Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Text Block [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 14: Commitments and Contingencies The following commitments and contingencies provide an update of those discussed in “Note 21: 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, 2016, and should be read in conjunction with the complete descriptions provided in the aforementioned Form 10-K. Litigation MBIA Insurance Corp. v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al.; Index No. 603751/2009 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County) Expert discovery concluded in March of 2016. On March 31, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part MBIA’s summary judgment motion. The parties have each filed cross-appeals from the court’s March 31, 2017 decision and order. Argument is scheduled for the September term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department. MBIA Insurance Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (f/k/a Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.); Index No. 64676/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of Westchester) On June 6, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation acknowledging that they had resolved the claims in the litigation and dismissing the action with prejudice. Ambac Bond Insurance Coverage Cases, Coordinated Proceeding Case No. JCCP 4555 (Super. Ct. of Cal., County of San Francisco) Following an appeal of the dismissal of the plaintiff’s anti-trust claim under California’s Cartwright Act, the California Court of Appeal reinstated those claims against the bond insurer defendants on February 18, 2016. On April 8, 2016, Judge Mary E. Wiss recused and disqualified herself from further proceedings in the matter. On April 14, 2016, Judge Curtis E. A. Karnow was assigned to sit as the Coordination Trial Judge. On June 24, 2016, the defendants, including the MBIA parties, filed their answers to the complaints. A discovery deadline is set for July 16, 2018 and a trial scheduled for October 1, 2018. Lynn Tilton and Patriarch Partners XV, LLC v. MBIA Inc. and MBIA Insurance Corp. v.; Index No.68880/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of Westchester) On November 2, 2015, Lynn Tilton and Patriarch Partners XV, LLC filed a complaint in New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County, against MBIA Inc. and MBIA Corp., alleging fraudulent inducement and related claims arising from purported promises made in connection with insurance policies issued by MBIA Corp. on certain collateralized loan obligations managed by Ms. Tilton and affiliated Patriarch entities, and seeking damages. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 15, 2016. On December 27, 2016, Justice Alan D. Scheinkman granted in part and denied in part MBIA’s motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2017, MBIA filed its answer. A scheduling order was entered on January 6, 2017 setting a Trial Readiness Conference for October 19, 2017. National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation v. Padilla, Civ. No. 16-cv-2101 (D.P.R. June 15, 2016) (Besosa, J.) On June 15, 2016, National filed a complaint in federal court in Puerto Rico challenging the Puerto Rico Emergency Moratorium and Financial Rehabilitation Act (Law 21-2016 or the “Moratorium Act”) as unconstitutional under the United States Constitution. On June 22, 2016, National filed a motion for partial summary judgment on its claim that the Moratorium Act is preempted by the federal Bankruptcy Code. On July 7, 2016, the Puerto Rico defendants filed a motion to stay the case pursuant to PROMESA, which was granted by the Court in August of 2016. The defendants filed their answer to the complaint on July 26, 2016. On November 15, 2016, the District Court denied National’s motion to lift the litigation stay granted pursuant to PROMESA and on January 30, 2017, the District Court denied National’s partial motion for a summary judgment without prejudice. On January 11, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the denial of a separate plaintiff’s motion to lift the PROMESA stay in a related action challenging the Moratorium Act. Accordingly, the case remained stayed through May 1, 2017, at which time the PROMESA stay expired. However, on May 3, 2017, Puerto Rico filed a Title III petition under PROMESA, thereby staying this dispute under Section 405(e) of PROMESA. Assured Guaranty Corp. et al. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01578 (D.P.R. May 3, 2017) (Swain, J.) On May 3, 2017, the Financial Oversight and Management Board filed a petition under Title III of PROMESA to adjust the debts of Puerto Rico. On the same day, National, together with Assured Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., filed an adversary complaint in the case commenced by the Title III filing, alleging that the Fiscal Plan and the Fiscal Plan Compliance Act, signed into law by the Governor of Puerto Rico on April 29, 2017, violate PROMESA and the United States Constitution. On July 10, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the adversary complaint. The Bank of New York Mellon v. Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation, et al., Case No. 17-133-LTS (D.P.R. May 16, 2017) (Swain, J.) On May 16, 2017, the Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee for COFINA, filed an adversary complaint seeking an interpleader and declaratory relief relating to conflicting directions from multiple stakeholders regarding alleged events of default. On May 23, 2017, National filed a Motion to Intervene as a defendant in the adversary proceeding. On May 30, 2017, Judge Swain granted interpleader of the June 1, 2017 payment and stayed pending and future litigation against the Bank of New York Mellon related to the dispute. The case is now in discovery and motions for summary judgment are to be filed on September 15, 2017. Assured Guaranty Corp. et al. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico et al., Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS (D.P.R. June 3, 2017) (Swain, J.) On May 22, 2017, the Financial Oversight and Management Board filed a petition under Title III of PROMESA to adjust the debts for the Puerto Rico Highways & Transportation Authority (“PRHTA”). On June 3, 2017, National, together with Assured Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, filed an adversary complaint in the case commenced by the Title III filing, alleging that the Commonwealth and PRHTA are unlawfully diverting pledged special revenues from the payment of certain PRHTA bonds to the Commonwealth’s General Fund. National Public Finance Guarantee Corp. et al. v. The Financial Oversight and Mgmt. Bd. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01882 (D.P.R. June 26, 2017) (Besosa, J.) On June 26, 2017, National, together with Assured Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., filed a complaint against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (the “Oversight Board”), its chairman and certain of its members seeking declaratory, injunctive and mandamus relief requiring the Oversight Board to comply with certain of its obligations under PROMESA. On July 17, 2017, National, again joined by Assured Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., filed an amended complaint against the Oversight Board, its chairman, and certain of its members in their official and individual capacities, seeking declaratory relief under PROMESA and asserting a claim for nominal damages against the individual defendants for tortious interference with the PREPA Restructuring Support Agreement. National Public Finance Guarantee Corp. et al. v. The Financial Oversight and Mgmt. Bd. et al., Case No. 17 BK-04780 (D.P.R. August 7, 2017) On August 7, 2017, National, together with Assured Guaranty Corp. , Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., f/k/a Financial Security Assurance Inc., National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation, the Ad Hoc Group of PREPA Bondholders, and Syncora Guarantee Inc. filed an adversary complaint under Title III of PROMESA against PREPA, Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority, et al to enforce Plaintiffs’ contractual interest and constitutional right to revenues that PREPA pledged to bondholders but has thus far refused to turn over. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Defendants have violated sections 922(d) and 928(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, and that efforts to compel Defendants to apply such revenues to pay for debt service on the Bonds are not stayed as provided under section 922(d) of the Bankruptcy Code. Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that, pursuant to sections 922(d) and 928 of the Bankruptcy Code as incorporated into PROMESA, PREPA is only authorized to use Revenues to pay for current operating expenses in the current time period, not for future expenses that may be deferred to or payable at a later date. In addition to declaratory relief, Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from taking or causing to be taken any action that would further violate sections 922(d) and 928(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and ordering Defendants to remit Revenues for the uninterrupted and timely payment of debt service on the Bonds in accordance with sections 922(d) and 928(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. For those aforementioned actions in which it is a defendant, the Company is defending against those actions 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. The Company similarly can provide no assurance that it will be successful in those actions in which it is a plaintiff. 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. Lease Commitments The Company has a lease agreement for its headquarters in Purchase, New York as well as other immaterial leases for offices in New York, New York and San Francisco, California. The Purchase, New York initial lease term expires in 2030 with the option to terminate the lease in 2025 upon the payment of a termination amount. This lease agreement included an incentive amount to fund certain leasehold improvements, renewal options, escalation clauses and a free rent period. This lease agreement has been classified as an operating lease, and operating rent expense has been recognized on a straight-line basis since the second quarter of 2014. As of June 30, 2017, total future minimum lease payments remaining on this lease were $37 million.

Note 14: Commitments and Contingencies

The following commitments and contingencies provide an update of those discussed in “Note 21: 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, 2016, and should be read in conjunction with the complete descriptions provided in the aforementioned Form 10-K.

Litigation

MBIA Insurance Corp. v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al.; Index No. 603751/2009 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County)

Expert discovery concluded in March of 2016. On March 31, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part MBIA’s summary judgment motion. The parties have each filed cross-appeals from the court’s March 31, 2017 decision and order. Argument is scheduled for the September term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department.

MBIA Insurance Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC (f/k/a Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc.); Index No. 64676/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of Westchester)

On June 6, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation acknowledging that they had resolved the claims in the litigation and dismissing the action with prejudice.

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

Following an appeal of the dismissal of the plaintiff’s anti-trust claim under California’s Cartwright Act, the California Court of Appeal reinstated those claims against the bond insurer defendants on February 18, 2016. On April 8, 2016, Judge Mary E. Wiss recused and disqualified herself from further proceedings in the matter. On April 14, 2016, Judge Curtis E. A. Karnow was assigned to sit as the Coordination Trial Judge. On June 24, 2016, the defendants, including the MBIA parties, filed their answers to the complaints. A discovery deadline is set for July 16, 2018 and a trial scheduled for October 1, 2018.

Lynn Tilton and Patriarch Partners XV, LLC v. MBIA Inc. and MBIA Insurance Corp. v.; Index No.68880/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of Westchester)

On November 2, 2015, Lynn Tilton and Patriarch Partners XV, LLC filed a complaint in New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County, against MBIA Inc. and MBIA Corp., alleging fraudulent inducement and related claims arising from purported promises made in connection with insurance policies issued by MBIA Corp. on certain collateralized loan obligations managed by Ms. Tilton and affiliated Patriarch entities, and seeking damages. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 15, 2016. On December 27, 2016, Justice Alan D. Scheinkman granted in part and denied in part MBIA’s motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2017, MBIA filed its answer. A scheduling order was entered on January 6, 2017 setting a Trial Readiness Conference for October 19, 2017.

National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation v. Padilla, Civ. No. 16-cv-2101 (D.P.R. June 15, 2016) (Besosa, J.)

On June 15, 2016, National filed a complaint in federal court in Puerto Rico challenging the Puerto Rico Emergency Moratorium and Financial Rehabilitation Act (Law 21-2016 or the “Moratorium Act”) as unconstitutional under the United States Constitution. On June 22, 2016, National filed a motion for partial summary judgment on its claim that the Moratorium Act is preempted by the federal Bankruptcy Code. On July 7, 2016, the Puerto Rico defendants filed a motion to stay the case pursuant to PROMESA, which was granted by the Court in August of 2016. The defendants filed their answer to the complaint on July 26, 2016. On November 15, 2016, the District Court denied National’s motion to lift the litigation stay granted pursuant to PROMESA and on January 30, 2017, the District Court denied National’s partial motion for a summary judgment without prejudice. On January 11, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the denial of a separate plaintiff’s motion to lift the PROMESA stay in a related action challenging the Moratorium Act. Accordingly, the case remained stayed through May 1, 2017, at which time the PROMESA stay expired. However, on May 3, 2017, Puerto Rico filed a Title III petition under PROMESA, thereby staying this dispute under Section 405(e) of PROMESA.

Assured Guaranty Corp. et al. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01578 (D.P.R. May 3, 2017) (Swain, J.)

On May 3, 2017, the Financial Oversight and Management Board filed a petition under Title III of PROMESA to adjust the debts of Puerto Rico. On the same day, National, together with Assured Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., filed an adversary complaint in the case commenced by the Title III filing, alleging that the Fiscal Plan and the Fiscal Plan Compliance Act, signed into law by the Governor of Puerto Rico on April 29, 2017, violate PROMESA and the United States Constitution. On July 10, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the adversary complaint.

The Bank of New York Mellon v. Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation, et al., Case No. 17-133-LTS (D.P.R. May 16, 2017) (Swain, J.)

On May 16, 2017, the Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee for COFINA, filed an adversary complaint seeking an interpleader and declaratory relief relating to conflicting directions from multiple stakeholders regarding alleged events of default. On May 23, 2017, National filed a Motion to Intervene as a defendant in the adversary proceeding. On May 30, 2017, Judge Swain granted interpleader of the June 1, 2017 payment and stayed pending and future litigation against the Bank of New York Mellon related to the dispute. The case is now in discovery and motions for summary judgment are to be filed on September 15, 2017.

Assured Guaranty Corp. et al. v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico et al., Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS (D.P.R. June 3, 2017) (Swain, J.)

On May 22, 2017, the Financial Oversight and Management Board filed a petition under Title III of PROMESA to adjust the debts for the Puerto Rico Highways & Transportation Authority (“PRHTA”). On June 3, 2017, National, together with Assured Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, filed an adversary complaint in the case commenced by the Title III filing, alleging that the Commonwealth and PRHTA are unlawfully diverting pledged special revenues from the payment of certain PRHTA bonds to the Commonwealth’s General Fund.

National Public Finance Guarantee Corp. et al. v. The Financial Oversight and Mgmt. Bd. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01882 (D.P.R. June 26, 2017) (Besosa, J.)

On June 26, 2017, National, together with Assured Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., filed a complaint against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (the “Oversight Board”), its chairman and certain of its members seeking declaratory, injunctive and mandamus relief requiring the Oversight Board to comply with certain of its obligations under PROMESA. On July 17, 2017, National, again joined by Assured Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., filed an amended complaint against the Oversight Board, its chairman, and certain of its members in their official and individual capacities, seeking declaratory relief under PROMESA and asserting a claim for nominal damages against the individual defendants for tortious interference with the PREPA Restructuring Support Agreement.

National Public Finance Guarantee Corp. et al. v. The Financial Oversight and Mgmt. Bd. et al., Case No. 17 BK-04780 (D.P.R. August 7, 2017)

On August 7, 2017, National, together with Assured Guaranty Corp. , Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., f/k/a Financial Security Assurance Inc., National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation, the Ad Hoc Group of PREPA Bondholders, and Syncora Guarantee Inc. filed an adversary complaint under Title III of PROMESA against PREPA, Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority, et al to enforce Plaintiffs’ contractual interest and constitutional right to revenues that PREPA pledged to bondholders but has thus far refused to turn over. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Defendants have violated sections 922(d) and 928(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, and that efforts to compel Defendants to apply such revenues to pay for debt service on the Bonds are not stayed as provided under section 922(d) of the Bankruptcy Code. Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that, pursuant to sections 922(d) and 928 of the Bankruptcy Code as incorporated into PROMESA, PREPA is only authorized to use Revenues to pay for current operating expenses in the current time period, not for future expenses that may be deferred to or payable at a later date. In addition to declaratory relief, Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from taking or causing to be taken any action that would further violate sections 922(d) and 928(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and ordering Defendants to remit Revenues for the uninterrupted and timely payment of debt service on the Bonds in accordance with sections 922(d) and 928(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

For those aforementioned actions in which it is a defendant, the Company is defending against those actions 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. The Company similarly can provide no assurance that it will be successful in those actions in which it is a plaintiff.

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.

Lease Commitments

The Company has a lease agreement for its headquarters in Purchase, New York as well as other immaterial leases for offices in New York, New York and San Francisco, California. The Purchase, New York initial lease term expires in 2030 with the option to terminate the lease in 2025 upon the payment of a termination amount. This lease agreement included an incentive amount to fund certain leasehold improvements, renewal options, escalation clauses and a free rent period. This lease agreement has been classified as an operating lease, and operating rent expense has been recognized on a straight-line basis since the second quarter of 2014. As of June 30, 2017, total future minimum lease payments remaining on this lease were $37 million.