Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended	12 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2021	Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	20. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	20. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Litigation Against Ambac - Pending Cases 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). Plaintiffs, the corporate developers of various military housing projects, filed an amended complaint on October 27, 2017 against AAC, a former employee of AAC, and certain unaffiliated persons and entities, asserting claims for (i) violation of 18 U.S.C §§ 1962(c) and 1962(d) (civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and conspiracy to commit civil RICO), (ii) breach of fiduciary duty, (iii) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, (iv) fraudulent misrepresentation, (v) fraudulent concealment and (vi) conspiracy to commit fraud. The claims relate to bonds and debt certificates (insured by AAC) that were issued to finance the renovation and construction of housing at certain military bases. Plaintiffs allege that defendants secretly conspired to overcharge plaintiffs for the financing of the projects and directed the excess profits to themselves. Plaintiffs allege defendants generated these excess profits by supposedly charging inflated interest rates, manipulating “shadow ratings,” charging unnecessary fees, and hiding evidence of their alleged wrongdoing. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages, disgorgement of profits and fees, punitive damages, trebled damages and attorneys’ fees. AAC and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on November 13, 2017. On July 17, 2018, the court granted AAC’s and the other defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint without prejudice. On December 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On February 15, 2019, AAC and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. 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 10, 2019, after the case was transferred to the SDNY, the defendants filed motions to vacate or reconsider the decision by the Northern District of California on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On March 31, 2021, the court granted defendants’ motions for reconsideration and, upon reconsideration, dismissed the claims against AAC and its former employee for breach of fiduciary duty and for aiding and abetting breach of AAC’s or its former employee’s fiduciary duty; dismissed two plaintiffs’ RICO claims against AAC and its former employee; and in all other respects denied defendants’ motions. Defendants served answers to the second amended complaint on April 21, 2021, asserting several affirmative defenses, including a defense for unclean hands focused on the plaintiffs’ failure to maintain the project properties and falsification of maintenance records. On May 24, 2021, plaintiffs moved to strike defendants’ unclean hands defenses. On September 14, 2021, Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave, to whom plaintiffs’ motion to strike was referred for a Report and Recommendation, issued an opinion and order denying plaintiffs’ motion. On April 6, 2022, certain co-defendants filed a motion to sever the plaintiffs’ claims and to dismiss all claims except for claims asserted by the Monterey Bay plaintiffs. In re National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts Litigation (Delaware Court of Chancery, Consolidated C.A. No. 12111, filed November 1, 2019). On November 1, 2019, AAC 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 AAC. Through this action, Plaintiffs seek a number of judicial determinations. On January 21, 2020, the presiding Vice Chancellor entered an order consolidating the action with previously filed litigation relating to the Trusts. On February 13, 2020, AAC, the Owner Trustee, the Indenture Trustee, and other parties filed declaratory judgment counterclaims. Several parties, including Plaintiffs and AAC, filed motions for judgment on the pleadings in support of their requested judicial determinations. On August 27, 2020, the Vice Chancellor issued an opinion addressing all of the pending motions for judgment on the pleadings, which granted certain of the parties’ requested judicial determinations and denied others. He deferred judgment on still other declarations pending further factual development. The Vice Chancellor has entered a series of stays to facilitate good-faith settlement discussions, the most recent of which was entered on January 27, 2023, and stays the matter through February 28, 2023. 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”), 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 AAC. 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 12, 2019, a group of general obligation bondholders moved to dismiss the complaint. 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 ordered it stayed during the pendency of such mediation. AAC filed a statement of position and reservation of rights on February 5, 2020; certain other defendants filed motions to dismiss on this same date. On February 9, 2020, the Oversight Board announced that it intended to file, and to seek to confirm, an amended plan of adjustment (the “Commonwealth Plan”). On March 10, 2020, the District Court ordered that this case remain stayed while the Oversight Board attempted to confirm the Commonwealth Plan. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed (as described below), resolved this litigation. On May 9, 2022, the District Court dismissed this case. 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 PRHTA (as defined below), including AAC. 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; on July 24, 2019, the District Court referred this matter to mediation and ordered it stayed during the pendency of such mediation. On December 19, 2019, the District Court ordered that this matter remain stayed pending further order of the District Court pursuant to the Oversight Board’s initiation of a separate adversary proceeding concerning PRHTA bonds (No. 20-ap-00005, discussed below). The October 12, 2022 confirmation of the PRHTA POA (as defined below), which is currently being appealed (as described below), resolved this litigation. AAC expects this case will be dismissed pursuant to PRHTA POA. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 20-ap-00003, filed Jan. 16, 2020). On January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board filed an adversary proceeding against monoline insurers insuring PRIFA (as defined below) bonds and the PRIFA bond trustee, all of which defendants filed proofs of claim against the Commonwealth relating to PRIFA bonds. The complaint seeks to disallow defendants’ proofs of claim against the Commonwealth in their entirety, including for lack of secured status. On February 27, 2020, defendants filed motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2020, the District Court stayed the motions to dismiss and authorized the Oversight Board to move for summary judgment, which motion defendants opposed. On May 5, 2021, Assured Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. (“Assured”) and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (“National”) announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement (as defined below). On July 14, 2021, AAC and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (“FGIC”) reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement (as defined below). On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRIFA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement (as defined below). On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed (as described below), resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the District Court entered an order closing this adversary proceeding. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 20-ap-00004, filed Jan. 16, 2020). On January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board filed an adversary proceeding against monoline insurers insuring PRCCDA (as defined below) bonds and the PRCCDA bond trustee, all of which defendants filed proofs of claim against the Commonwealth relating to PRCCDA bonds. The complaint seeks to disallow defendants’ proofs of claim against the Commonwealth in their entirety, including for lack of secured status. On February 27, 2020, defendants filed motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2020, the District Court stayed the motions to dismiss and authorized the Oversight Board to move for summary judgment, which motion defendants opposed. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRCCDA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed (as described below), resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the Court entered an order closing this adversary proceeding. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 20-ap-00005, filed Jan. 16, 2020). On January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board filed an adversary proceeding against monoline insurers insuring PRHTA bonds, certain PRHTA bondholders, and the PRHTA fiscal agent for bondholders, all of which defendants filed proofs of claim against the Commonwealth relating to PRHTA bonds. The complaint seeks to disallow defendants’ proofs of claim against the Commonwealth in their entirety, including for lack of secured status. On February 27, 2020, defendants filed motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2020, the District Court stayed the motions to dismiss and authorized the Oversight Board to move for summary judgment, which motion defendants opposed. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRHTA fiscal agent jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed (as described below), resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the District Court entered an order closing this adversary proceeding. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 20-ap-00007, filed Jan. 16, 2020). On January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board and the Committee filed an adversary proceeding against monoline insurers insuring bonds issued by PRHTA, certain PRHTA bondholders, and the PRHTA fiscal agent for bondholders, all of which defendants filed proofs of claim against PRHTA relating to PRHTA bonds. The complaint seeks to disallow portions of defendants’ proofs of claim against PRHTA, including for lack of secured status. On March 10, 2020, the District Court stayed this case. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRHTA fiscal agent jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. On April 14, 2022, the Oversight Board filed a notice that this case has not been resolved by the Commonwealth Plan and should remain pending. The October 12, 2022 confirmation of the PRHTA POA, which is currently being appealed (as described below), resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the Court entered an order closing this adversary proceeding. Litigation Against Ambac - General AAC’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. AAC has periodically received various regulatory inquiries and requests for information with respect to investigations and inquiries that such regulators are conducting. AAC 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 such litigation routine and incidental to the conduct of its business, such litigation can potentially result in large monetary awards when a civil jury is allowed to determine compensatory and/or punitive damages. Everspan may be subject to disputes with policyholders regarding the scope and extent of coverage offered under Everspan's policies; be required to defend claimants in suits against its policyholders for covered liability claims; or enter into commercial disputes with its reinsurers, MGA/Us or third party claims administrators regarding their respective contractual obligations and rights. Under some circumstances, the results of such disputes or suits may lead to liabilities beyond those which are anticipated or reserved. 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. 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 in which a loss is probable and reasonably estimable are not material to the operating results or financial position of the Company, nor is it possible to predict a range of loss in excess of the accrued amounts. For all other litigation matters the Company is defending, 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 On January 18, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (the “District Court”) entered an order confirming a plan of adjustment for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “Commonwealth Plan”). On January 20, 2022, the District Court entered orders approving a Qualifying Modification (the “PRIFA QM”) for the Puerto Rico Infrastructure Finance Authority (“PRIFA”) and a Qualifying Modification (the “PRCCDA QM”) for the Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority (“PRCCDA”). On October 12, 2022, the District Court entered an order confirming a plan of adjustment (the “PRHTA POA”) for the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (the “PRHTA”). These two plans of adjustment and two qualifying modifications incorporated settlements reached between AAC, the Oversight Board, and certain other parties related to each of AAC’s Puerto Rico-related exposures, which included agreements with respect to the treatment of general obligation and Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority (“PBA”) bonds (the “GO/PBA Settlement”), PRHTA and PRCCDA bonds (the “PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement”), and PRIFA bonds (the “PRIFA Settlement”). By incorporating these settlements, the Commonwealth Plan, PRIFA QM, PRCCDA QM, and PRHTA POA resolved the majority of AAC’s outstanding Puerto Rico-related litigation. The confirmation orders for both the Commonwealth Plan and the PRHTA POA have been appealed; if either confirmation order is reversed on appeal, the litigations that have been resolved by that confirmation order may be affected. The status of those appeals is discussed immediately below, followed by a discussion of AAC’s additional remaining outstanding Puerto Rico-related litigation. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17- bk-03283) (appeals of the Commonwealth Plan). On January 18, 2022, the District Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan and entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law related thereto. Several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, including a number of teachers’ unions (“the Teachers’ Unions”), the Oversight Board, certain individual creditors, a number of credit unions (“the Credit Unions”), and Suiza Dairy Corporation (“Suiza”). Teachers’ Unions: On April 26, 2022, the First Circuit rejected the Teachers’ Unions’ challenges to the Commonwealth Plan and affirmed the confirmation order; on May 10, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions petitioned for rehearing en banc. On May 13, 2022, the First Circuit denied the Teachers’ Unions’ petition for rehearing en banc. On August 9, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the First Circuit’s decision affirming the confirmation order; the Supreme Court denied the Teachers’ Unions’ petition on November 21, 2022. Oversight Board: On July 18, 2022, the First Circuit rejected the Oversight Board’s challenges to, and affirmed, the confirmation order. The Oversight Board filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the First Circuit’s decision in its appeal of the confirmation order on October 17, 2022; the Supreme Court denied the petition on February 21, 2023. Individual creditors: On October 27, 2022, the First Circuit entered an order dismissing the individual creditors’ confirmation appeal. Credit Unions: On November 23, 2022, the First Circuit entered an order dismissing the Credit Unions’ appeal. Suiza: The Suiza appeal remains pending before the First Circuit. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17- bk-03567) (appeal of the PRHTA POA). On October 12, 2022, the District Court entered an order confirming the PRHTA POA and entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law related thereto. On October 24, 2022, a group of present and former employees of PRHTA (“the Vazquez-Velazquez Group”) filed a notice of appeal with respect to, and a motion to stay, the PRHTA POA confirmation order. On October 28, 2022, a number of parties—including AAC—filed an opposition to the stay motion, requesting, in the alternative, that the appealing parties seeking a stay be required to post supersedeas bonds pending appeal. On November 15, 2022, the District Court entered an order denying the Vazquez-Velazquez Group’s motion for a stay pending appeal. On November 21, 2022, the Vazquez-Velazquez Group filed a motion in the First Circuit for a stay pending appeal. On November 29, 2022, a number of parties—including the Oversight Board and AAC—filed oppositions to the Vazquez-Velazquez Group’s stay motion. The Vazquez-Velazquez Group filed a brief on the same day requesting to withdraw their stay motion. The First Circuit granted the request to withdraw the stay motion on November 30, 2022. The Vazquez-Velazquez Group filed its opening brief in the First Circuit on February 15, 2023. Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., and Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Alejandro Garcia Padilla, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico No. 3:16-cv-01037, filed January 7, 2016). On January 7, 2016, AAC, along with co-plaintiffs Assured, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief to protect its rights against the illegal clawback of certain revenue by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Defendants moved to dismiss on January 29, 2016. On October 4, 2016, the court denied the Defendants’ motions to dismiss. On October 14, 2016, Defendants filed a Notice of Automatic Stay, asserting that Plaintiffs’ claims have been rendered moot and further asserting that the case was automatically stayed under section 405 of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act ("PROMESA"). On May 3, 2017, the Oversight Board filed a petition to adjust the Commonwealth’s debts under Title III of PROMESA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against the Commonwealth. On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. AAC expects this case will be dismissed given the settlements reached between AAC and the Oversight Board. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 16-cv-1893, filed May 10, 2016). AAC filed a complaint against the PRHTA on May 10, 2016, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract in connection with PRHTA’s extension of an existing toll road concession agreement. The complaint alleges that it was inappropriate for PRHTA to enter into the extension agreement in its current state of financial distress because PRHTA has no control over, and is unlikely to receive, the proceeds of the transaction. AAC also filed related motions seeking the appointment of a provisional receiver for PRHTA and expedited discovery. On May 21, 2017, the Oversight Board filed a petition to adjust PRHTA’s debts under Title III of PROMESA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against PRHTA. On May 24, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. The settlements reached between AAC and the Oversight Board resolved this litigation, and the January 20, 2022 PRIFA QM provided for dismissal of this case. AAC expects this case will be dismissed pursuant to the PRIFA QM. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 17-1567, filed May 2, 2017). On May 2, 2017, AAC filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the Commonwealth’s Fiscal and Economic Growth Plan (the “FEGP”) and a statute called the “Fiscal Plan Compliance Law” are unconstitutional and unlawful because they violate the Contracts, Takings, and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, are preempted by PROMESA, and are unlawful transfers of property from COFINA to the Commonwealth in violation of PROMESA. On May 3, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and on May 5, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of COFINA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against COFINA. On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRCCDA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC's joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. The settlements reached between AAC and the Oversight Board resolved this litigation, and the January 20, 2022 PRIFA QM provided for dismissal of this case. On January 24, 2023, the court dismissed this case. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 17-1568, filed May 2, 2017). On May 2, 2017, AAC filed a complaint alleging that various moratorium laws and executive orders enacted by the Commonwealth to claw back funds from PRIFA, PRHTA, and PRCCDA bonds violate the Contracts, Takings, and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, are preempted by PROMESA, and unlawfully transfer PRHTA, PRCCDA, and PRIFA property to the Commonwealth. On May 3, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and on May 21, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of PRHTA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against the Commonwealth and PRHTA (respectively). On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRCCDA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC's joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be further stayed. The settlements reached between AAC and the Oversight Board resolved this litigation, and the January 20, 2022 PRIFA QM provided for dismissal of this case. On February 1, 2023, the court dismissed this case. 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). On May 2, 2017, AAC filed a complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York County, against the trustee for the COFINA bonds, Bank of New York Mellon (“BNY”), alleging breach of fiduciary, contractual, and other duties for failing to adequately and appropriately protect the holders of certain AAC-insured senior COFINA bonds. On May 19, 2017, BNY filed a notice of removal of this action from New York state court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On May 30, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico entered an order in an adversary proceeding brought by BNY (No. 1:17-ap-00133) staying this litigation pending further order of the court. The COFINA Plan became effective on February 12, 2019, and, pursuant to the District Court’s confirmation order, this litigation was permitted to continue, with AAC’s claims against BNYM being limited to those for gross negligence, willful misconduct and intentional fraud. On November 17, 2021, the District Court denied as moot BNY's motion to transfer venue to the District of Puerto Rico and continued the stay of the action. On July 6, 2022, the District Court granted AAC’s motion to lift the stay and for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). AAC filed its SAC on July 10, 2022, and on July 25, 2022, BNY moved to dismiss the SAC. On September 23, 2022, Ambac filed its opposition to BNY’s motion to dismiss, and on October 24, 2022, BNY filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss. Oral argument has been requested but not yet scheduled. 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 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, AAC 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. On March 10, 2020, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed while the Oversight Board attempted to confirm the Commonwealth Plan. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, resolved this litigation. AAC expects this case will be dismissed pursuant to the Commonwealth Plan. 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) (“GO Bond Claim Objection”). 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 AAC. On April 11, 2019, AAC 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 February 5 and 19, 2020, certain parties filed motions to dismiss the claim objection. On March 10, 2020, the District Court ordered that this matter remain stayed while the Oversight Board attempted to confirm the Commonwealth Plan. On July 19, 2020, the Committee filed a motion to lift the stay on this claim objection in light of changes to the Commonwealth’s fiscal plan and likely changes to the Commonwealth Plan in light of COVID-19. On September 1, 2020, AAC filed a partial joinder to the Committee’s motion. On September 17, 2020, the District Court denied the Committee’s motion without prejudice. On October 1, 2020, the Committee moved the District Court to reconsider its denial of the Committee’s motion to lift the stay; on October 5, 2020, the District Court denied the Committee’s motion for reconsideration. On October 16, 2020, the Committee appealed to the First Circuit the District Court’s order denying the Committee’s motion to lift the stay on its claim objection. On February 22, 2021, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the Court entered an order terminating this matter. 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) (“PRIFA Stay Motion”). On May 30, 2019, AAC and FGIC filed a motion seeking an order that the automatic stay does not apply to certain lawsuits AAC seeks to bring or to continue relating to bonds issued by PRIFA, or, in the alternative, for relief from the automatic stay to pursue such lawsuits or for adequate protection of AAC's collateral. On January 31, 2020, AAC, FGIC, Assured, and the PRIFA bond trustee filed an amended motion seeking substantially similar relief. On July 2, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on certain grounds. Briefing regarding additional grounds on which AAC and other movants seek stay relief concluded on August 5, 2020; on September 9, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on the additional grounds. On September 23, 2020, AAC and the other movants appealed this decision to the First Circuit. On March 3, 2021, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s opinions denying the motion to lift the stay. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement, and as a result of that settlement, also joined the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRIFA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this motion as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this motion be stayed. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, resolved this litigation. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Motion of Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Municipal Corp., Ambac Assurance Corporation, National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation, and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company for Relief from the Automatic Stay, or, in the Alternative, Adequate Protection (Dkt. No. 10102, filed January 16, 2020) (“PRHTA Stay Motion”). On January 16, 2020, AAC, Assured, National, and FGIC filed a motion seeking an order that the automatic stay does not apply to movants’ enforcement of the application of pledged revenues to the PRHTA bonds or the enforcement of movants’ liens on revenues pledged to such bonds, or, in the alternative, for adequate protection of movants’ interests in the revenues pledged to PRHTA bonds. On July 2, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on certain grounds. Briefing regarding additional grounds on which AAC and other movants seek stay relief concluded on August 5, 2020; on September 9, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on the additional grounds. On September 23, 2020, AAC and the other movants appealed this decision to the First Circuit. On March 3, 2021, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s opinions denying the motion to lift the stay. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On May 11, 2021, the Oversight Board, Assured, and National jointly moved to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. AAC and FGIC objected to the motion to stay on May 18, 2021, and briefing on the motion to stay concluded on May 21, 2021. On May 25, 2021, the District Court ordered this case stayed with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRHTA fiscal agent jointly moved to stay this motion as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this motion be stayed. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, resolved this litigation. 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, Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Municipal Corp., and the Bank of New York Mellon’s Motion Concerning Application of the Automatic Stay to the Revenues Securing the CCDA Bonds (Dkt. No. 10104, filed January 16, 2020) (“PRCCDA Stay Motion”). On January 16, 2020, AAC, FGIC, Assured, and the PRCCDA bond trustee filed a motion seeking an order either (i) that the automatic stay does not apply to movants’ enforcement of their rights to revenues pledged to PRCCDA bonds by bringing an enforcement action against PRCCDA; or, in the alternative, (ii) lifting the automatic stay to enable movants to pursue an enforcement action against PRCCDA; or, in the further alternative, (iii) ordering adequate protection of movants’ interests in the PRCCDA pledged to PRCCDA bonds. On July 2, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on certain grounds, but found that the movants had stated a colorable claim that a certain account was the “Transfer Account” on which movants hold a lien. Briefing regarding additional grounds on which AAC and other movants seek stay relief concluded on August 5, 2020; on September 9, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on the additional grounds, and found that a final determination on issues related to the identity of the Transfer Account would be made in the decision on the motions for summary judgment issued in the PRCCDA-related adversary proceeding, No. 20-ap-00004. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On May 11, 2021, the Oversight Board, Assured, and National jointly moved to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. AAC and FGIC objected to the motion to stay on May 18, 2021, and briefing on the motion to stay concluded on May 21, 2021. On May 25, 2021, the District Court ordered this case stayed with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRCCDA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this motion as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this motion be stayed. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the Court entered an order terminating the PRCCDA Stay Motion. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Oriental Financial Services LLC; Popular Securities LLC; Raymond James & Associates, Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC; Samuel A. Ramirez & Co. Inc., Santander Securities LLC; UBS Financial Services Inc.; and UBS Securities LLC (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Court of First Instance, San Juan Superior Court, Case No. SJ-2020-CV-01505, filed February 19, 2020). On February 19, 2020, AAC filed a complaint in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Court of First Instance, San Juan Superior Court, against certain underwriters of Ambac-insured bonds issued by PRIFA and PRCCDA, with causes of action under the Puerto Rico civil law doctrines of actos propios and Unilateral Declaration of Will. AAC alleges defendants engaged in inequitable conduct in underwriting Ambac-insured bonds issued by PRIFA and PRCCDA, including failing to investigate and adequately disclose material information in the official statements for the bonds that defendants provided to AAC regarding systemic deficiencies in the Commonwealth’s financial reporting. AAC seeks damages in compensation for claims paid by AAC on its financial guaranty insurance policies insuring such bonds, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees. On March 20, 2020, defendants removed this case to the Title III Court; AAC moved to remand the case back to the Court of First Instance on April 20, 2020, and on July 29, 2020, the District Court granted AAC’s motion to remand. AAC filed an amended complaint in the Commonwealth court on October 28, 2020, adding claims on bonds issued by the Commonwealth, PBA and PRHTA and adding defendants that had underwritten these bonds. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on December 8 and 14, 2020. On July 30, 2021, the Commonwealth court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. AAC appealed the dismissal to the Commonwealth Court of Appeals on September 16, 2021; on April 27, 2022, the Commonwealth Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. On May 31, 2022, Ambac filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of the decision in the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. The petition was denied on July 13, 2022. AAC filed a motion for reconsideration on July 28, 2022. The Puerto Rico Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration on November 10, 2022. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Autopistas Metropolitanas de Puerto Rico, LLC (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 3:20-cv-01094, filed February 19, 2020). On February 19, 2020, AAC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, against Autopistas Metropolitanas de Puerto Rico, LLC (“Metropistas”), which holds a concession from PRHTA for two Puerto Rico highways, PR-5 and PR-22, in connection with a 10-year extension of the concession that was entered into in April 2016. The complaint includes claims for fraudulent conveyance and unjust enrichment, alleging that the consideration paid by Metropistas for the extension was less than reasonably equivalent value and most of the benefit of such payment was received by the Commonwealth instead of PRHTA. AAC also seeks a declaratory judgment that it has a valid and continuing lien on certain toll revenues that are being collected by Metropistas. On March 31, 2020, the Oversight Board filed a motion before the Title III Court seeking an order directing Ambac to withdraw its complaint. On June 16, 2020, the Title III Court ordered AAC to withdraw its complaint. AAC moved to withdraw its complaint on June 23, 2020, and noticed an appeal from the Title III Court’s order to withdraw on June 30, 2020. Oral argument before the First Circuit was held on March 8, 2021. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, and Metropistas jointly moved to stay this appeal as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 4, 2021, the First Circuit ordered that this appeal be stayed. On February 10, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal in the First Circuit appeal; on February 13, 2023, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal. Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 3:20-ap-00068, filed May 26, 2020). On May 26, 2020, AAC filed an adversary complaint before the Title III Court seeking (i) a declaration that titles I, II, and III of PROMESA are unconstitutional because they violate the Bankruptcy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (which requires all bankruptcy laws to be uniform) and (ii) dismissal of the pending Title III petitions. On August 17, 2020, the Oversight Board filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; on August 18, 2020, the Official Committee of Retired Employees of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “Retiree Committee”) and the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority (“AAFAF”) filed joinders to the motion to dismiss. The United States filed a memorandum of law in support of the constitutionality of PROMESA on October 2, 2020. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRCCDA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, resolved this litigation. On March 23, 2022, the District Court dismissed this case. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Urgent Motion for Bridge Order, and Motion for Appointment as Trustees Under 11 U.S.C. § 926, of Ambac Assurance Corporation, Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (Dkt. No. 13708, filed July 17, 2020) (“PRHTA Trustee Motion”). On July 17, 2020, AAC, Assured, FGIC, and National filed a motion seeking appointment as trustees under Section 926 of the Bankruptcy Code to pursue certain avoidance actions on behalf of PRHTA against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The PRHTA Trustee Motion attached a proposed complaint detailing the avoidance claims that movants would pursue. On August 11, 2020, the District Court denied the PRHTA Trustee Motion; on August 24, 2020, movants noticed an appeal of the denial of the PRHTA Trustee Motion to the First Circuit. On July 29, 2021, AAC, Assured, FGIC, and National jointly moved to dismiss the appeal at the First Circuit as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the PRIFA Settlement. On July 30, 2021, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, resolved this litigation. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Objection of Ambac Assurance Corporation, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 502 and Bankruptcy Rule 3007, to Claim Asserted by the Official Committee of Retired Employees of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Appointed in the Commonwealth’s Title III Case (Dkt. No. 16884, filed June 3, 2021) (“Pension Claim Objection”). On June 3, 2021, AAC filed a claim objection in the Commonwealth’s Title III case challenging the amount of the claim filed by the Retiree Committee against the Commonwealth, which asserted pension liabilities of at least $58.5 billion. AAC contended that this asserted pension liability was overstated by at least $9 billion, and sought disallowance of the Retiree Committee’s proof of claim to the extent of the overstatement. On June 17, 2021, the Oversight Board and the Retiree Committee each indicated an intention to move to terminate the Pension Claim Objection. The Oversight Board contended that AAC lacked standing to bring the Pension Claim Objection and that the objection is moot; the Retiree Committee contended that the Pension Claim Objection should be addressed at confirmation. AAC responded on June 21, 2021. On June 22, 2021, the District Court denied the Pension Claim Objection without prejudice. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board and AAC jointly moved to stay this matter as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this matter be stayed. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, resolved this litigation. In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17- bk-03283), Monolines’ Reply to Underwriter Defendants’ Objection to Plan and Proposed Confirmation Order (Dkt. No. 18871), filed October 27, 2021). On October 19, 2021, certain banks, underwriters, and professionals involved in the underwriting of bonds issued or guaranteed by the Commonwealth and its instrumentalities (the “Underwriter Defendants”) filed an objection to proposed Commonwealth Plan and a related proposed confirmation order. On October 27, 2021, AAC and FGIC filed a reply in response to the Underwriter Defendants’ objection. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, overruled this objection and resolved this litigation. Student Loans Exposure 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 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) filed a complaint against fifteen National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts, regarding alleged improprieties and deficiencies in servicing practices. Simultaneous with the filing of its complaint, CFPB also filed a motion to approve a proposed consent judgment that would have granted monetary damages and injunctive relief against the Trusts. AAC guaranteed certain securities issued by three of the Trusts and indirectly insures six other Trusts. On September 20, 2017, AAC filed a motion to intervene in the action, which motion was granted on October 19, 2018. Following discovery and briefing, on May 31, 2020, the District Court denied the CFPB’s motion to approve the proposed consent judgment. On March 19, 2020, Intervenor Transworld Systems Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On July 10, 2020, AAC and several other intervenors filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. On July 2, 2020, the CFPB submitted an application for entry of default against the Trusts. AAC and the Owner Trustee opposed the CFPB’s application. On March 26, 2021, the court granted intervenors’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also denied as moot the CFPB’s application for entry of default against the Trusts. The CFPB filed an amended complaint on April 30, 2021. On May 21, 2021, the Trusts and several intervenors, including AAC, moved to dismiss the CFPB’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On December 13, 2021, the court denied the Trusts' and intervenors' motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 23, 2021, the Trusts and several intervenors, including AAC, filed a motion seeking (i) an order certifying for interlocutory appeal the court’s December 13, 2021 order denying the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and (ii) a stay of the action pending resolution of any appeal. The motion is fully briefed and remains pending. On January 26, 2022, the Trusts and several intervenors, including AAC, answered the CFPB’s amended complaint, asserting several affirmative defenses and denying that the CFPB is entitled to relief from the Trusts. On February 11, 2022, the court certified its ruling on the motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and stayed the case pending appeal. On February 21, 2022, the Trusts and several intervenors, including AAC, filed a petition with the Third Circuit for permission to appeal the District Court’s order denying their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 3, 2022, the CFPB filed its opposition to the petition for permission to appeal. On April 29, 2022, the Third Circuit granted the Trusts' and intervenors' petition. On September 23, 2022, the Trusts and other intervenors, including AAC, filed their opening brief to the Third Circuit, seeking reversal of the District Court’s order denying their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed its responsive brief on November 7, 2022. The Trusts and other intervenors, including AAC, filed their reply brief on December 28, 2022. The Third Circuit is scheduled to hear oral argument in the matter on March 24, 2023. RMBS Litigation In connection with AAC’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, AAC has filed various lawsuits: •Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc. and Nomura Holding America Inc. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Case No. 651359/2013, filed on April 15, 2013). AAC has asserted claims for material breach of contract and has requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties under the contracts. AAC also asserted alter ego claims against Nomura Holding America, Inc. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 12, 2013. On September 22, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which added (in addition to the claims previously asserted) a claim for fraudulent inducement. On October 31, 2014 defendants filed a motion to strike the amended complaint and on November 10, 2014 also filed a motion to dismiss the fraudulent-inducement claim. On June 3, 2015, the court denied defendants’ July 2013 motion to dismiss AAC’s claim for breaches of representations and warranties, but granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss AAC’s claims for breach of the repurchase protocol and for alter ego liability against Nomura Holding. On December 29, 2016, the court denied Nomura’s motion to strike AAC’s amended complaint and its motion to dismiss the fraudulent-inducement claim. Nomura appealed the June 2015 decision to the extent it denied its motion to dismiss, filing its opening appellate brief on March 23, 2017. On December 7, 2017, the First Department affirmed the trial court’s June 3, 2015 decision. On August 25, 2021, AAC filed a note of issue demanding a jury for its fraud claim and a bench trial for its breach-of-contract claim. On August 31, 2021, Nomura filed a jury demand for AAC’s breach-of-contract claim. On December 21, 2021, the parties filed motions for summary judgment. Pursuant to a settlement, this case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a stipulation signed by the parties on January 3, 2023. The action is concluded. •Ambac Assurance Corporation v. U.S. Bank National Association (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Docket No. 17-cv-02614, filed April 11, 2017). AAC has asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory judgment, and violation of the Streit Act in connection with defendant’s failure to enforce rights and remedies and defendant’s treatment of trust recoveries, as trustee of five residential mortgage-backed securitizations for which AAC issued insurance policies. On September 15, 2017, U.S. Bank filed a motion to dismiss. On June 29, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the breach-of-fiduciary duty claim in part as duplicative of the breach-of-contract claim; dismissed the breach-of-contract claim as untimely only to the extent that it was premised on U.S. Bank's obligation to certify that mortgage documents were properly delivered to the Trusts; dismissed the Streit Act claims; and otherwise denied the motion to dismiss. Fact discovery and Phase 1 expert discovery have concluded, and the parties filed partial summary judgment motions on Phase 1 issues on November 9, 2021. On September 30, 2022, the Court granted in full AAC’s motion for partial summary judgment, and the Court denied in part and granted in part U.S. Bank’s motion for partial summary judgment. On October 18, 2022, the Court set a schedule for additional summary judgment briefing, which was concluded on February 10, 2023, to be followed by briefing on AAC’s proposed use of statistical sampling before proceeding with Phase 2 discovery.

unsecured obligations and, in the alternative, seeks to avoid any security interests that holders of such bonds may have. On June 12, 2019, a group of general obligation bondholders moved to dismiss the complaint. 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 ordered it stayed during the pendency of such mediation. AAC filed a statement of position and reservation of rights on February 5, 2020; certain other defendants filed motions to dismiss on this same date. On February 9, 2020, the Oversight Board announced that it intended to file, and to seek to confirm, an amended plan of adjustment (the “Commonwealth Plan”). On March 10, 2020, the District Court ordered that this case remain stayed while the Oversight Board attempted to confirm the Commonwealth Plan. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed (as described below), resolved this litigation. On May 9, 2022, the District Court dismissed this case.

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 PRHTA (as defined below), including AAC. 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; on July 24, 2019, the District Court referred this matter to mediation and ordered it stayed during the pendency of such mediation. On December 19, 2019, the District Court ordered that this matter remain stayed pending further order of the District Court pursuant to the Oversight Board’s initiation of a separate adversary proceeding concerning PRHTA bonds (No. 20-ap-00005, discussed below). The October 12, 2022 confirmation of the PRHTA POA (as defined below), which is currently being appealed (as described below), resolved this litigation. AAC expects this case will be dismissed pursuant to PRHTA POA.

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 20-ap-00003, filed Jan. 16, 2020). On January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board filed an adversary proceeding against monoline insurers insuring PRIFA (as defined below) bonds and the PRIFA bond trustee, all of which defendants filed proofs of claim against the Commonwealth relating to PRIFA bonds. The complaint seeks to disallow defendants’ proofs of claim against the Commonwealth in their entirety, including for lack of secured status. On February 27, 2020, defendants filed motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2020, the District Court stayed the motions to dismiss and authorized the Oversight Board to move for summary judgment, which motion defendants opposed. On May 5, 2021, Assured

Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp. (“Assured”) and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (“National”) announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement (as defined below). On July 14, 2021, AAC and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (“FGIC”) reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement (as defined below). On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRIFA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement (as defined below). On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed (as described below), resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the District Court entered an order closing this adversary proceeding.

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 20-ap-00004, filed Jan. 16, 2020). On January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board filed an adversary proceeding against monoline insurers insuring PRCCDA (as defined below) bonds and the PRCCDA bond trustee, all of which defendants filed proofs of claim against the Commonwealth relating to PRCCDA bonds. The complaint seeks to disallow defendants’ proofs of claim against the Commonwealth in their entirety, including for lack of secured status. On February 27, 2020, defendants filed motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2020, the District Court stayed the motions to dismiss and authorized the Oversight Board to move for summary judgment, which motion defendants opposed. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRCCDA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed (as described below), resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the Court entered an order closing this adversary proceeding.

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 20-ap-00005, filed Jan. 16, 2020). On January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board filed an adversary proceeding against monoline insurers insuring PRHTA bonds, certain PRHTA bondholders, and the PRHTA fiscal agent for bondholders, all of which defendants filed proofs of claim against the Commonwealth relating to PRHTA bonds. The complaint seeks to disallow defendants’ proofs of claim against the Commonwealth in their entirety, including for lack of secured status. On February 27, 2020, defendants filed motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2020, the District Court stayed the motions to dismiss and authorized the Oversight Board to move for summary judgment, which motion defendants opposed. On

May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRHTA fiscal agent jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed (as described below), resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the District Court entered an order closing this adversary proceeding.

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 20-ap-00007, filed Jan. 16, 2020). On January 16, 2020, the Oversight Board and the Committee filed an adversary proceeding against monoline insurers insuring bonds issued by PRHTA, certain PRHTA bondholders, and the PRHTA fiscal agent for bondholders, all of which defendants filed proofs of claim against PRHTA relating to PRHTA bonds. The complaint seeks to disallow portions of defendants’ proofs of claim against PRHTA, including for lack of secured status. On March 10, 2020, the District Court stayed this case. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRHTA fiscal agent jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. On April 14, 2022, the Oversight Board filed a notice that this case has not been resolved by the Commonwealth Plan and should remain pending. The October 12, 2022 confirmation of the PRHTA POA, which is currently being appealed (as described below), resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the Court entered an order closing this adversary proceeding.

Litigation Against Ambac - General

AAC’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.

AAC has periodically received various regulatory inquiries and requests for information with respect to investigations and

inquiries that such regulators are conducting. AAC 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 such litigation routine and incidental to the conduct of its business, such litigation can potentially result in large monetary awards when a civil jury is allowed to determine compensatory and/or punitive damages.

Everspan may be subject to disputes with policyholders regarding the scope and extent of coverage offered under Everspan's policies; be required to defend claimants in suits against its policyholders for covered liability claims; or enter into commercial disputes with its reinsurers, MGA/Us or third party claims administrators regarding their respective contractual obligations and rights. Under some circumstances, the results of such disputes or suits may lead to liabilities beyond those which are anticipated or reserved.

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.

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 in which a loss is probable and reasonably estimable are not material to the operating results or financial position of the Company, nor is it possible to predict a range of loss in excess of the accrued amounts. For all other litigation matters the Company is defending, 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

On January 18, 2022, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (the “District Court”) entered an order confirming a plan of adjustment for the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico (the “Commonwealth Plan”). On January 20, 2022, the District Court entered orders approving a Qualifying Modification (the “PRIFA QM”) for the Puerto Rico Infrastructure Finance Authority (“PRIFA”) and a Qualifying Modification (the “PRCCDA QM”) for the Puerto Rico Convention Center District Authority (“PRCCDA”). On October 12, 2022, the District Court entered an order confirming a plan of adjustment (the “PRHTA POA”) for the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (the “PRHTA”). These two plans of adjustment and two qualifying modifications incorporated settlements reached between AAC, the Oversight Board, and certain other parties related to each of AAC’s Puerto Rico-related exposures, which included agreements with respect to the treatment of general obligation and Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority (“PBA”) bonds (the “GO/PBA Settlement”), PRHTA and PRCCDA bonds (the “PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement”), and PRIFA bonds (the “PRIFA Settlement”). By incorporating these settlements, the Commonwealth Plan, PRIFA QM, PRCCDA QM, and PRHTA POA resolved the majority of AAC’s outstanding Puerto Rico-related litigation. The confirmation orders for both the Commonwealth Plan and the PRHTA POA have been appealed; if either confirmation order is reversed on appeal, the litigations that have been resolved by that confirmation order may be affected. The status of those appeals is discussed immediately below, followed by a discussion of AAC’s additional remaining outstanding Puerto Rico-related litigation.

In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17- bk-03283) (appeals of the Commonwealth Plan). On January 18, 2022, the District Court entered an order confirming the Commonwealth Plan and entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law related thereto. Several parties filed notices of appeal of the District Court’s confirmation order to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, including a number of teachers’ unions (“the Teachers’ Unions”), the Oversight Board, certain individual creditors, a number of credit unions (“the Credit Unions”), and Suiza Dairy Corporation (“Suiza”). Teachers’ Unions: On April 26, 2022, the First Circuit rejected the Teachers’ Unions’ challenges to the Commonwealth Plan and affirmed the confirmation order; on May 10, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions petitioned for rehearing en banc. On May 13, 2022, the First Circuit denied the Teachers’ Unions’ petition for rehearing en banc. On August 9, 2022, the Teachers’ Unions filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the First Circuit’s decision affirming the confirmation order; the Supreme Court denied the Teachers’ Unions’ petition on November 21, 2022. Oversight Board: On July 18, 2022, the First Circuit rejected the Oversight Board’s challenges to, and affirmed, the confirmation order. The Oversight Board filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking Supreme Court review of the First Circuit’s decision in its appeal of the confirmation order on October 17, 2022; the Supreme Court denied the petition on February 21, 2023. Individual creditors: On October 27, 2022, the First Circuit entered an order dismissing the individual creditors’ confirmation appeal. Credit Unions: On November 23, 2022, the First Circuit entered an order dismissing the Credit Unions’ appeal. Suiza: The Suiza appeal remains pending before the First Circuit.

In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17- bk-03567) (appeal of the PRHTA POA). On October 12, 2022, the District Court entered an order confirming the PRHTA POA and entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law related thereto. On October 24, 2022, a group of present and former employees of PRHTA (“the Vazquez-Velazquez Group”) filed a notice of appeal with respect to, and a motion to stay, the PRHTA POA confirmation order. On October 28, 2022, a number of parties—including AAC—filed an opposition to the stay motion, requesting, in the alternative, that the appealing parties seeking a stay be required to post supersedeas bonds pending appeal. On November 15, 2022, the District Court entered an order denying the Vazquez-Velazquez Group’s motion for a stay pending appeal. On November 21, 2022, the Vazquez-Velazquez Group filed a motion in the First Circuit for a stay pending appeal. On November 29, 2022, a number of parties—including the Oversight Board and AAC—filed oppositions to the Vazquez-Velazquez Group’s stay motion. The Vazquez-Velazquez Group filed a brief on the same day requesting to withdraw their stay motion. The First Circuit granted the request to withdraw the stay motion on November 30, 2022. The Vazquez-Velazquez Group filed its opening brief in the First Circuit on February 15, 2023.

Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., and Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Alejandro Garcia Padilla, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico No. 3:16-cv-01037, filed January 7, 2016). On January 7, 2016, AAC, along with co-plaintiffs Assured, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief to protect its rights against the illegal clawback of certain revenue by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Defendants moved to dismiss on January 29, 2016. On October 4, 2016, the court denied the Defendants’ motions to dismiss. On October 14, 2016, Defendants filed a Notice of Automatic Stay, asserting that Plaintiffs’ claims have been rendered moot and further asserting that the case was automatically stayed under section 405 of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act ("PROMESA"). On May 3, 2017, the Oversight Board filed a petition to adjust the Commonwealth’s debts under Title III of PROMESA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against the Commonwealth. On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. AAC expects this case will be dismissed given the settlements reached between AAC and the Oversight Board.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 16-cv-1893, filed May 10, 2016). AAC filed a complaint against the PRHTA on May 10, 2016, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract in connection with PRHTA’s extension of an existing toll road concession agreement. The complaint alleges that it was inappropriate for PRHTA to enter into the extension agreement in its current state of financial distress because PRHTA has no control over, and is unlikely to receive, the proceeds of the transaction. AAC also filed related motions seeking the appointment of a provisional receiver for PRHTA and expedited discovery. On May 21, 2017, the Oversight Board filed a petition to adjust PRHTA’s debts under Title III of PROMESA, resulting in an automatic stay of

litigation against PRHTA. On May 24, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. The settlements reached between AAC and the Oversight Board resolved this litigation, and the January 20, 2022 PRIFA QM provided for dismissal of this case. AAC expects this case will be dismissed pursuant to the PRIFA QM.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 17-1567, filed May 2, 2017). On May 2, 2017, AAC filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the Commonwealth’s Fiscal and Economic Growth Plan (the “FEGP”) and a statute called the “Fiscal Plan Compliance Law” are unconstitutional and unlawful because they violate the Contracts, Takings, and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, are preempted by PROMESA, and are unlawful transfers of property from COFINA to the Commonwealth in violation of PROMESA. On May 3, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and on May 5, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of COFINA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against COFINA. On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRCCDA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC's joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. The settlements reached between AAC and the Oversight Board resolved this litigation, and the January 20, 2022 PRIFA QM provided for dismissal of this case. On January 24, 2023, the court dismissed this case.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Puerto Rico, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 17-1568, filed May 2, 2017). On May 2, 2017, AAC filed a complaint alleging that various moratorium laws and executive orders enacted by the Commonwealth to claw back funds from PRIFA, PRHTA, and PRCCDA bonds violate the Contracts, Takings, and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, are preempted by PROMESA, and unlawfully transfer PRHTA, PRCCDA, and PRIFA property to the Commonwealth. On May 3, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and on May 21, 2017, a petition under Title III of PROMESA was filed on behalf of PRHTA, resulting in an automatic stay of litigation against the Commonwealth and PRHTA (respectively). On May 17, 2017, the court issued an order staying this case until further order of the court. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRCCDA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC's joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be further stayed. The settlements reached between AAC and the Oversight Board resolved this litigation, and the January 20, 2022 PRIFA QM provided for dismissal of this case. On February 1, 2023, the court dismissed this case.

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). On May 2, 2017, AAC filed a complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York

County, against the trustee for the COFINA bonds, Bank of New York Mellon (“BNY”), alleging breach of fiduciary, contractual, and other duties for failing to adequately and appropriately protect the holders of certain AAC-insured senior COFINA bonds. On May 19, 2017, BNY filed a notice of removal of this action from New York state court to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On May 30, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico entered an order in an adversary proceeding brought by BNY (No. 1:17-ap-00133) staying this litigation pending further order of the court. The COFINA Plan became effective on February 12, 2019, and, pursuant to the District Court’s confirmation order, this litigation was permitted to continue, with AAC’s claims against BNYM being limited to those for gross negligence, willful misconduct and intentional fraud. On November 17, 2021, the District Court denied as moot BNY's motion to transfer venue to the District of Puerto Rico and continued the stay of the action. On July 6, 2022, the District Court granted AAC’s motion to lift the stay and for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). AAC filed its SAC on July 10, 2022, and on July 25, 2022, BNY moved to dismiss the SAC. On September 23, 2022, Ambac filed its opposition to BNY’s motion to dismiss, and on October 24, 2022, BNY filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss. Oral argument has been requested but not yet scheduled.

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 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, AAC 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. On March 10, 2020, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed while the Oversight Board attempted to confirm the Commonwealth Plan. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, resolved this litigation. AAC expects this case will be dismissed pursuant to the Commonwealth Plan.

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) (“GO Bond Claim Objection”). 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 AAC. On April 11, 2019, AAC 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 February 5 and 19, 2020, certain parties filed motions to dismiss the claim objection. On March 10, 2020, the District Court ordered that this matter remain stayed while the Oversight Board attempted to confirm the Commonwealth Plan. On July 19, 2020, the Committee filed a motion to lift the stay on this claim objection in light of changes to the Commonwealth’s fiscal plan and likely changes to the Commonwealth Plan in light of COVID-19. On September 1, 2020, AAC filed a partial joinder to the Committee’s motion. On September 17, 2020, the District Court denied the Committee’s motion without prejudice. On October 1, 2020, the Committee moved the District Court to reconsider its denial of the Committee’s motion to lift the stay; on October 5, 2020, the District Court denied the Committee’s motion for reconsideration. On October 16, 2020, the Committee appealed to the First Circuit the District Court’s order denying the Committee’s motion to lift the stay on its claim objection. On February 22, 2021, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the Court entered an order terminating this matter.

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) (“PRIFA Stay Motion”). On May 30, 2019, AAC and FGIC filed a motion seeking an order that the automatic stay does not apply to certain lawsuits AAC seeks to bring or to continue relating to bonds issued by PRIFA, or, in the alternative, for relief from the automatic stay to pursue such lawsuits or for adequate protection of AAC's collateral. On January 31, 2020, AAC, FGIC, Assured, and the PRIFA bond trustee filed an amended motion seeking substantially similar relief. On July 2, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on certain grounds. Briefing regarding additional grounds on which AAC and other movants seek stay relief concluded on August 5, 2020; on September 9, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on the additional grounds. On September 23, 2020, AAC and the other movants appealed this decision to the First Circuit. On March 3, 2021, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s opinions denying the motion to lift the stay. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement, and as a result of that settlement, also joined the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRIFA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this motion as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this motion be stayed. The January

18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, resolved this litigation.

In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Motion of Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Municipal Corp., Ambac Assurance Corporation, National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation, and Financial Guaranty Insurance Company for Relief from the Automatic Stay, or, in the Alternative, Adequate Protection (Dkt. No. 10102, filed January 16, 2020) (“PRHTA Stay Motion”). On January 16, 2020, AAC, Assured, National, and FGIC filed a motion seeking an order that the automatic stay does not apply to movants’ enforcement of the application of pledged revenues to the PRHTA bonds or the enforcement of movants’ liens on revenues pledged to such bonds, or, in the alternative, for adequate protection of movants’ interests in the revenues pledged to PRHTA bonds. On July 2, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on certain grounds. Briefing regarding additional grounds on which AAC and other movants seek stay relief concluded on August 5, 2020; on September 9, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on the additional grounds. On September 23, 2020, AAC and the other movants appealed this decision to the First Circuit. On March 3, 2021, the First Circuit affirmed the District Court’s opinions denying the motion to lift the stay. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On May 11, 2021, the Oversight Board, Assured, and National jointly moved to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. AAC and FGIC objected to the motion to stay on May 18, 2021, and briefing on the motion to stay concluded on May 21, 2021. On May 25, 2021, the District Court ordered this case stayed with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRHTA fiscal agent jointly moved to stay this motion as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this motion be stayed. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, resolved this litigation.

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, Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Municipal Corp., and the Bank of New York Mellon’s Motion Concerning Application of the Automatic Stay to the Revenues Securing the CCDA Bonds (Dkt. No. 10104, filed January 16, 2020) (“PRCCDA Stay Motion”). On January 16, 2020, AAC, FGIC, Assured, and the PRCCDA bond trustee filed a motion seeking an order either (i) that the automatic stay does not apply to movants’ enforcement of their rights to revenues pledged to PRCCDA bonds by bringing an enforcement action against PRCCDA; or, in the alternative, (ii) lifting the automatic stay to enable movants to pursue an enforcement action against PRCCDA; or, in the further

alternative, (iii) ordering adequate protection of movants’ interests in the PRCCDA pledged to PRCCDA bonds. On July 2, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on certain grounds, but found that the movants had stated a colorable claim that a certain account was the “Transfer Account” on which movants hold a lien. Briefing regarding additional grounds on which AAC and other movants seek stay relief concluded on August 5, 2020; on September 9, 2020, the District Court denied the motion to lift the stay on the additional grounds, and found that a final determination on issues related to the identity of the Transfer Account would be made in the decision on the motions for summary judgment issued in the PRCCDA-related adversary proceeding, No. 20-ap-00004. On May 5, 2021, Assured and National announced an agreement with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On May 11, 2021, the Oversight Board, Assured, and National jointly moved to stay this case with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. AAC and FGIC objected to the motion to stay on May 18, 2021, and briefing on the motion to stay concluded on May 21, 2021. On May 25, 2021, the District Court ordered this case stayed with respect to Assured and National as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement. On July 14, 2021, AAC and FGIC reached an agreement in principle with the Oversight Board with respect to the PRIFA Settlement. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRCCDA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this motion as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this motion be stayed. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, resolved this litigation. On September 30, 2022, the Court entered an order terminating the PRCCDA Stay Motion.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Oriental Financial Services LLC; Popular Securities LLC; Raymond James & Associates, Inc., RBC Capital Markets LLC; Samuel A. Ramirez & Co. Inc., Santander Securities LLC; UBS Financial Services Inc.; and UBS Securities LLC (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Court of First Instance, San Juan Superior Court, Case No. SJ-2020-CV-01505, filed February 19, 2020). On February 19, 2020, AAC filed a complaint in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Court of First Instance, San Juan Superior Court, against certain underwriters of Ambac-insured bonds issued by PRIFA and PRCCDA, with causes of action under the Puerto Rico civil law doctrines of actos propios and Unilateral Declaration of Will. AAC alleges defendants engaged in inequitable conduct in underwriting Ambac-insured bonds issued by PRIFA and PRCCDA, including failing to investigate and adequately disclose material information in the official statements for the bonds that defendants provided to AAC regarding systemic deficiencies in the Commonwealth’s financial reporting. AAC seeks damages in compensation for claims paid by AAC on its financial guaranty insurance policies insuring such bonds, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees. On March 20, 2020, defendants removed this case to the Title III Court; AAC moved to remand the case back to the Court of First Instance on

April 20, 2020, and on July 29, 2020, the District Court granted AAC’s motion to remand. AAC filed an amended complaint in the Commonwealth court on October 28, 2020, adding claims on bonds issued by the Commonwealth, PBA and PRHTA and adding defendants that had underwritten these bonds. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on December 8 and 14, 2020. On July 30, 2021, the Commonwealth court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. AAC appealed the dismissal to the Commonwealth Court of Appeals on September 16, 2021; on April 27, 2022, the Commonwealth Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. On May 31, 2022, Ambac filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of the decision in the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. The petition was denied on July 13, 2022. AAC filed a motion for reconsideration on July 28, 2022. The Puerto Rico Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration on November 10, 2022.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Autopistas Metropolitanas de Puerto Rico, LLC (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 3:20-cv-01094, filed February 19, 2020). On February 19, 2020, AAC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, against Autopistas Metropolitanas de Puerto Rico, LLC (“Metropistas”), which holds a concession from PRHTA for two Puerto Rico highways, PR-5 and PR-22, in connection with a 10-year extension of the concession that was entered into in April 2016. The complaint includes claims for fraudulent conveyance and unjust enrichment, alleging that the consideration paid by Metropistas for the extension was less than reasonably equivalent value and most of the benefit of such payment was received by the Commonwealth instead of PRHTA. AAC also seeks a declaratory judgment that it has a valid and continuing lien on certain toll revenues that are being collected by Metropistas. On March 31, 2020, the Oversight Board filed a motion before the Title III Court seeking an order directing Ambac to withdraw its complaint. On June 16, 2020, the Title III Court ordered AAC to withdraw its complaint. AAC moved to withdraw its complaint on June 23, 2020, and noticed an appeal from the Title III Court’s order to withdraw on June 30, 2020. Oral argument before the First Circuit was held on March 8, 2021. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, and Metropistas jointly moved to stay this appeal as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 4, 2021, the First Circuit ordered that this appeal be stayed. On February 10, 2023, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal in the First Circuit appeal; on February 13, 2023, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal.

Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 3:20-ap-00068, filed May 26, 2020). On May 26, 2020, AAC filed an adversary complaint before the Title III Court seeking (i) a declaration that titles I, II, and III of PROMESA are unconstitutional because they violate the Bankruptcy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (which requires all bankruptcy laws to be uniform) and (ii) dismissal of the pending Title III petitions. On August 17, 2020, the Oversight Board filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; on August 18, 2020, the Official Committee of Retired Employees of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “Retiree Committee”) and

the Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority (“AAFAF”) filed joinders to the motion to dismiss. The United States filed a memorandum of law in support of the constitutionality of PROMESA on October 2, 2020. On August 2, 2021, the Oversight Board, AAC, FGIC, and the PRCCDA bond trustee jointly moved to stay this case as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this case be stayed. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, resolved this litigation. On March 23, 2022, the District Court dismissed this case.

In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Urgent Motion for Bridge Order, and Motion for Appointment as Trustees Under 11 U.S.C. § 926, of Ambac Assurance Corporation, Assured Guaranty Corp., Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., Financial Guaranty Insurance Company, and National Public Finance Guarantee Corporation (Dkt. No. 13708, filed July 17, 2020) (“PRHTA Trustee Motion”). On July 17, 2020, AAC, Assured, FGIC, and National filed a motion seeking appointment as trustees under Section 926 of the Bankruptcy Code to pursue certain avoidance actions on behalf of PRHTA against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The PRHTA Trustee Motion attached a proposed complaint detailing the avoidance claims that movants would pursue. On August 11, 2020, the District Court denied the PRHTA Trustee Motion; on August 24, 2020, movants noticed an appeal of the denial of the PRHTA Trustee Motion to the First Circuit. On July 29, 2021, AAC, Assured, FGIC, and National jointly moved to dismiss the appeal at the First Circuit as a result of the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the PRIFA Settlement. On July 30, 2021, the First Circuit dismissed the appeal. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, resolved this litigation.

In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17-bk-03283), Objection of Ambac Assurance Corporation, Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 502 and Bankruptcy Rule 3007, to Claim Asserted by the Official Committee of Retired Employees of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Appointed in the Commonwealth’s Title III Case (Dkt. No. 16884, filed June 3, 2021) (“Pension Claim Objection”). On June 3, 2021, AAC filed a claim objection in the Commonwealth’s Title III case challenging the amount of the claim filed by the Retiree Committee against the Commonwealth, which asserted pension liabilities of at least $58.5 billion. AAC contended that this asserted pension liability was overstated by at least $9 billion, and sought disallowance of the Retiree Committee’s proof of claim to the extent of the overstatement. On June 17, 2021, the Oversight Board and the Retiree Committee each indicated an intention to move to terminate the Pension Claim Objection. The Oversight Board contended that AAC lacked standing to bring the Pension Claim Objection and that the objection is moot; the Retiree Committee contended that the Pension Claim Objection should be addressed at confirmation. AAC responded on June 21, 2021. On June 22, 2021, the District Court denied the Pension Claim Objection without prejudice. On August 2,

2021, the Oversight Board and AAC jointly moved to stay this matter as a result of the PRIFA Settlement and AAC’s joinder to the PRHTA/PRCCDA Settlement and the GO/PBA Settlement. On August 3, 2021, the District Court ordered that this matter be stayed. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, resolved this litigation.

In re Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 1:17- bk-03283), Monolines’ Reply to Underwriter Defendants’ Objection to Plan and Proposed Confirmation Order (Dkt. No. 18871), filed October 27, 2021). On October 19, 2021, certain banks, underwriters, and professionals involved in the underwriting of bonds issued or guaranteed by the Commonwealth and its instrumentalities (the “Underwriter Defendants”) filed an objection to proposed Commonwealth Plan and a related proposed confirmation order. On October 27, 2021, AAC and FGIC filed a reply in response to the Underwriter Defendants’ objection. The January 18, 2022 confirmation of the Commonwealth Plan, which is currently being appealed, overruled this objection and resolved this litigation.

Student Loans Exposure

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 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) filed a complaint against fifteen National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts, regarding alleged improprieties and deficiencies in servicing practices. Simultaneous with the filing of its complaint, CFPB also filed a motion to approve a proposed consent judgment that would have granted monetary damages and injunctive relief against the Trusts. AAC guaranteed certain securities issued by three of the Trusts and indirectly insures six other Trusts. On September 20, 2017, AAC filed a motion to intervene in the action, which motion was granted on October 19, 2018. Following discovery and briefing, on May 31, 2020, the District Court denied the CFPB’s motion to approve the proposed consent judgment. On March 19, 2020, Intervenor Transworld Systems Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On July 10, 2020, AAC and several other intervenors filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. On July 2, 2020, the CFPB submitted an application for entry of default against the Trusts. AAC and the Owner Trustee opposed the CFPB’s application. On March 26, 2021, the court granted intervenors’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court also denied as moot the CFPB’s application for entry of default against the Trusts. The CFPB filed an amended complaint on April 30, 2021. On May 21, 2021, the Trusts and several intervenors, including AAC, moved to dismiss the CFPB’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On December 13, 2021, the court denied the Trusts' and intervenors' motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 23, 2021, the Trusts and several intervenors, including AAC, filed a motion seeking (i) an order certifying for interlocutory appeal the court’s December 13, 2021 order denying the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and (ii) a

stay of the action pending resolution of any appeal. The motion is fully briefed and remains pending. On January 26, 2022, the Trusts and several intervenors, including AAC, answered the CFPB’s amended complaint, asserting several affirmative defenses and denying that the CFPB is entitled to relief from the Trusts. On February 11, 2022, the court certified its ruling on the motion to dismiss for interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and stayed the case pending appeal. On February 21, 2022, the Trusts and several intervenors, including AAC, filed a petition with the Third Circuit for permission to appeal the District Court’s order denying their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 3, 2022, the CFPB filed its opposition to the petition for permission to appeal. On April 29, 2022, the Third Circuit granted the Trusts' and intervenors' petition. On September 23, 2022, the Trusts and other intervenors, including AAC, filed their opening brief to the Third Circuit, seeking reversal of the District Court’s order denying their motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed its responsive brief on November 7, 2022. The Trusts and other intervenors, including AAC, filed their reply brief on December 28, 2022. The Third Circuit is scheduled to hear oral argument in the matter on March 24, 2023.

RMBS Litigation

In connection with AAC’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, AAC has filed various lawsuits:

•Ambac Assurance Corporation and The Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corporation v. Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc. and Nomura Holding America Inc. (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Case No. 651359/2013, filed on April 15, 2013). AAC has asserted claims for material breach of contract and has requested the repurchase of loans that breach representations and warranties under the contracts. AAC also asserted alter ego claims against Nomura Holding America, Inc. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 12, 2013. On September 22, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which added (in addition to the claims previously asserted) a claim for fraudulent inducement. On October 31, 2014 defendants filed a motion to strike the amended complaint and on November 10, 2014 also filed a motion to dismiss the fraudulent-inducement claim. On June 3, 2015, the court denied defendants’ July 2013 motion to dismiss AAC’s claim for breaches of representations and warranties, but granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss AAC’s claims for breach of the repurchase protocol and for alter ego liability against Nomura Holding. On December 29, 2016, the court denied Nomura’s motion to strike AAC’s amended complaint and its motion to dismiss the fraudulent-inducement claim. Nomura appealed the June 2015 decision to the extent it denied its motion to dismiss, filing its opening appellate brief on March 23, 2017. On December 7, 2017, the First Department affirmed the trial court’s June 3, 2015 decision. On August 25, 2021, AAC filed a note of issue demanding

a jury for its fraud claim and a bench trial for its breach-of-contract claim. On August 31, 2021, Nomura filed a jury demand for AAC’s breach-of-contract claim. On December 21, 2021, the parties filed motions for summary judgment. Pursuant to a settlement, this case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a stipulation signed by the parties on January 3, 2023. The action is concluded.

•Ambac Assurance Corporation v. U.S. Bank National Association (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Docket No. 17-cv-02614, filed April 11, 2017). AAC has asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory judgment, and violation of the Streit Act in connection with defendant’s failure to enforce rights and remedies and defendant’s treatment of trust recoveries, as trustee of five residential mortgage-backed securitizations for which AAC issued insurance policies. On September 15, 2017, U.S. Bank filed a motion to dismiss. On June 29, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the breach-of-fiduciary duty claim in part as duplicative of the breach-of-contract claim; dismissed the breach-of-contract claim as untimely only to the extent that it was premised on U.S. Bank's obligation to certify that mortgage documents were properly delivered to the Trusts; dismissed the Streit Act claims; and otherwise denied the motion to dismiss. Fact discovery and Phase 1 expert discovery have concluded, and the parties filed partial summary judgment motions on Phase 1 issues on November 9, 2021. On September 30, 2022, the Court granted in full AAC’s motion for partial summary judgment, and the Court denied in part and granted in part U.S. Bank’s motion for partial summary judgment. On October 18, 2022, the Court set a schedule for additional summary judgment briefing, which was concluded on February 10, 2023, to be followed by briefing on AAC’s proposed use of statistical sampling before proceeding with Phase 2 discovery.