Note 13: Commitments and Contingencies

The following commitments and contingencies provide an update of those discussed in “Note 20: 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, 2018, 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)

On September 13, 2018, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department issued a ruling on the parties’ cross-appeals from the court’s March 31, 2017 decision and order on the parties’ summary judgment motions. The ruling affirmed the trial court’s decision, except reversed as to the trial court’s determination to interpret as a matter of law, prior to trial, certain of the representations and warranties that form the predicate for certain of MBIA Corp.’s breach of contract claims. A pretrial conference was held on February 7, 2019, at which the Court scheduled a two-week trial to begin on July 22, 2019.

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 March 11, 2018, Ms. Tilton commenced the Zohar Funds Bankruptcy Cases. On May 21, 2018, the court approved the Zohar Bankruptcy Settlement. Subsequently, the parties to the above-captioned litigation jointly filed a request to stay the case for, at minimum, fifteen months, which was granted by Justice Walsh on June 11, 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 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. 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. Appellants filed their opening brief on May 9, 2018, and Appellees filed their opposition brief on July 9, 2018. Appellants’ reply brief was filed on August 8, 2018. Oral argument was held on November 5, 2018. On March 26, 2019, the First Circuit held that consensual prepetition liens on special revenues will remain in place after the filing of the bankruptcy petition, but agreed with the district court that the provision “does not mandate the turnover of special revenues or require continuity of payments of the PRHTA Bonds during the pendency of the Title III proceeding.” Appellants have submitted a motion seeking review of this opinion by the full First Circuit panel, and will determine within the 90 days of this decision whether to file a writ of certiorari for hearing before the United States Supreme Court.

The Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, as representative of The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, et al., Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS (D.P.R. July 19, 2017) (Swain, J.)

On July 18, 2017, National, together with other PREPA bondholders, asked the court overseeing PREPA’s Title III bankruptcy proceeding to lift the automatic bankruptcy stay, and permit bondholders to seek appointment of a receiver to oversee PREPA. On September 14, 2017, the court held that PROMESA barred relief from the stay because the appointment of a receiver would (i) interfere with PREPA’s property and governmental powers, and (ii) violate the court’s exclusive jurisdiction over PREPA’s property. The court also held that a comparison of the harms facing both parties pointed towards denying relief from the stay. The bondholders appealed the decision to the First Circuit. As of April 23, 2018, the appeal was fully briefed. The First Circuit heard oral argument on June 5, 2018. On August 8, 2018, the United State Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an order reversing Judge Swain’s decision on jurisdictional grounds and remanding the motion. On October 3, 2018, National, together with Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., and Syncora Guarantee Inc. (collectively, “Movants”) filed an updated motion for relief from the automatic stay to allow Movants to exercise their statutory right to have a receiver appointed at PREPA. Discovery in connection with Movants’ motion is ongoing. The Court approved a number of requests to extend the deadline for the Oversight Board to respond to the motion, and has currently scheduled the hearing on the stay motion to June 13, 2019.

Definitive Restructuring Support Agreement for PREPA

On May 3, 2019, PREPA, the Oversight Board, the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority (“AAFAF”), the Ad Hoc Group of PREPA bondholders, and Assured Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. (“Assured”) entered into a Definitive Restructuring Support Agreement (the “RSA”). National is not a party to the RSA.

Among other things, the RSA contemplates a transaction pursuant to which, upon the effective date of a plan of adjustment, PREPA’s legacy bonds will be exchanged for new securitization bonds to be issued in two tranches (the “Securitization Bonds”). In addition, beginning on August 30, 2019, holders of bonds that are subject to the RSA will receive monthly settlement payments funded by a settlement charge to be included on customer bills (the “Settlement Payments”) until the effective date of a plan of adjustment for PREPA. The Settlement Payments are subject to increase if a plan of adjustment is not confirmed before March 31, 2021. The RSA provides that supporting parties will receive an administrative claim equal to interest accrued on certain of the securitization bonds, less the amount of any Settlement Payments made on account of such bonds, which administrative claim shall survive termination of the RSA. Additionally, pursuant to the RSA, supporting creditors will also receive certain fees and expense reimbursements. The RSA contemplates the filing of a plan of adjustment for PREPA by March 31, 2020.

The RSA contains several provisions that require various steps to be taken in the Title III Court that, if successful, would prevent National from prosecuting the Receiver Motion and could result in a challenge to the validity of the liens arising under the Trust Agreement that secure insured obligations of National. Pursuant to the RSA, the Oversight Board must file both a motion with the Title III court seeking approval of the RSA (the “Settlement Motion”) and a motion to dismiss the Receiver Motion (the “Motion to Dismiss”), within 10 business days after the execution of the RSA. The RSA also states that within five business days after the Settlement Motion is filed, the Ad Hoc Group and Assured shall direct the Trustee to join the Settlement Motion. The RSA requires the Ad Hoc Group to support, and Assured not to oppose, the Motion to Dismiss. The RSA further states that the hearing for approval of the Settlement Motion is contingent on receiving no later than two business days prior to such hearing the support of holders or insurers representing a minimum of 60% in aggregate principal amount of all legacy bonds. The stated milestone for entry of an order approving the Settlement Motion is June 30, 2019.

Absent an agreement among all parties, including National, to extend the current Receiver Motion deadlines, the RSA parties will file a motion to stay the deadlines pending resolution of the Settlement Motion and Motion to Dismiss (the “Stay Motion”). The RSA also provides that PREPA, AAFAF, and the Oversight Board (the “Government Parties”) may file an action challenging the liens and claims related to PREPA-issued bonds if the Stay Motion is not entered by the date their response to the Receiver Motion is due (currently May 8). If any of the Government Parties files an adversary complaint related to a lien challenge, the Government Parties will concurrently seek to stay the lien challenge, though such stay will only go into effect once the Stay Motion is granted. If the Stay Motion is not granted, then the Government Parties can prosecute the lien challenge until the Receiver Motion is denied or dismissed.

The Third Amended Title III Plan of Adjustment for COFINA

On June 5, 2018, the Commonwealth and COFINA Agents agreed in principle to settle the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute regarding the pledge of sales and use taxes and related issues under the Agents’ mediation authority. The Title III Court held a hearing to approve the settlement agreement, as amended by the parties, and confirm a plan of adjustment in the COFINA case incorporating the settlement on January 16 and 17, 2019 (the “Confirmation Hearing”). On February 4, 2019, the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico entered the order confirming the Third Amended Title III Plan of Adjustment for COFINA. The Plan effective date was February 12, 2019.

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, as well as office equipment. 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 is recognized on a straight-line basis. The following table provides information about the Company’s leases as of March 31, 2019: