Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
Text Block [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 20: 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. Litigation MBIA Insurance Corp. v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al.; Index No. 603751/2009 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County) On December 14, 2009, MBIA Corp. commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. and Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. (collectively, “Credit Suisse”). The complaint seeks damages for fraud and breach of contractual obligations in connection with the procurement of financial guarantee insurance on the Home Equity Mortgage Trust Series 2007-2 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 31, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ summary judgment motions, including granting Credit Suisse’s request to dismiss MBIA‘s fraud claim. Oral argument before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department on the parties’ cross-appeals from the court’s March 31, 2017 decision and order on the parties’ summary judgment motions took place on October 24, 2017 and a decision is pending. 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 September 14, 2012, MBIA 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. On June 6, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation acknowledging that they had resolved the claims in 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) 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 were filed by other municipal entities and quasi-municipal entities. These cases are part of a coordination proceeding in Superior Court, San Francisco County, before Judge Curtis E. A. Karnow. In August of 2011, the plaintiffs filed amended versions of their respective complaints. The claims allege violation of California’s antitrust laws through maintaining a dual credit rating scale that misstated the credit default risk of certain issuers, thereby creating 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, and failure to adequately disclose the impact of those transactions on their financial condition. The non-municipal plaintiffs also allege a California unfair competition cause of action. On December 11, 2017, the parties reached a settlement of the litigation, which is expected to be finalized in the first half of 2018, at which point the matter will be dismissed with prejudice. 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 January 17, 2017, MBIA filed its answer. Discovery concluded in October 2017 and a Trial Readiness Conference was held on November 3, 2017, at which the Court set a schedule for the briefing of summary judgment motions, which was completed as of February 1, 2018 and a decision on which is now pending. On January 8, 2018, Justice Gretchen Walsh was assigned to the case. 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 the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act (“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 stay on litigation pursuant to PROMESA. On January 30, 2017, the District Court denied without prejudice National’s partial motion for a summary judgment. 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 Title III of PROMESA. On August 1, 2017, the District Court dismissed the case with prejudice. On August 28, 2017, National filed a motion for reconsideration. 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., f/k/a Financial Security Assurance Inc., 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 October 6, 2017, National, together with the other plaintiffs in the filing, voluntarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice. 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. National has intervened in this matter. Given the complexity of the issues, the judge granted Bank of New York’s interpleader request ordering a freeze on disbursements to all bondholders and temporarily setting aside the funds until the dispute can be resolved between the parties. Under a scheduling order, discovery is underway and motions for summary judgment and opening briefs were filed on February 21, 2018. 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 21, 2017, the Oversight 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 PRHTA Title III case, 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. Motions to dismiss were filed on June 28, 2017, and oral arguments were heard on November 21, 2017. On January 30, 2018, the court granted the Commonwealth defendants’ motion to dismiss the PRHTA-related adversary complaint. On February 9, 2018, National, together with Assured, Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, filed their notice of appeal of the motions to dismiss to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. 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 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, the plaintiffs 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. By order of the Court date August 7, 2017, the litigation was stayed. 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., the Ad Hoc Group of PREPA Bondholders, and Syncora Guarantee Inc. filed an adversary complaint under Title III of PROMESA against PREPA, the 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. On October 13, 2017, National, together with the other plaintiffs in the filing, voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the above referenced adversary complaint. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as agent of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Bettina Whyte, as agent of the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation, Adv. Proc. No. 17-257-LTS in Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS (D.P.R. Sept. 8, 2017) On August 10, 2017, the Court approved and entered a Stipulation and Order Approving Procedure to Resolve Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute in the PROMESA Title III proceeding relating to whether sales and use taxes purportedly pledged by COFINA to secure debt are property of the Commonwealth or COFINA under applicable law. On November 16, 2017, National intervened as a Defendant in the adversary proceeding and filed its answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims. On December 21, 2017, the Court issued an order, which, inter alia, dismissed without prejudice, certain claims of the intervenors that exceeded the scope of the Commonwealth-COFINA dispute including certain of National's counterclaims. National’s first counterclaim which seeks a declaratory judgment that the COFINA statutes are constitutional remains a part of this litigation. On January 13, 2018, the Court permitted the Commonwealth Agent to file a second amended complaint. National’s answer was filed on January 30, 2018. 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 December 31, 2017, total future minimum lease payments remaining on this lease were $36 million.

Note 20: 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.

Litigation

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

On December 14, 2009, MBIA Corp. commenced an action in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. and Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. (collectively, “Credit Suisse”). The complaint seeks damages for fraud and breach of contractual obligations in connection with the procurement of financial guarantee insurance on the Home Equity Mortgage Trust Series 2007-2 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 31, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ summary judgment motions, including granting Credit Suisse’s request to dismiss MBIA‘s fraud claim. Oral argument before the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department on the parties’ cross-appeals from the court’s March 31, 2017 decision and order on the parties’ summary judgment motions took place on October 24, 2017 and a decision is pending.

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 September 14, 2012, MBIA 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. On June 6, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation acknowledging that they had resolved the claims in 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)

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 were filed by other municipal entities and quasi-municipal entities. These cases are part of a coordination proceeding in Superior Court, San Francisco County, before Judge Curtis E. A. Karnow. In August of 2011, the plaintiffs filed amended versions of their respective complaints. The claims allege violation of California’s antitrust laws through maintaining a dual credit rating scale that misstated the credit default risk of certain issuers, thereby creating 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, and failure to adequately disclose the impact of those transactions on their financial condition. The non-municipal plaintiffs also allege a California unfair competition cause of action. On December 11, 2017, the parties reached a settlement of the litigation, which is expected to be finalized in the first half of 2018, at which point the matter will be dismissed with prejudice.

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 January 17, 2017, MBIA filed its answer. Discovery concluded in October 2017 and a Trial Readiness Conference was held on November 3, 2017, at which the Court set a schedule for the briefing of summary judgment motions, which was completed as of February 1, 2018 and a decision on which is now pending. On January 8, 2018, Justice Gretchen Walsh was assigned to the case.

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 the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act (“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 stay on litigation pursuant to PROMESA. On January 30, 2017, the District Court denied without prejudice National’s partial motion for a summary judgment. 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 Title III of PROMESA. On August 1, 2017, the District Court dismissed the case with prejudice. On August 28, 2017, National filed a motion for reconsideration.

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., f/k/a Financial Security Assurance Inc., 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 October 6, 2017, National, together with the other plaintiffs in the filing, voluntarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

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. National has intervened in this matter. Given the complexity of the issues, the judge granted Bank of New York’s interpleader request ordering a freeze on disbursements to all bondholders and temporarily setting aside the funds until the dispute can be resolved between the parties. Under a scheduling order, discovery is underway and motions for summary judgment and opening briefs were filed on February 21, 2018.

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 21, 2017, the Oversight 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 PRHTA Title III case, 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. Motions to dismiss were filed on June 28, 2017, and oral arguments were heard on November 21, 2017. On January 30, 2018, the court granted the Commonwealth defendants’ motion to dismiss the PRHTA-related adversary complaint. On February 9, 2018, National, together with Assured, Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, filed their notice of appeal of the motions to dismiss to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

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 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, the plaintiffs 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. By order of the Court date August 7, 2017, the litigation was stayed.

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., the Ad Hoc Group of PREPA Bondholders, and Syncora Guarantee Inc. filed an adversary complaint under Title III of PROMESA against PREPA, the 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. On October 13, 2017, National, together with the other plaintiffs in the filing, voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the above referenced adversary complaint.

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, as agent of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

v. Bettina Whyte, as agent of the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation, Adv. Proc. No. 17-257-LTS in Case No. 17 BK

3283-LTS (D.P.R. Sept. 8, 2017)

On August 10, 2017, the Court approved and entered a Stipulation and Order Approving Procedure to Resolve Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute in the PROMESA Title III proceeding relating to whether sales and use taxes purportedly pledged by COFINA to secure debt are property of the Commonwealth or COFINA under applicable law. On November 16, 2017, National intervened as a Defendant in the adversary proceeding and filed its answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims. On December 21, 2017, the Court issued an order, which, inter alia, dismissed without prejudice, certain claims of the intervenors that exceeded the scope of the Commonwealth-COFINA dispute including certain of National's counterclaims. National’s first counterclaim which seeks a declaratory judgment that the COFINA statutes are constitutional remains a part of this litigation. On January 13, 2018, the Court permitted the Commonwealth Agent to file a second amended complaint. National’s answer was filed on January 30, 2018.

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 December 31, 2017, total future minimum lease payments remaining on this lease were $36 million.