Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

12. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The following commitments and contingencies provide an update of those discussed in Note 18: Commitments and Contingencies in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included Part II, Item 8 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 Against Ambac

Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC, et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al. (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:19-cv-09193-PGG, transferred on October 4, 2019 from the United States District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Case No. 17-cv-04992-BLF, filed August 28, 2017).  On February 15, 2019, Ambac Assurance and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (filed on December 17, 2018, following the court’s dismissal of the first amended complaint without prejudice on July 17, 2018). On April 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Ambac Assurance and the other defendants filed reply briefs on May 16, 2019, and the court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on July 18, 2019. On September 26,

2019, the court issued a decision denying defendants’ motion to dismiss and sua sponte reconsidering its previous denial of defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”). On October 4, 2019, the case was transferred to the SDNY. On October 10, 2019, the defendants filed motions in the SDNY to vacate or reconsider the decision by the Northern District of California on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On October 24, 2019, plaintiffs filed their brief in opposition to defendants' motions to vacate or reconsider, and on October 31, 2019, defendants filed their reply briefs in further support of their motions.

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, et al. v. Autonomy Master Fund Limited, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 19-ap-00291, filed May 2, 2019). On May 2, 2019, the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (the "Oversight Board"), together with the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for the Commonwealth (the "Committee"), as Plaintiffs, filed an adversary proceeding against certain parties that filed proofs of claim on account of general obligation bonds issued by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, including Ambac Assurance. The complaint seeks declarations that the general obligation bonds are unsecured obligations and, in the alternative, seeks to avoid any security interests that holders of such bonds may have. On June 13, 2019, at the request of the Plaintiffs, the District Court stayed the case until September 1, 2019 as to all defendants; on July 24, 2019, the District Court referred this matter to mediation and further stayed the case until November 30, 2019; on October 28, 2019, the District Court extended the stay until December 31, 2019.

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 19-ap-00363, filed May 20, 2019). On May 20, 2019, the Oversight Board, together with the Committee, as Plaintiffs, filed an adversary proceeding against certain parties that filed proofs of claim on account of bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority ("PRHTA"), including Ambac Assurance. The complaint seeks declarations that the PRHTA bonds are only secured by revenues on deposit with the PRHTA Fiscal Agent and that PRHTA bondholders have no security interest in any other property of PRHTA or the Commonwealth, and in the alternative, to the extent such other security interests exist, the complaint seeks to avoid other security interests that holders of PRHTA bonds may have. On June 14, 2019, at the request of the Plaintiffs, the District Court stayed the case until September 1, 2019 as to all defendants; on July 24, 2019, the District Court referred this matter to mediation and further stayed the case until November 30, 2019; on October 28, 2019, the District Court extended the stay until December 31, 2019.

NC Residuals Owners Trust, et al. v. Wilmington Trust Co., et al. (Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No. 2019-0880, filed Nov. 1,  2019).  On November 1, 2019, Ambac Assurance became aware of a new declaratory judgment action filed by certain residual equity interest holders (“NC Owners” or “Plaintiffs”) in fourteen National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts (the “Trusts”) against Wilmington Trust Company, the Owner Trustee for the Trusts; U.S. Bank National Association, the Indenture Trustee; GSS Data Services, Inc., the Administrator; and Ambac Assurance.  Plaintiffs seek a number of judicial determinations, including that the Owner Trustee and Administrator are required to follow the NC Owners’ issuer

orders and cause the invoices of certain retained professional advisors to be paid from the assets of the Trusts as Owner Trustee expenses and Administrator expenses.  Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that, with respect to the Trusts, the Owner Trustee does not owe fiduciary or extracontractual duties to any party except the NC Owners.  Finally, Plaintiffs request their costs and attorney’s fees incurred in connection with this action.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion to expedite the proceedings to obtain a trial and adjudication of their declaratory claim within approximately four months.

From time to time, Ambac is subject to allegations concerning its corporate governance that may lead to litigation, including derivative litigation, and while the monetary impacts may not be material, the matters may distract management and the Board of Directors from their principal focus on Ambac's business, strategy and objectives.

Ambac Assurance’s estimates of projected losses for RMBS transactions consider, among other things, the RMBS transactions’ payment waterfall structure, including the application of interest and principal payments and recoveries, and depend in part on our interpretations of contracts and other bases of our legal rights. From time to time, bond trustees and other transaction participants have employed different contractual interpretations and have commenced, or threatened to commence, litigation to resolve these differences. It is not possible to predict whether additional disputes will arise, nor the outcomes of any potential litigation. It is possible that there could be unfavorable outcomes in this or other disputes or proceedings and that our interpretations may prove to be incorrect, which could lead to changes to our estimate of loss reserves.

Ambac Assurance has periodically received various regulatory inquiries and requests for information with respect to investigations and inquiries that such regulators are conducting. Ambac Assurance has complied with all such inquiries and requests for information.

The Company is involved from time to time in various routine legal proceedings, including proceedings related to litigation with present or former employees. Although the Company’s litigation with present or former employees is routine and incidental to the conduct of its business, such litigation can result in large monetary awards when a civil jury is allowed to determine compensatory and/or punitive damages for, among other things, termination of employment that is wrongful or in violation of implied contracts.

It is not reasonably possible to predict whether additional suits will be filed or whether additional inquiries or requests for information will be made, and it is also not possible to predict the outcome of litigation, inquiries or requests for information. It is possible that there could be unfavorable outcomes in these or other proceedings. Legal accruals for litigation against the Company which are probable and reasonably estimable, and management's estimated range of loss for such matters, are not material to the operating results or financial position of the Company. For the litigation matters the Company is defending that do not meet the “probable and reasonably estimable” accrual threshold and where no loss estimates have been provided above, management is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from unfavorable outcomes. Under some circumstances, adverse results in any such proceedings could be material to our business, operations, financial position, profitability or cash flows. The

Company believes that it has substantial defenses to the claims above and, to the extent that these actions proceed, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously; however, the Company is not able to predict the outcomes of these actions.

Litigation Filed or Joined by Ambac

In the ordinary course of their businesses, certain of Ambac’s subsidiaries assert claims in legal proceedings against third parties to recover losses already paid and/or mitigate future losses. The amounts recovered and/or losses avoided which may result from these proceedings is uncertain, although recoveries and/or losses avoided in any one or more of these proceedings during any quarter or fiscal year could be material to Ambac’s results of operations in that quarter or fiscal year.

Puerto Rico:

Lex Claims, LLC et al. v. Alejandro Garcia Padilla et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 16-2374, filed July 20, 2016). Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties appealed the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 12, 2019, the Oversight Board and the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority ("AAFAF") moved to dismiss these appeals as equitably moot because the COFINA Plan has been consummated. On August 7 and October 4, 2019, the First Circuit denied the motions to dismiss, but without prejudice to reconsideration of the mootness issue by the panel that decides the appeals.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Bank of New York Mellon (United States District Court, Southern District of New York. No. 1:17-cv-03804, filed May 2, 2017). Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties appealed the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 12, 2019, the Oversight Board and AAFAF moved to dismiss these appeals as equitably moot because the COFINA Plan has been consummated. On August 7 and October 4, 2019, the First Circuit denied the motions to dismiss, but without prejudice to reconsideration of the mootness issue by the panel that decides the appeals.

Bank of New York Mellon v. COFINA, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-ap-00133, filed May 16, 2017). Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties appealed the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 12, 2019, the Oversight Board and AAFAF moved to dismiss these appeals as equitably moot because the COFINA Plan has been consummated. On August 7 and October 4, 2019, the First Circuit denied the motions to dismiss, but without prejudice to reconsideration of the mootness issue by the panel that decides the appeals.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Whyte (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-ap-00257, filed September 8, 2017) (the Commonwealth-COFINA Dispute). On February 21, 2019, on the joint motion of the agents for the Commonwealth and COFINA, the Oversight Board, AAFAF, and all participating interested parties, the District Court dismissed this case with prejudice. Following confirmation of the COFINA Plan, several parties appealed the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 12, 2019, the Oversight Board and AAFAF moved to dismiss these appeals as equitably moot

because the COFINA Plan has been consummated. On August 7 and October 4, 2019, the First Circuit denied the motions to dismiss, but without prejudice to reconsideration of the mootness issue by the panel that decides the appeals.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-ap-00159, filed June 8, 2017). On June 24, 2019, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of Ambac Assurance's claims for relief on the grounds that PROMESA deprives courts of jurisdiction to review the Oversight Board's certification determinations, and that PROMESA prohibits the Title III court from interfering with the political or governmental powers of the Commonwealth or the Commonwealth's property or revenues. On September 23, 2019, Ambac Assurance filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Public Buildings Authority (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:18-ap-00149, filed December 21, 2018). On December 21, 2018, the Oversight Board, together with the Committee, as Plaintiffs, filed a complaint against the Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority (“PBA”) seeking declaratory judgment that the leases between PBA and its lessees-many of whom are agencies and instrumentalities of the Commonwealth-are “disguised financings,” not true leases, and therefore should not be afforded administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. On March 12, 2019, Ambac Assurance and other interested parties were permitted to intervene in order to argue that the PBA leases are valid leases, and are entitled to administrative expense treatment under the Bankruptcy Code. Certain intervenor-defendants filed counterclaims for declarations to this effect, and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On June 16, 2019, the Oversight Board announced that it had entered into a plan support agreement ("PSA") with certain general obligation and PBA bondholders that includes a proposed resolution of claim objections to and issues surrounding both general obligation and PBA bonds, including a proposed settlement of this adversary proceeding. On June 27, 2019, the Oversight Board moved to stay this adversary proceeding while it pursues confirmation of the plan contemplated in the PSA. On July 9, 2019, Ambac Assurance objected to the motion to stay. On July 24, 2019, the District Court referred this case to mediation and ordered this case stayed until November 30, 2019; on October 28, 2019, the District Court extended the stay until December 31, 2019.

In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Omnibus Objection of (I) Financial Oversight and Management Board, Acting Through its Special Claims Committee, and (II) Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 502 and Bankruptcy Rule 3007, to Claims Filed or Asserted by Holders of Certain Commonwealth General Obligation Bonds (Dkt. No. 4784, filed January 14, 2019). On January 14, 2019, the Oversight Board and the Committee filed an omnibus claim objection in the Commonwealth’s Title III case challenging claims arising from certain general obligation bonds issued by the Commonwealth in 2012 and 2014 totaling approximately $6 billion, none of which are held or insured by Ambac Assurance. The court subsequently ordered certain consolidated procedures permitting parties in interest an opportunity

to participate in litigation of the objection. On April 11, 2019, Ambac Assurance filed a notice of participation in support of the objection, advancing the argument, among other things, that the PBA leases are true leases, but the associated debt nonetheless should be included in the Commonwealth’s debt ceiling calculation such that the 2012 and 2014 general obligation bond issuances are null and void and claims arising therefrom should be disallowed. On June 16, 2019, the Oversight Board announced that it had entered into a PSA with certain general obligation and PBA bondholders that includes a proposed resolution of claim objections to and issues surrounding both general obligation and PBA bonds, including a proposed settlement of this omnibus claim objection. On June 25, 2019, the Oversight Board moved to stay proceedings related to this omnibus claim objection while it pursues confirmation of the plan contemplated in the PSA. On July 9, 2019, Ambac Assurance objected to the motion to stay. On July 24, 2019, the District Court referred this case to mediation and ordered this case stayed until November 30, 2019; on October 28, 2019, the District Court extended the stay until December 31, 2019. On July 16, 2019, Ambac Assurance filed a motion to strike certain provisions of the PSA that it believes violate PROMESA, including the potential payment of a breakup fee to creditors who have supported the PSA.

In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Ambac Assurance Corporation's Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion Concerning Application of the Automatic Stay to the Revenues Securing PRIFA Rum Tax Bonds (Dkt. No. 7176, filed May 30, 2019). On May 30, 2019, Ambac Assurance filed a motion seeking an order that the automatic stay does not apply to certain lawsuits Ambac Assurance seeks to bring or to continue relating to bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Infrastructure Financing Authority ("PRIFA"), or, in the alternative, for relief from the automatic stay to pursue such lawsuits or for adequate protection of Ambac Assurance's collateral. On July 24, 2019, the District Court referred this case to mediation and ordered this case stayed until November 30, 2019; on October 28, 2019, the District Court extended the stay until December 31, 2019.

Student Loans Exposure:

Nat’l Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust v. Pa. Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) (Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No. 12111-VCS, filed March 21, 2016).  Plaintiffs purporting to act on behalf of fifteen National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts filed a lawsuit against PHEAA, a servicer of loans in the Trusts, alleging improprieties and deficiencies in servicing practices and seeking an order compelling PHEAA to submit to an emergency audit.  Other matters that have been contested in this litigation include the appointment of a successor Owner Trustee of the Trusts, because Wilmington Trust Company has resigned from its role as Owner Trustee, citing irreconcilable differences with Plaintiffs.  Ambac Assurance guaranteed certain securities issued by three of the Trusts and indirectly insures certain securities in six other Trusts.  On October 23, 2017, Ambac Assurance filed a motion to intervene in the action for the limited purpose of being heard regarding the appointment of a successor Owner Trustee and regarding WTC’s contractual commitment and obligation to remain in that role until such appointment is made. On April 10, 2018, the court (Vice Chancellor Slights) granted Ambac Assurance’s motion to intervene. On November 14, 2018, the court appointed Hon. Joseph

J. Farnan, Jr. as Special Master and granted him authority to resolve non-dispositive disputes among the parties, including disputes concerning instructions to the Owner Trustee. The order appointing the Special Master also raises the annual expense caps that apply to the Owner Trustee and Indenture Trustee. On June 21, 2019, the Special Master denied an application by certain residual equity interest holders in the Trusts, which sought to compel the Owner Trustee to appoint certain counsel for the Trusts in CFPB v. Nat’l Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust (United States District Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 1:17-cv-01323, filed September 18, 2017). The residual equity interest holders have appealed the Special Master’s ruling to Vice Chancellor Slights. Oral argument on that appeal was held on October 1, 2019. On October 11, 2019, Vice Chancellor Slights issued a decision affirming the Special Master’s ruling.

RMBS Litigation:

In connection with Ambac Assurance’s efforts to seek redress for breaches of representations and warranties and fraud related to the information provided by both the underwriters and the sponsors of various transactions and for failure to comply with the obligation by the sponsors to repurchase ineligible loans, Ambac Assurance has filed various lawsuits:

• Ambac Assurance Corporation and the Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Countrywide Securities Corp., Countrywide Financial Corp., and Bank of America Corp. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Case No. 653979/2014, filed on December 30, 2014). Discovery has been completed. The court has not yet set a schedule for summary judgment or for trial.

• Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Countrywide Securities Corp., Countrywide Financial Corp. (a.k.a. Bank of America Home Loans) and Bank of America Corp. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Case No. 651612/2010, filed on September 28, 2010). In August and October 2018, Defendants filed pre-trial motions seeking to (1) strike Ambac Assurance’s jury demand for its fraudulent-inducement claim; (2) strike Ambac Assurance’s jury demand for its successor-liability claim; (3) sever the trials for Ambac Assurance’s primary- and successor-liability claims; (4) limit the loans for which Ambac Assurance may seek to recover damages; (5) preclude Ambac Assurance from using sampling to prove liability or damages for breach of contract; and (6) dismiss Ambac Assurance’s fraudulent-inducement claim as duplicative of its contract claim. On December 30, 2018, the court denied all six of these pre-trial motions in their entirety and Defendants appealed. On January 24, 2019, the court ordered that trial be put off until the First Department resolves Defendants’ appeals, provided that Defendants perfected the appeals for the May 2019 Term at the First Department. Defendants perfected their appeals for the May Term by filing their opening appeal briefs in the First Department on February 19, 2019; Ambac Assurance filed its opposition brief on March 20, 2019; and Defendants filed their reply briefs on March 29, 2019. Oral argument on Defendants’ appeals of these six pre-trial motions was held in the First Department on May 2, 2019. On September 17, 2019, the First Department issued a decision

on Defendants’ appeals, affirming Justice Bransten’s ruling in the following respects: (1) denying Countrywide’s motion to strike Ambac Assurance’s jury demand for its fraudulent-inducement claim; (2) denying Countrywide’s motion to limit the loans for which Ambac Assurance may seek to recover damages; (3) denying Countrywide’s motion to preclude Ambac Assurance from using sampling to prove liability or damages for breach of contract; and (4) denying Countrywide’s motion to dismiss Ambac Assurance’s fraudulent-inducement claim as duplicative of its contract claim, but subject to a potential motion by Countrywide to renew. The First Department modified Justice Bransten’s ruling in the following respects: (1) granting Bank of America’s motion to strike Ambac Assurance’s jury demand for its successor-liability claim; and (2) granting Defendants’ motion to sever the trials for Ambac Assurance’s primary- and successor-liability claims. On October 17, 2019, Countrywide filed a motion before the First Department for leave to appeal certain issues to the New York Court of Appeals and for reargument or leave to appeal certain other issues, as follows: Countrywide seeks leave to appeal the First Department’s denial of its motions (1) to limit the loans for which Ambac Assurance may seek to recover damages; (2) to preclude Ambac Assurance from using sampling to prove liability or damages for breach of contract; and (3) to dismiss Ambac Assurance’s fraudulent-inducement claim as duplicative of its contract claim; Countrywide seeks reargument of, or leave to appeal, (1) its motion to strike Ambac Assurance’s jury demand for its fraudulent-inducement claim and (2) the First Department’s ruling that Countrywide is liable for loans that it knew or should have known were in breach. Ambac Assurance filed its opposition to Countrywide’s motion for leave and for reargument on October 25, 2019. On October 28, 2019, Countrywide filed a reply brief, which Ambac Assurance has challenged as being procedurally improper.

• Ambac Assurance Corporation v. U.S. Bank National Association (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Docket No. 18-cv-5182 (LGS), filed June 8, 2018 (the “SDNY Action”)); In the matter of HarborView Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-10 (Minnesota state court, Docket No. 27-TR-CV-17-32 (the “Minnesota Action”)). On February 11, 2019, Ambac Assurance filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court for review of the denial of Ambac Assurance’s motion to dismiss the Minnesota Action. On March 21, 2019, the United States Supreme Court directed U.S. Bank to respond to this petition for certiorari, which U.S. Bank did on May 22, 2019. Ambac Assurance filed a reply brief on June 5, 2019. On October 4, 2019, the Supreme Court denied Ambac Assurance’s petition for certiorari. On October 9, 2019, the court in the Minnesota Action set April 27, 2020 as the date for the start of the trial. On July 16, 2019, the court in the SDNY Action granted in part and denied in part U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss Ambac Assurance's claims. The court dismissed Ambac Assurance's breach-of-contract and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims based on U.S. Bank's acceptance of the settlement; and dismissed Ambac Assurance's declaratory judgment claims regarding the occurrence of an Event of Default and U.S. Bank's future distribution of trust recoveries through the waterfall. The court denied the motion to dismiss Ambac Assurance's breach-of-contract claims based on U.S.

Bank's past distribution of trust recoveries through the waterfall.

• In re application of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee of the Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Loan Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-9 (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, No. 654208/2018), filed August 23, 2018.  In opposing DBNT’s request for an order instructing it to accept the proposed settlement concerning Harborview 2006-9, Ambac Assurance sought a period of discovery before resolution on the merits. Ambac Assurance has issued document requests to DBNT and subpoenas for documents to Countrywide Home Loans and Bank of America N.A. and DBNT has issued document requests to Ambac Assurance. The parties have exchanged documents. DBNT and Ambac Assurance have each served a notice of corporate deposition upon the other. On October 30, 2019, the court ruled that Ambac Assurance does not need to present a witness for deposition. On November 6, 2019, the parties submitted a proposed stipulated case schedule pursuant to which discovery would be completed by March 4, 2020 and merits briefing would be completed by April 8, 2020.

Other Litigation

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“Citigroup”) (United States District Court Southern District of New York, Docket No. 11-CV-7387, filed in October 2011). This suit related to a collateralized debt obligation transaction arranged by Citigroup in which Ambac Credit Products, LLC ("ACP") (insured by Ambac Assurance) provided credit protection through a credit default swap to a bank counterparty that was exposed to the transaction. Citigroup was found to have misled ACP and the other parties to the transaction, and the SEC and Citigroup reached a settlement of this action for $285,000. The presiding judge approved the settlement in August of 2014. A fair fund has been established to distribute the $285,000 (plus interest and $2,550 received from a related proceeding less costs and taxes). RCB Fund Services (the “Distribution Agent”) was appointed as distribution agent for the fund and invited participants in the CDO transaction to provide information regarding their investments in the CDO transaction. Ambac Assurance filed a submission with the requested information on February 28, 2018. The Distribution Agent, in consultation with the SEC, developed a distribution plan for the fair fund, which was filed with the Court on July 1, 2019. On the same day, the SEC filed with the Court a memorandum in support for an order to approve the distribution plan. The Court approved the distribution plan at the conclusion of the hearing on August 8, 2019. In September 2019, Ambac received approximately $142,225 from the fair fund. Ambac had not previously recorded any receivable for its estimated portion of these settlement proceeds and recorded such amounts in the third quarter of 2019 within other income on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income.