as the Ambac Bond Insurance Cases. In August 2011, the plaintiffs filed amended versions of their respective complaints. The claims allege participation by all the defendants in a conspiracy in violation of California's antitrust laws to maintain a dual credit rating scale that misstated the credit default risk of municipal bond issuers and not-for-profit issuers and thus created market demand for bond insurance. The plaintiffs also allege that the individual bond insurers participated in risky financial transactions in other lines of business that damaged each bond insurer's financial condition (thereby undermining the value of each of their guaranties), and each failed to adequately disclose the impact of those transactions on their financial condition. In addition to the statutory antitrust claim, the plaintiffs assert common law claims of breach of contract and fraud against MBIA and the other monoline defendants. The non-municipal plaintiffs also allege a California unfair competition cause of action. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the March 22, 2013 decision that granted the Bond Insurer defendants' motion to strike pursuant to California's Anti-SLAPP statute dismissing the plaintiffs' claims under California's Cartwright Act. On October 1, 2013, the Bond Insurer defendants' filed a notice of cross-appeal.

On July 23, 2008, the City of Los Angeles filed a separate complaint in the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, naming as defendants MBIA and other financial institutions, and alleging fraud and violations of California's antitrust laws through bid-rigging in the sale of guaranteed investment contracts and what plaintiffs call “municipal derivatives” to municipal bond issuers. The case was removed to federal court and transferred by order dated November 26, 2008 to the Southern District of New York for inclusion in the multidistrict litigation, Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. No. 1950. Complaints making the same allegations against MBIA and nearly all of the same co-defendants were then, or subsequently, filed by municipal entities and quasi-municipal entities, mostly in California, and three not-for-profit retirement community operators. These cases have all been added to the multidistrict litigation. The plaintiffs in all of the cases assert federal and either California or New York state antitrust claims. As of May 31, 2011, MBIA has answered all of the existing complaints.

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.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details