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 claims 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. In November of 2020, following a trial and post-trial briefing, the court overseeing the litigation issued a decision declaring that MBIA Corp. had succeeded in establishing that a majority of the loans in the transaction were ineligible. In January of 2021, the Court issued an order declaring that Credit Suisse was liable to MBIA Corp. for approximately $604 million in damages. On February 9, 2021, the parties to the litigation entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which Credit Suisse paid MBIA Corp. $600 million, and on February 11, 2021, the court entered an order dismissing the case.

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., seeking damages based on allegations of 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. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 15, 2016. The parties completed discovery in 2017. In February of 2021, the parties submitted respective cross-motions for summary judgment.

On November 27, 2017, Lynn Tilton and certain affiliated entities commenced a third-party complaint against MBIA Inc., MBIA Insurance Corp. and other Zohar Fund stakeholders seeking damages for alleged breaches of the contracts governing the Zohar Funds and additional alleged legal duties and obligations relating to the Funds. On December 22, 2020, the Company and the other third-party defendants moved to dismiss the third-party complaint. Briefing on those motions to dismiss is complete and the motions are under submission.

On October 1, 2019, Lynn Tilton and certain affiliated entities commenced an adversary proceeding in the Zohar Funds Bankruptcy Cases against MBIA Inc., MBIA Corp. and other Zohar Funds creditor seeking the equitable subordination of those creditors’ claims with respect to the Zohar Funds. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to relief due to inequitable and unfair conduct by defendants. The Company and the other defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on October 30, 2020. Briefing on those motions is anticipated to be completed as of March of 2021.

On July 30, 2020, MBIA Corp. commenced an adversary proceeding in the Zohar Funds Bankruptcy Cases against Lynn Tilton and certain affiliated entities seeking damages incurred by MBIA Corp. in connection with insurance policies it issued on senior notes issued by Zohar I and Zohar II. Tilton and her affiliated defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on October 23, 2020. The briefing on such motion is complete and the motion is under submission.

On August 8, 2019, National and MBIA Corp. filed suit in the Court of First Instance in San Juan, Puerto Rico against UBS Financial Services, Inc., UBS Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Fenner & Smith Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC, and Santander Securities LLC, bringing two claims under Puerto Rico law: doctrina de actos propios (the doctrine of one’s own acts) and unilateral declaration of will. These claims concern the insurance by National of bonds issued by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its instrumentalities that were underwritten by these defendants. National alleges that, when the defendants solicited bond insurance, they represented through their acts that they would investigate certain information they provided to National and that they had a reasonable basis to believe that information was true and complete. National further alleges that the defendants did not perform such investigations and that key information was untrue or incomplete. National seeks damages to be proven at trial. On September 16, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. National filed its objection to that motion on October 7, 2020, and briefing concluded on November 30, 2020. A decision is pending.

Motion of Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., Ambac Assurance Corporation and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation for Relief from the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, for Adequate Protection,

Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS (D.P.R. January 16, 2020) (Swain, J.)

On January 16, 2020, National, Ambac and Assured (“Movants”) filed a renewed motion in the PRHTA Title III case for relief from the automatic stay or, in the alternative, adequate protection. The motion seeks leave to file a complaint in Puerto Rico, and argues that the revenues securing the bonds insured by Movants are being improperly diverted away from PRHTA, despite such revenues being the exclusive property of PRHTA and its bondholders. Following a preliminary lift stay hearing held on June 4, 2020, on July 2, 2020, Judge Swain ruled that the Movants had failed to satisfy its burden of presenting a colorable claim that they had a statutory, contractual or equitable lien on HTA. On September 9, 2020, the Court entered a final order denying the HTA lift stay motion, finding that a balancing of factors does not support stay relief. The Movants appealed, and the case was argued before the First Circuit Court of Appeals on February 4, 2021. A decision is pending. In the event that National does not terminate its participation in the 2021 PSA, on or prior to March 31, 2021, the Oversight Board and National shall jointly request the entry of an order in the Title III court staying National’s actions to lift the automatic stay in the GO and HTA Title III cases, and National shall take no further action with respect to that proceeding subject to the plan resolving the GO Title III case becoming effective.

On May 20, 2019, the Oversight Board and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of all Title III Debtors filed an adversary complaint against National and numerous other defendants, challenging the extent and enforceability of certain security interests in PRHTA revenues. The proceeding is currently stayed.

On January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board filed an adversary complaint against National, Ambac, Assured Guaranty, Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, Peaje Investments LLC and the Bank of New York Mellon as fiscal agent. The Oversight Board challenges the claims and validity of the liens asserted against the Commonwealth by holders of HTA bonds. The complaint contains 201 counts against the bondholder parties objecting to proofs of claim and security interests asserted regarding the Commonwealth’s retention of certain revenues previously assigned to HTA. This matter is currently stayed but the Court permitted the Oversight Board to file certain limited cross motions on April 28, 2020. The cross motions for summary judgment were filed on July 16, 2020. On September 23, 2020, Judge Swain heard argument on the limited cross motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. On January 20, 2021, Judge Swain issued an order deferring the adjudication of the summary judgment motions so that defendant monolines can seek limited

On January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board and the Creditors Committee filed an adversary complaint against National and other defendants challenging the claims and validity of the liens asserted against HTA by holders and insurers of HTA bonds. The complaint contains 302 counts challenging the claims and liens asserted against HTA.

On July 18, 2017, National, together with other PREPA bondholders, asked the court overseeing PREPA’s Title III case 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. The bondholders appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On August 8, 2018, the First Circuit issued an order reversing Judge Swain’s decision on jurisdictional grounds and remanding the motion. On October 3, 2018, National, along with other monolines filed an updated motion for relief from the automatic stay to allow them to exercise their statutory right to have a receiver appointed at PREPA. The Oversight Board filed a motion to dismiss the receiver motion. These motions have been stayed until five business days following the ruling on the PREPA 9019 Settlement Motion. The PREPA 9019 Settlement Motion has been adjourned until further order of the Court.

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. (together, the “RSA Parties”) previously entered into the Restructuring Support Agreement (“RSA”). On September 9, 2019 National, and Syncora Guarantee Inc. (“Syncora”), and the RSA Parties agreed on an amendment to the RSA pursuant to which National and Syncora joined the RSA. The RSA includes the agreement for resolving PREPA’s restructuring plan issues and arrangements.

Pursuant to the RSA, the Oversight Board filed a Rule 9019 motion with the Title III court in May of 2019 seeking approval of the RSA (the “Settlement Motion”). The RSA requires, upon entry of the order approving the Settlement Motion (the “9019 Order”), that Movants will withdraw the Receiver Motion, and the Ad Hoc Group will support such withdrawal. As contemplated by the RSA, on July 1, 2019, the Oversight Board and AAFAF also filed an adversary complaint against the Trustee for the PREPA Bonds, challenging the validity of the liens arising under the Trust Agreement that secure insured obligations of National. The adversary proceeding is stayed until the earlier of (a) 60 days after the Court denies the Settlement Motion, (b) consummation of a Plan, (c) 60 days after the filing by the Oversight Board and AAFAF of a Litigation Notice, or (d) further order of the Court. The hearing for the Settlement Motion has been adjourned until further order of the Court. The RSA, by its terms, requires certain legislation be enacted and such legislation may not receive sufficient votes for passage. In addition, the restructuring the RSA contemplates has received criticism from various parties including members of the Puerto Rico government and other stakeholders. This opposition could adversely affect the ability of the Oversight Board and RSA Parties to consummate the Settlement Motion and RSA.

On May 2, 2019, the Oversight Board and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of all Title III Debtors (other than COFINA) (the “Committee”) filed lien avoidance adversary complaints against several hundred defendants, including National, challenging the existence, extent, and enforceability of GO bondholders’ liens. After an approximately five-month stay of litigation entered by the Court on July 24, 2019, these adversary proceedings resumed pursuant to an interim schedule entered by the Court in December 2019. On February 5, 2020, National and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. filed a motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding. The motion has been stayed indefinitely by order of the Court.

On July 9, 2019, the “Fuel Line Lenders,” parties who extended approximately $700 million to PREPA beginning in 2012 to fund fuel purchases, filed an adversary complaint against the Oversight Board, PREPA, AAFAF, and the Trustee for the PREPA Bonds, alleging that they are entitled to be paid in full before National and other bondholders have any lien on or recourse to PREPA’s assets, including pursuant to the RSA. On September 30, 2019, the Fuel Line Lenders filed an amended complaint which added National, Assured, Syncora, and the Ad Hoc Group as defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss the Fuel Line Lenders’ adversary complaint on November 11, 2019. The Fuel Line Lenders filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 5, 2019. Defendants’ reply in support of the motion to dismiss was filed February 3, 2020. The hearing on the motion to dismiss was adjourned until the Court determines when the 9019 Settlement Motion and related litigation will recommence.

On December 21, 2018, the Oversight Board and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of all Debtors other than COFINA filed an adversary complaint against the PBA, seeking a declaration that leases purportedly entered into by PBA are in fact disguised financing transactions and that PBA therefore has no right under PROMESA or the Bankruptcy Code to receive post-petition payments from the Title III debtors or administrative claims against the debtors. On January 28, 2019, National filed a motion to intervene in the proceeding. On March 12, 2019, the Court granted National’s intervention motion. On March 19, 2019, National filed an answer to the complaint. On September 27, 2019, the Oversight Board filed a voluntary petition for relief for PBA pursuant to PROMESA, commencing a case under Title III. The complaint has been stayed indefinitely by order of the Court.

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.

The Company has a lease agreement for its headquarters in Purchase, New York as well as an immaterial lease for an office in 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 the Company recognizes operating rent expense on a straight-line basis. The following below table presents the Company’s operating lease information as of December 31, 2020: