The following financial information for the five years ended December 31, 2016, has been derived from Ambac’s Consolidated Financial Statements. Following the Company’s emergence from bankruptcy on May 1, 2013, the consolidated financial statements reflect the application of fresh start reporting (“Fresh Start”), incorporating, among other things, the discharge of debt obligations, issuance of new common stock and fair value adjustments. The effects of the reorganization and Fresh Start adjustments are recorded in Predecessor Ambac’s Consolidated Statement of Total Comprehensive Income for the period ended April 30, 2013. The financial results of the Company for the periods from May 1, 2013 are referred to as “Successor” and the financial results for the periods through April 30, 2013 are referred to as “Predecessor”. The 2013 Successor Period and the 2013 Predecessor Period are distinct reporting periods. As a result of the implementation of Fresh Start, results and balances are not comparable between Successor Ambac and Predecessor Ambac. This information should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes located in Part II, Item 8 in this Form 10-K.
A key strategy for Ambac is to increase the value of its investment in Ambac Assurance by actively managing its assets and liabilities. Asset management primarily entails maximizing the risk adjusted return on non-VIE invested assets and managing liquidity to help ensure resources are available to meet operational and strategic cash needs. These strategic cash needs include activities associated with
insured securities, including $494.4 million of insured RMBS and $128.1 million of insured student loan securities with policies allocated to the Segregated Account and $36.0 of other insured securities. Future cash flows relating to those invested assets allocated to the Segregated Account include the sum of (i) the bond’s intrinsic cash flows and (ii) the estimated Ambac Assurance claim payments, including Deferred Amounts (as defined in the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan). At the end of 2016, Ambac owned approximately $1.5 billion, or 41% of the total Deferred Amounts outstanding. Ambac will continue to opportunistically purchase Ambac-insured securities. The investment portfolios of Ambac Assurance and Ambac UK also hold fixed income securities and funds that include a variety of other assets including, but not limited to, corporate bonds, asset backed and mortgage backed securities, municipal bonds, high yield bonds, leveraged loans, equities, real estate and hedge funds. Refer to Note 10. Investments to the Consolidated Financial Statements, included in Part II, Item 8 in this Form 10-K for further details of investments by asset class.
During 2016, Ambac recognized improvements in the performance of certain Ambac insured RMBS transactions. Ambac reached the following settlements: (i) $995 million received in January 2016 in connection with a representation and warranty settlement with JP Morgan; and (ii) future estimated recoveries valued at $51.6 million ($51.4 million net of reinsurance) at December 31, 2016 in connection with a settlement outside of litigation and unrelated to Ambac's R&W subrogation recoveries. Separately, Ambac Assurance received $100.3 million ($99.1 million net of reinsurance) of subrogation recoveries related to an omnibus settlement with investors in Countrywide securitizations, that was announced in June 2011 by Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee, whereby Bank of America agreed to pay $8.5 billion across approximately 530 RMBS trusts (“Countrywide Investor Settlement”). The Countrywide Investor Settlement was included in previous loss reserve estimates as other subrogation.
During 2016, Ambac Assurance purchased $9.6 million of unpaid accrued interest related to certain surplus notes that were previously repurchased under call options. Ambac recognized a realized gain on these purchases of $3.1 million in the Consolidated Statements of Total Comprehensive Income. In addition, Ambac Assurance purchased $18.6 million of its surplus notes during 2016. Ambac recognized realized gains on these purchases of $1.7 million in the Consolidated Statements of Total Comprehensive Income.
The following table provides a comparison of both total and below investment grade ("BIG") net par outstanding in the insured portfolio at December 31, 2016 and 2015. Net par exposures within the U.S. public finance market include capital appreciation bonds
The reduction in below investment grade net par outstanding was primarily due to (i) the aforementioned commutations of student loan policies, (ii) reductions to residential mortgage-backed securities during the year as a result of both prepayments by issuers and claims presented to Ambac Assurance and (iii) the aforementioned cancellation of the LIM insured bonds.
As of December 31, 2016 total cash and investments of Ambac were $342.8 million, which include the following:
Investments in Ambac-insured securities with a fair value of $86.4 million
During 2015, the Board of Directors of Ambac authorized the establishment of a warrant repurchase program that permits the repurchase of up to $10 million of warrants. On November 3, 2016, the Board of Directors of Ambac authorized an additional $10 million to the warrant repurchase program. As of December 31, 2016, Ambac had repurchased 985,331 warrants at a cost of $8.1 million, leaving 4,053,670 warrants outstanding, bringing the
remaining aggregate authorization to $11.9 million. Ambac will opportunistically consider additional purchases in the future.
The strengthening of the U.S. dollar since the Brexit referendum vote impacted Ambac's economic position. Specifically, the impact of using March 31, 2016 currency rates against the current balance sheet, excluding VIEs, provides for an approximate loss of $68 million, as follows:
A decrease in the carrying value of loss reserves related to policies where loss payments will be made in currencies other than the US dollar of $1.7 million. As of December 31, 2016, loss and loss expense reserves for British Pounds totaled zero and Euros totaled €20.3 million.
We have audited Ambac Financial Group, Inc. and subsidiaries' (the “Company” or “Ambac”) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company's management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company's internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.
A company's internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, and the related consolidated statements of comprehensive income, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2016. In connection with our audits of the consolidated financial statements, we also have audited the related financial statement schedules in this Form 10-K. These consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules based on our audits.
We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the Company's internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2016, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), and our report dated February 28, 2017 expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting.
Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (“Ambac” or the “Company”), headquartered in New York City, is a financial services holding company that was incorporated in the state of Delaware on April 29, 1991. On May 1, 2013 (the “Effective Date”), Ambac emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection when the Second Modified Fifth Amended Plan of Reorganization of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (the “Reorganization Plan”) became effective. On December 26, 2013, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) entered an order of final decree closing Ambac’s Chapter 11 case. Ambac filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) in the Bankruptcy Court on November 8, 2010 as a result of losses incurred since the beginning of the financial crisis in 2007.
Ambac’s Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation limits voting and transfer rights of stockholders in significant ways. Article IV contains voting restrictions applicable to any person owning at least 10% of Ambac’s common stock so that such person (including any group consisting of such person and any other person with whom such person or any affiliate or associate of such person has any agreement, contract, arrangement or understanding with respect to acquiring, voting, holding or disposing of Ambac’s common stock) shall not be entitled to cast votes in excess of one vote less than 10% of the votes entitled to be cast by all common stock holders, except as otherwise approved by OCI.
Company and Ambac Assurance, the Creditors’ Committee and the individual members thereof, and each of the respective representatives of such parties, for actions or omissions that occurred on or prior to the Effective Date.
Ambac’s financial guarantee business segment is conducted through its primary operating subsidiary, Ambac Assurance Corporation (“Ambac Assurance”), and its wholly owned subsidiary, Ambac Assurance UK Limited (“Ambac UK”), both of which have been in runoff since 2008. Insurance policies issued by Ambac Assurance and Ambac UK generally guarantee payment when due of the principal and interest on the obligations guaranteed. Ambac Assurance also has another wholly-owned financial guarantee subsidiary, Everspan Financial Guarantee Corp. (“Everspan”), which has been in runoff since its acquisition in 1997. The deterioration of Ambac Assurance’s financial condition resulting from losses in its insured portfolio since 2007 has prevented Ambac Assurance from being able to write new business. An inability to write new business has and will continue to negatively impact Ambac’s future operations and financial results. Ambac Assurance’s ability to pay dividends and, as a result, Ambac’s liquidity, have been significantly restricted by the deterioration of its financial condition, by the rehabilitation of the Segregated Account (as defined below) and by the terms of the Settlement Agreement, dated as of June 7, 2010 (the "Settlement Agreement"), by and among Ambac Assurance, Ambac Credit Products LLC (“ACP”), Ambac and certain counterparties to credit default swaps with ACP that were guaranteed by Ambac Assurance. Ambac Assurance is also restricted in its ability to pay dividends pursuant to regulatory restrictions, the terms of its Auction Market Preferred Shares, and the terms of agreements entered into with the Segregated Account. It is highly unlikely that Ambac Assurance will be able to make dividend payments to Ambac for the foreseeable future.
Ambac’s financial services business segment is currently conducted through subsidiaries of Ambac Assurance, which provide financial and investment products, including investment agreements, funding conduits and interest rate swaps, principally to the clients of its financial guarantee business. Ambac Assurance insures all of the obligations of its financial services subsidiaries. These businesses are in active runoff, which is being effectuated by transaction terminations, settlements, and scheduled amortization of contracts. The Financial Services business also maintains interest rate derivatives to mitigate exposure to floating rate insured obligations in the Financial Guarantee segment.
Selective business transactions offering attractive risk-adjusted returns that, among other things, may permit utilization of Ambac’s net operating loss carry-forwards.
Ambac Assurance is evaluating the possibility of entering into one or more transactions to improve the financial condition of Ambac Assurance which may, subject to OCI approval, lead to the conclusion of the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Proceedings. In pursuing this objective, Ambac Assurance is considering the possibility of monetizing certain assets, restructuring or exchanging certain outstanding debt and insurance obligations, and/or commuting or reducing insured exposures. Ambac Assurance is also discussing with OCI potential options for addressing outstanding Segregated Account and other obligations. From time to time Ambac Assurance has also discussed, and intends to continue discussing, with counterparty creditors and OCI a potential transaction pursuant to which outstanding Deferred Amounts and surplus notes, in each case including accrued interest, would be exchanged for or satisfied by indebtedness, or other instruments which may include securities, and cash or other assets. In evaluating potential transactions, we understand that OCI intends to consider, among other things, their impact on the company and policyholders, and we intend to consider, among other things, their impact on the company and our stakeholders, including, in each case, their legal, regulatory and tax implications.
However, Ambac Assurance has not reached any agreement on the terms of any such transaction, and we cannot provide any assurance that any such transaction will be consummated by Ambac Assurance in the future, or if it is, as to the timing, terms or conditions of any such transaction, or as to whether it could lead to the conclusion of the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Proceedings. Any such transaction proposed by Ambac Assurance would be subject to the prior approval of the board of directors of Ambac Assurance, OCI and the Rehabilitation Court and may require third-party consents, which may not be obtained. OCI has not indicated a course of action to address Segregated Account or other obligations or to conclude the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Proceedings. As stated in the Supplement (as defined below), the goal of the SDC (as defined below) is to provide additional directional guidance regarding the status of the Segregated Account rehabilitation during the first quarter of 2017, barring any unforeseen developments that might impede that effort. The terms, conditions, and timing of a potential conclusion of the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Proceedings are in the sole discretion of OCI, and subject to the approval of the Rehabilitation Court. This discretion includes the authority to address Segregated Account obligations without the agreement of Ambac Assurance or its board
of directors. Moreover, even if the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Proceedings could be brought to a successful conclusion, there can be no assurance that any level of capital deemed sufficient by OCI to permit such conclusion will be sufficient to cover all future losses, whether currently anticipated or unanticipated.
Although we are exploring selective business transactions that may permit utilization of Ambac’s tax net operating loss carry-forwards, such as the acquisition or development of new businesses or assets, no assurance can be given that we will be able to execute any such transactions. In addition, there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain the financial and other resources that may be required to finance such transactions. Due to these factors, as well as uncertainties relating to the ability of Ambac Assurance to deliver value to Ambac, the value of our securities is speculative.
The Amended TSA addresses certain intercompany tax issues including, but not limited to, the allocation and use of NOLs by the Company, Ambac Assurance and their respective subsidiaries. Refer to Note 15. Income Taxes for further discussion of the Amended TSA.
Account pursuant to the provisions of the Wisconsin Insurers Rehabilitation and Liquidation Act. Net par exposure as of December 31, 2016 for policies allocated to the Segregated Account was $11,884,751. Policy obligations not allocated to the Segregated Account remain in the General Account of Ambac Assurance, and such policies in the General Account are not subject to and, therefore, are not directly impacted by the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan (as defined below).
Pursuant to the Plan of Operation, Ambac Assurance allocated to the Segregated Account (1) certain policies insuring or relating to credit default swaps; (2) residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) policies; (3) certain policies insuring debt obligations backed by student loans; and (4) other policies insuring obligations with substantial projected impairments or relating to transactions which have contractual triggers based upon Ambac Assurance’s financial condition or the commencement of rehabilitation, which triggers are potentially damaging (collectively, the “Segregated Account Policies”). The policies described in (4) above include (a) certain types of securitizations, including commercial asset-backed transactions, consumer asset-backed transactions and other types of structured transactions; (b) the policies relating to Las Vegas Monorail Company; (c) policies relating to debt securities purchased by, and the debt securities issued by, Juneau Investments, LLC (“Juneau”), which is a finance company owned by Ambac Assurance and allocated to the Segregated Account as described below; (d) policies relating to leveraged lease transactions; and (e) certain policies relating to interest rate and other swap transactions. Ambac Assurance also allocated the following to the Segregated Account: (i) all remediation claims, defenses, offsets, and/or credits (except with respect to recoveries arising from remediation efforts or reimbursement or collection rights), if any, in respect of the Segregated Account Policies, (ii) Ambac Assurance’s limited liability interests in ACP, Ambac Conduit Funding LLC and Juneau and (iii) all of Ambac Assurance’s liabilities as reinsurer under reinsurance agreements (except for reinsurance assumed from Everspan).
Pursuant to the Secured Note and the Reinsurance Agreement, Ambac Assurance has made certain covenants to the Segregated Account, including covenants that Ambac Assurance will not, (i) without the Segregated Account’s consent (not to be unreasonably withheld), amend its investment policies if doing so would have a material adverse effect on Ambac Assurance’s ability to perform its obligations under the Secured Note, the Reinsurance Agreement and the documents relating thereto or under any other material agreement to which it is a party, (ii) without the prior
approval of the OCI, directly or indirectly make any distribution to its shareholder or redeem any of its securities and, (iii) without the Segregated Account’s consent (not to be unreasonably withheld), enter into any transaction other than pursuant to the reasonable requirements of Ambac Assurance’s business and which Ambac Assurance reasonably believes are fair and reasonable terms and provisions.
On January 17, 2014, the Rehabilitator filed a motion to obtain court approval to disburse settlement proceeds as permitted policy claim payments to specific policyholders as required by a settlement entered into with Residential Capital, LLC and related debtors in bankruptcy proceedings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “ResCap Settlement”). In addition to seeking this approval with respect to the ResCap Settlement, the motion sought the court’s confirmation of the Rehabilitator’s authority to distribute proceeds from settlements of RMBS remediation claims as he deems appropriate and in the best interests of the Segregated Account and such distributions may include (i) paying claims by making payments in excess of the then applicable claims cash payment percentage, and/or (ii) paying all or portions of unpaid permitted policy claims. On February 7, 2014, three RMBS trustees jointly filed a partial objection to the motion. On February 13, 2014, the Rehabilitation Court heard argument on this motion and issued an order approving the Rehabilitator’s motion.
establish junior deferred amounts (“Junior Deferred Amounts”) with respect to permitted general claims instead of issuing junior surplus notes to the holders of such claims as contemplated under the original Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan.
A portion of Deferred Amounts outstanding as of July 20, 2014 (the “Reconciliation Date”) (together with interest thereon), if still outstanding, was paid on December 22, 2014 (the "Deferred Payment Date") in accordance with the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan, as amended, such that those policyholders that received 25% (and not 45%) cash Interim Payments in respect of their permitted policy claims were generally entitled to receive equalizing payments in cash of 26.67% of their Deferred Amounts (including accrued interest thereon) outstanding as of the Reconciliation Date. Policyholders were entitled to receive an equalizing payment of their Deferred Amounts equal to the lower of (i) their outstanding Deferred Amounts on December 22, 2014, and (ii) 26.67% of their Deferred Amounts as of the Reconciliation Date, even if they had received a Supplemental Payment and/or a Special Policy Payment. The aggregate amount of equalizing payments for Deferred Amounts (including interest thereon) paid on the Deferred Payment Date was $1,137,202.
In addition, the Segregated Account was required, pursuant to the terms of the amended Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan, to early redeem a portion of its surplus notes (excluding junior surplus notes) on or about the Deferred Payment Date. The redemption amount of the Segregated Account surplus notes was equal to 26.67% of the sum of par and accrued interest on such Segregated Account surplus notes, in each case, outstanding as at the Reconciliation Date. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Ambac Assurance is also required to make a proportionate redemption of its surplus notes when the Segregated Account redeems Segregated Account surplus notes (excluding junior surplus notes). Therefore, the Segregated Account and Ambac Assurance were both required to make redemptions of surplus notes (excluding any junior surplus notes) on or about the Deferred Payment Date in an amount equal to 26.67% of the sum of par and accrued interest outstanding on such surplus notes as at the Reconciliation Date, which was $413,587 in respect of those surplus notes owned by third parties. Ambac Assurance, for and on behalf of itself and as the management services provider for the Segregated Account, sought and received the approval of the Commissioner of Insurance of the State of Wisconsin to effect these redemptions of surplus notes on November 20, 2014, rather than the Deferred Payment Date, to save interest expense. Such approval was granted on October 13, 2014.
On December 16, 2016, the Rehabilitator filed with the Rehabilitation Court a supplement to his 2016 Annual Report dated June 1, 2016 relating to the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Proceedings (the “Supplement”). In the Supplement, the Rehabilitator reiterated his goal of achieving a successful and durable conclusion to the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Proceedings. The Rehabilitator also stated in the Supplement that at the present time and absent further actions, Ambac Assurance has insufficient capital to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Rehabilitator that the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Proceedings could be concluded and leave Ambac Assurance with sufficient financial resources to meet all policy obligations, as projected by the Rehabilitator (in his sole discretion) under a varying range of base and stress case scenarios. The Rehabilitator further stated in the Supplement that given such requirements, any transaction facilitating the conclusion of the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Proceedings will need to provide for an increase in Ambac Assurance’s existing surplus capital, as determined and defined by OCI in its sole discretion. We cannot provide assurance that the terms of any possible transaction will satisfy OCI or
Ambac’s consolidated financial statements have been prepared on the basis of U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses and disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities. Such estimates that are particularly susceptible to change are used in connection with certain fair value measurements, the evaluation of other than temporary impairments on investments, loss reserves for non-derivative insurance policies, the evaluation of the need for an impairment of goodwill or valuation allowance on the deferred tax asset, any of which individually could be material.
A VIE is an entity: a) that lacks enough equity investment at risk to permit the entity to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support from other parties; or b) where the group of equity holders does not have: (1) the power, through voting rights or similar rights, to direct the activities of an entity that most significantly impact the entity’s economic performance; (2) the obligation to absorb the entity’s expected losses; or (3) the right to receive the entity’s expected residual returns. The determination of whether a variable interest holder is the primary beneficiary involves performing a qualitative analysis of the VIE that includes, among other factors, its capital structure, contractual terms including the rights of each variable interest holder, the activities of the VIE, whether the variable interest holder has the power to direct the activities of a VIE that most significantly impact the VIE’s economic performance, whether the variable interest holder has the obligation to absorb losses of the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE or the right to receive benefits from the VIE that could potentially be significant to the VIE, related party relationships and the design of the VIE. Refer to Note 3. Special Purpose Entities, Including Variable Interest Entities, for a detailed discussion of Ambac’s involvement in VIEs, Ambac’s methodology for determining whether Ambac is required to consolidate a VIE and the effects of VIEs being consolidated.
The Investments - Debt and Equity Securities Topic of the ASC requires that all debt instruments and certain equity instruments be classified in Ambac’s Consolidated Balance Sheets according to their purpose and, depending on that classification, be carried at either cost or fair market value. Ambac’s non-VIE investment portfolio is accounted for on a trade-date basis and consists primarily of investments in fixed income securities that are considered available-for-sale as defined by the Investments - Debt and Equity Securities Topic of the ASC. Available-for-sale securities are reported in the financial statements at fair value with unrealized gains and losses, net of deferred taxes, reflected in Accumulated
The evaluation of securities for impairment is a quantitative and qualitative process, which is subject to risks and uncertainties and is intended to determine whether, and to what extent, declines in the fair value of investments should be recognized in current period earnings. The risks and uncertainties include changes in general economic conditions, the issuer’s or guarantor’s financial condition and/or future prospects, the impact of regulatory actions on the investment portfolio, the performance of the underlying collateral, the effects of changes in interest rates or credit spreads and the expected recovery period. With respect to Ambac insured securities owned, future cash flows used to measure credit impairment represents the sum of (i) the bond’s intrinsic cash flows and (ii) the estimated Ambac Assurance claim payments. For Ambac-insured securities owned and guaranteed under policies allocated to the Segregated Account, the estimate of Ambac Assurance claim payments includes interest on Deferred Amounts. Ambac estimates the timing of claim payment receipts on all Ambac-insured securities owned, but the actual timing of such amounts for Segregated Account securities are at the sole discretion of the Rehabilitator. Further modifications to the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan or to the rules and guidelines promulgated thereunder, orders from the Rehabilitation Court or actions by the Rehabilitator with respect to the form, amount and timing of satisfying permitted policy claims, or making payments on Deferred Amounts or surplus notes, may have a material effect on the fair value of Segregated Account securities and future recognition of other-than-temporary impairments. Refer to Note 1. Background and Business Description for information relating to the amended Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan. Ambac’s assessment about whether a decline in value is other-than-temporary reflects management’s current judgment regarding facts and circumstances specific to a security and the factors noted above, including Ambac's intention to sell securities and ability to hold temporarily impaired securities until recovery. If that judgment changes, Ambac may ultimately record a charge for other-than-temporary impairment in future periods.
method) or (ii) if the underlying insured obligation is a homogenous pool of assets which are contractually prepayable, the present value of premiums to be collected over the expected life of the transaction (the “expected” method). An appropriate risk-free rate corresponding to the weighted average life of each policy and currency is used to discount the future premiums contractually due or expected to be collected. For example, U.S. dollar exposures are discounted using U.S. Treasury rates while exposures denominated in a foreign currency are discounted using the appropriate risk-free rate for the respective currency. The weighted average risk-free rate at December 31, 2016 and 2015, was 2.6%. and 2.7%, respectively, and the weighted average period of future premiums used to estimate the premium receivable at December 31, 2016 and 2015, was 9.0 years and 9.2 years, respectively.
Insured obligations consisting of homogeneous pools for which Ambac uses expected future premiums to estimate the premium receivable and UPR include residential mortgage-backed securities. As prepayment assumptions change for homogenous pool transactions, or if there is an actual prepayment for a “contractual” method installment transaction, the related premium receivable and UPR are adjusted in equal and offsetting amounts with no immediate effect on earnings using new premium cash flows and the then current risk-free rate corresponding to the initial weighted average life of the related policy.
Similar to gross premiums, premiums ceded to reinsurers are paid either upfront or in installments. For premiums paid upfront, a deferred ceded premium asset is established which is initially recorded as the cash amount paid. For installment premiums, a ceded installment premiums payable liability and offsetting deferred ceded premium asset are initially established in an amount equal to: i) the present value of future contractual premiums due or ii) if the underlying insured obligation is a homogenous pool of assets which are contractually pre-payable, the present value of expected premiums to be paid over the life of the transaction. An appropriate risk-free rate corresponding to the weighted average life of each policy and exposure currency is used to discount the future premiums contractually due or expected to be collected. Premiums ceded to reinsurers reduce the amount of premiums earned by Ambac from its financial guarantee insurance policies. For both upfront and installment premiums, ceded premiums written are primarily recognized in earnings in proportion to and at the same time as the related gross premium revenue is recognized. For premiums paid to reinsurers on an installment basis, Ambac records the present value of future ceding commissions as an offset to ceded premiums payable, using the same assumptions noted above for installment premiums.
All derivatives are recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheets at fair value on a gross basis; assets and liabilities are netted by counterparty only when a legal right of offset exists. Ambac has determined that the amounts recognized for the right to reclaim cash collateral or the obligation to return cash collateral may not be used to offset amounts due under the derivative instruments in the normal course of settlement. Therefore, such amounts are not offset against fair value amounts recognized for derivative instruments executed with the same counterparty under the same master netting arrangement. Refer to Note 11. Derivative Instruments for further discussion of the Company’s use of derivative instruments and their impact of the consolidated financial statements. Refer to Note 9. Fair Value Measurements for further description of the methodologies used to determine the fair value of derivative contracts, including model inputs and assumptions where applicable.
We tested goodwill for impairment as of October 1st of each year. Goodwill is also tested more frequently if indicators of impairment exist for each reporting unit. During the third quarter of 2015, Ambac determined sufficient indicators of potential impairment existed to perform an interim goodwill impairment evaluation for the Financial Guarantee reporting unit. Those indicators included the trading values of Ambac stock and changes in Ambac credit spreads. In conducting the goodwill impairment analysis, we performed step one of the goodwill impairment test for the Financial Guarantee reporting unit. We estimated the fair value of the Financial Guarantee reporting unit using a market approach, which was derived using: i) Ambac’s common stock and warrant market capitalization, ii) fair value estimates of Ambac Assurance preferred shares (reported as noncontrolling interests on Ambac's balance sheet) and iii) an estimated control premium. Step one of the impairment test indicated the Financial Guarantee reporting unit's carrying value exceeded its fair value.
Accordingly, the Company performed step two of the impairment test, which indicated the implied fair value of goodwill was zero. This was the result of substantial decreases in the Financial Guarantee reporting unit's fair value and substantial increases in the fair value of its net assets. The fair value of the Financial Guarantee reporting unit decreased significantly due to a material decrease in Ambac's market capitalization components (described above). The Financial Guarantee reporting unit's fair value of net assets increased significantly primarily as a result of a decrease in the estimated fair value of financial guarantee liabilities and, to a lesser extent, a decrease in the fair value of long-term debt. The fair value decrease in financial guarantee liabilities, which is a Level 3 estimate, was primarily driven by wider Ambac credit spreads and positive loss and loss expense reserves development. Please refer to Note 9. Fair Value Measurements for further discussion on the fair value model for financial guarantee liabilities. The fair value decrease in long-term debt was driven by lower market pricing on surplus notes and junior surplus notes.
As a result, the Company recorded a full non-cash, non-tax deductible goodwill impairment charge of $514,511 in 2015. The following is a summary of activity in goodwill that was all assigned to the Financial Guarantee reporting unit:
At the Fresh Start Reporting Date, an insurance intangible asset was recorded which represented the difference between the fair value and aggregate carrying value of the financial guarantee insurance and reinsurance assets and liabilities. The carrying values of our financial guarantee insurance and reinsurance contracts will continue to be reported and measured in accordance with existing accounting policies. Pursuant to the Financial Services-Insurance Topic of the ASC, the insurance intangible is to be measured on a basis consistent with the related financial guarantee insurance and reinsurance contracts. The insurance intangible asset is amortized using a level yield method based on par exposure of the related financial guarantee insurance or reinsurance contracts and is applied to groups of contracts with similar characteristics.
The PV of expected net cash flows represents the PV of expected cash outflows less the PV of expected cash inflows. The PV of expected net cash flows are impacted by: (i) expected future claims to be paid under an insurance contract, including the impact of potential settlement outcomes upon future installment premiums, (ii) expected recoveries from contractual breaches of RMBS representations and warranties by transaction sponsors, (iii) excess spread within the underlying transaction's cash flow structure, and (iv) other subrogation recoveries. Expected receipts from third parties within the underlying transaction's cash flow structure relating to contractual breaches in non-RMBS securitizations may also reduce expected future claims. Ambac’s approach to resolving disputes involving contractual breaches by transaction sponsors or other third parties has included negotiations and/or pursuing litigation. Ambac does not include potential recoveries attributed solely to fraudulent inducement claims in our estimate of subrogation recoveries, since any remedies under such claims would be non-contractual.
The population of credits evaluated in Ambac’s loss reserve process are: (i) all adversely classified credits (Class IA through V) and ii) non-adversely classified credits (Class I and SL) which had an internal Ambac rating downgrade since the transaction’s inception. One of two approaches is then utilized to estimate losses to ultimately determine if a loss reserve should be established. The first approach is a statistical expected loss approach, which considers the likelihood of all possible outcomes. The “base case” statistical expected loss is the product of: (i) the par outstanding on the credit; (ii) internally developed historical default information (taking into consideration internal ratings and average life of an obligation); (iii) internally developed loss severities; and (iv) a discount factor. The loss severities and default information are based on rating agency information, are specific to each bond type and are established and approved by senior PRM officers. For certain credit exposures, Ambac’s additional monitoring, loss remediation efforts and probabilities of potential settlement outcomes may provide information relevant to adjust this estimate of “base case” statistical expected losses. Analysts may accept the “base case” statistical expected loss as the best estimate of expected loss or assign multiple probability weighted scenarios to determine an adjusted statistical expected loss that better reflects management’s view of a given transaction’s expected losses, as well as the potential for additional remediation activities (i.e. commutations).
Ambac has performed the above-mentioned, detailed examinations on a variety of second-lien and first-lien transactions that have experienced exceptionally poor performance. However, the loan file examinations and related estimated recoveries we have reviewed and recorded to date have been limited to only those transactions whose sponsors (or their successors) are subsidiaries of large financial institutions, all of which carry an investment grade rating from at least one nationally recognized rating agency, or are otherwise deemed to have the financial wherewithal to live up to their repurchase obligations. While our contractual recourse is generally to the sponsor/subsidiary, rather than to the parent, each of these large institutions has significant financial resources and may have an ongoing interest in mortgage finance, and we therefore believe that the financial institution/parent would ultimately assume financial responsibility for these obligations if the sponsor/subsidiary is unable to honor its contractual obligations or pay a judgment that we may obtain in litigation. Additionally, in the case of successor institutions, we are not aware of any provisions that explicitly preclude or limit the successors’ ability to honor the obligations of the original sponsor. Certain successor financial
Multiple probability-weighted scenarios are developed by applying various realization factors to the estimated repurchase obligation. The realization factors in these scenarios were developed using Ambac’s own assumptions about the likelihood of outcomes based on all the information available to it including, but not limited to, (i) discussions with external legal counsel and their views on ultimate settlement and/or litigation outcomes, (ii) experience with loan put back negotiations where the existence of a material breach was debated and negotiated at the loan level, (iii) the pervasiveness of the breach rates and (iv) experience in settling similar claims. The probability weightings are developed based on the unique facts and circumstances for each transaction. The sum of these probability-weighted scenarios represents the undiscounted subrogation recovery, which is then discounted using a factor derived from a risk-free discount rate term structure that corresponds to the date of each respective recovery. Discount factors are updated for the current risk-free rate each reporting period.
Foreign currency translation: Functional currency assets and liabilities of Ambac’s foreign subsidiaries are translated into U.S. dollars using exchange rates in effect at the balance sheet dates and the related translation adjustments, net of deferred taxes, are included as a component of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Stockholders' Equity. Consolidated Statements of Total Comprehensive Income accounts expressed in functional currencies are translated using average exchange rates.
Remeasurement of loss reserves, classified in Loss and loss expenses, in the amount of $(77,578), $(24,838) and $(30,079) for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively;
Sales of investment securities and the unrealized gains (losses) of trading and short-term investment securities, classified in Net realized investment gains, in the amount of $30,179, $5,816 and $5,235 for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively;
Ambac evaluates our deferred income taxes quarterly to determine if valuation allowances are required. The Income Taxes Topic of the ASC requires that companies assess whether valuation allowances should be established against their deferred tax assets based on the consideration of all available evidence using a ‘more likely than not” standard. In making such judgments, significant weight is given to evidence that can be objectively verified.
The level of deferred tax asset recognition is influenced by management’s assessment of future profitability, which depends on the existence of sufficient taxable income of the appropriate character (ordinary vs. capital) within the carry forward periods available under the tax law. We previously determined that we would not be able to realize all of our deferred tax assets in the future, and therefore we reduced such amounts through a charge to the Statement of Total Comprehensive Income in the period in which that determination was made. Refer to Note 15. Income Taxes for further discussion of the Company's tax positions.
The Income Taxes Topic of the ASC provides a framework to determine the appropriate level of tax reserves for uncertain tax positions. This framework prescribes a more-likely-than-not threshold for financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. Ambac also accrues interest and penalties related to these unrecognized tax benefits in the provision for income taxes.
Basic net income per share is computed by dividing net income attributable to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding, inclusive of unsettled vested restricted stock units. Diluted net income per share is computed by dividing net income attributable to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding plus all dilutive potential common shares outstanding during the period. All dilutive potential common shares outstanding consider common stock deliverable pursuant to warrants issued under the Reorganization Plan and those pursuant to stock options and non-vested restricted and performance stock units.
ASU 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements - Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40), Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity's Ability to Continue as a Going Concern requires management to assess, at each interim period and annual reporting period, whether substantial doubt exists about the company's ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued or available to be issued. If management determines there is substantial doubt, it should also consider whether the substantial doubt is overcome by management's plans, and provide certain disclosures based on facts and circumstances. Refer to Note 1. Background and Business Description for management's disclosures regarding Ambac's ability to continue as a going concern.
The remaining accounting standards discussed in this section were adopted by Ambac effective January 1, 2016:
ASU 2015-01, Income Statement - Extraordinary and Unusual Items (Subtopic 225-20): Simplifying Income Statement Presentation by Eliminating the Concept of Extraordinary Items. Extraordinary items are defined as both unusual in nature and infrequent in occurrence. Under previous guidance, a reporting entity was required to separately present and disclose extraordinary items. This ASU eliminates from current U.S. GAAP the concept of extraordinary items. However, the ASU retains the presentation and disclosure guidance for items that are unusual in nature or occur infrequently. Items that meet either or both of these criteria must be presented as a separate component on the face of the income statement or, alternatively, disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. Adoption of this ASU did not affect Ambac’s financial statements.
ASU 2014-16, Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815): Determining Whether the Host Contract in a Hybrid Financial Instrument Issued in the Form of a Share Is More Akin to Debt or to Equity. The objective of this ASU is to eliminate the existing diversity in practice in accounting for hybrid financial instruments issued in the form of a share. A hybrid financial instrument consists of a “host contract” into which one or more derivative terms have been embedded. The ASU requires an entity to consider the terms and features of the entire financial instrument, including
the embedded derivative features, in order to determine whether the nature of the host contract is more akin to debt or to equity. Adoption of this ASU did not affect Ambac’s financial statements.
In November 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-18, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230) - Restricted Cash. Current GAAP does not include specific guidance on the cash flow classification and presentation of changes in restricted cash and restricted cash flow equivalents other than limited guidance for non-for-profit entities. This ASU is intended to resolve diversity in practice in the classification of changes in restricted cash and restricted cash flow equivalents on the statement of cash flows. The new guidance requires that restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents be included with cash and cash equivalents when reconciling the beginning and ending period amounts on the statement of cash flows, along with certain disclosures. ASU 2016-18 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017 and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted, including adoption in an interim period. Amendments in the ASU should be applied retrospectively to all periods presented. Ambac will adopt this ASU on January 1, 2018. We are currently evaluating the impact on Ambac's financial statements.
December 15, 2017 and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted as of the beginning of an annual reporting period for which financial statements (interim or annual) have not been issued. Ambac has not determined whether it will early adopt this ASU and we are currently evaluating its impact on Ambac's financial statements.
Settlement of zero-coupon debt or other debt with coupon rates that are insignificant in relation to the effective interest rate of the borrowing - The portion of the cash payment attributable to accreted interest will be classified as an operating cash outflow and the portion attributable to the principal will be classified as a financing cash outflow.
ASU 2016-15 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017 and interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted, including adoptions within an interim period. Ambac has not determined whether it will early adopt this ASU. Adoption of this ASU is not expected to have a consequential impact on Ambac's financial statements.
In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-06, Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815) - Contingent Put and Call Options in Debt Instruments. Current accounting rules require that embedded derivatives be separated from the host contract in a financial instrument and accounted for separately as derivatives if certain criteria are met. One of these criteria is that the economic characteristics and risks of the embedded derivatives are not "clearly and closely related" to the host contract. The objective of the ASU is to resolve diversity in practice in assessing embedded contingent put and call options. The ASU clarifies what steps are required when assessing whether the economic characteristics and risk of put and call options are clearly and closely related to their debt host contracts. The ASU is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016 and interim periods within those fiscal years, with early adoption permitted. The ASU must be applied on a modified retrospective basis to existing debt instruments as of the beginning of the fiscal year for which the amendments are effective. Ambac will adopt this ASU on January 1, 2017. Adoption of this ASU is not expected to have a consequential impact on Ambac's financial statements.
In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842). The main difference between current U.S. GAAP and this ASU is the recognition of lease assets and lease liabilities for those leases classified as operating leases. For operating leases, a lessee is required to: 1) recognize a right-of-use asset and a lease liability, initially measured at the present value of the lease payments, in the balance sheet, 2) recognize a single lease cost, calculated so that the cost is allocated over the lease term generally on a straight-line basis and 3) classify all cash payment within operating activities in the statement of cash flows. The ASU is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. The transition guidance requires lessees to recognize and measure leases at the beginning of the earliest period presented using a modified retrospective approach which include a number of optional practical expedients. We will adopt ASU 2015-02 on January 1, 2019. We are evaluating the impact of this ASU, including the transitional practical expedients, on Ambac's financial statements. We believe Ambac's office leases will be the most significantly impacted by this ASU. The significant implementation matters to be addressed include identifying the remaining inventory of leases (i.e. equipment and other) that will be affected by this standard and identifying and documenting accounting process changes, including related controls.
In May of 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606) that amends the accounting guidance for recognizing revenue for contracts with customers to transfer goods and contracts for the transfer of non-financial assets unless those contracts are within the scope of other accounting standards. ASU 2015-14 deferred the effective date of ASU 2014-09 to annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within that reporting period. Ambac will adopt this ASU on January 1, 2018. While we are still evaluating the ASU, it does not apply to insurance contracts and most financial instruments and is therefore is not expected to have consequential impact on Ambac's financial statements. The significant implementation matters to be addressed include identifying contracts the Company may have that will be affected by this standard and identifying and documenting accounting process changes, including related controls.
Ambac monetized its ownership of the junior surplus note issued to it by the Segregated Account by depositing the junior surplus note into a newly formed VIE trust in exchange for cash and an owner trust certificate, which represents Ambac's right to residual cash flows from the junior surplus note.
Upon initial consolidation of a FG VIE, we recognize a gain or loss in earnings for the difference between: (i) the fair value of the consideration paid, the fair value of any non-controlling interests and the reported amount of any previously held interests and (ii) the net amount, as measured on a fair value basis, of the assets and liabilities consolidated. Upon deconsolidation of a FG VIE, we recognize a gain or loss for the difference between: (i) the fair value of any consideration received, the fair value of any retained non-controlling investment in the VIE and the carrying amount of any non-controlling interest in the VIE and (ii) the carrying amount of the VIE’s assets and liabilities. Gains or losses from consolidation and deconsolidation that are reported in earnings are reported within Income (loss) on variable interest entities on the Consolidated Statements of Total Comprehensive Income.
securities balance is eliminated upon consolidation. Ambac has not consolidated any VIEs during 2016, 2015 or 2014 solely as a result of purchases of the VIE’s debt instruments.
As of December 31, 2016 consolidated FG VIE assets and liabilities relating to 12 consolidated entities were $13,367,834 and $13,235,425, respectively. As of December 31, 2015, consolidated FG VIE assets and liabilities relating to 13 consolidated entities were $14,288,497 and $14,259,776, respectively. As of December 31, 2016, eight and four consolidated FG VIEs related to transaction insured by Ambac UK and Ambac Assurance and nine and four as of December 31, 2015. As of December 31, 2016 FG VIE assets and liabilities of $12,950,009 and $12,833,466 and as of December 31, 2015, FG VIE assets and liabilities of $13,769,985 and 13,636,628 related to transactions guaranteed by Ambac UK. The remaining balance of consolidated FG VIE assets and liabilities are related to transactions guaranteed by Ambac Assurance. Ambac is not primarily liable for, and generally does not guarantee all of the debt obligations issued by the VIEs. Ambac would only be required to make payments on the VIE debt obligations in the event that the issuer of such debt obligations defaults on any principal or interest due and such obligation is guaranteed by Ambac. Additionally, Ambac’s general creditors, other than those specific policy holders which own the VIE debt obligations, do not have rights with regard to the assets of the VIEs. Ambac evaluates the net income effects and earnings per share effects to determine attributions between Ambac and non-controlling interests as a result of consolidating a VIE. Ambac has determined that the net income and earnings per share effect of most consolidated FG VIEs are attributable to Ambac’s interests through financial guarantee premium and loss payments with the VIE.
The table below provides the fair value of fixed income securities, by asset-type, held by consolidated VIEs as of December 31, 2016 and 2015:
The following table provides supplemental information about the loans held as assets and long-term debt associated with the VIEs for which the fair value option has been elected as of December 31, 2016 and 2015:
was liquidated as it no longer had any outstanding liabilities. Ambac has not consolidated these entities because Ambac Assurance’s policies issued to these entities have been allocated to the Segregated Account, thereby limiting Ambac’s control over the entities’ most significant economic activities. Ambac has elected to account for its equity interest in these entities at fair value under the fair value option in accordance with the Financial Instruments Topic of the ASC. We believe that the fair value of the investments in these entities provides for greater transparency for recording profit or loss as compared to the equity method under the Investments - Equity Method and Joint Ventures Topic of the ASC. Refer to Note 9. Fair Value Measurements for further information on the valuation technique and inputs used to measure the fair value of Ambac’s equity interest in these entities. At December 31, 2016 and 2015 the fair value of these entities are $7,382 and $8,696, respectively, and is reported within Other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
In July 2015, Ambac Assurance entered into a secured borrowing transaction whereby it sold 17 Ambac insured residential mortgage-backed securities (the "Securities") and all rights associated therewith as of May 31, 2015, to a Delaware statutory trust (the "Trust") in exchange for an equity certificate in the Trust, all financial guarantee claim payments associated with the Securities and cash of $146,000 (prior to expenses associated with the transaction). The Securities had par and fair value of $331,035 and $360,759 as of December 31, 2016, respectively. Although the Securities were legally sold to the Trust, the Securities will remain in Invested assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Refer to Note 10. Investments for further discussion of the restrictions on the invested assets. At the same time, a second Delaware statutory trust (the "Issuer"), issued $146,000 of debt securities and used the proceeds, together with an equity certificate of the Issuer, to purchase from the Trust a certificate secured by and entitling the Issuer to all principal and interest payments (other than financial guarantee claim payments) on the Securities. Interest on the debt securities is payable monthly at an annual rate of one month LIBOR + 2.8% . Both the Trust and the Issuer are consolidated VIEs because Ambac Assurance was involved in their design and holds a significant amount of the beneficial interests issued by the VIEs or guaranteed the assets held by the VIEs. VIE debt outstanding to third parties under this secured borrowing transaction had a carrying value of $102,403 and $130,571 as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and is reported in Long-Term Debt on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Pursuant to the Reorganization Plan, 45,000,000 shares of common stock at par value of $0.01 per share and 5,047,138 warrants were issued. Warrants entitle such holders to acquire up to 5,047,138 shares of new common stock at an exercise price of $16.67 per share at any time on or prior to April 30, 2023. For the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, 136, 740, and 949, warrants, respectively, were exercised, resulting in an issuance of 136, 236 and 949 shares of common stock.
On June 30, 2015, the Board of Directors of Ambac authorized the establishment of a warrant repurchase program that permits the repurchase of up to $10,000 of warrants. On November 3, 2016, the Board of Directors of Ambac authorized an additional $10,000 to the warrant repurchase
program. As of December 31, 2016, Ambac had repurchased 985,331 warrants at a cost of $8,092, leaving 4,053,670 warrants outstanding, bringing the remaining aggregate authorization to $11,939.
Antidilutive securities for both the year ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, included stock options to purchase 110,000 of common stock, where the exercise price was greater than the average market price.
As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the guarantee portfolio was diversified by type of guaranteed bond as shown in the following table:
(1) Gross premium receivable includes premiums to be received in foreign denominated currencies most notably in British Pounds and Euros. At December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 premium receivables include British Pounds of $177,878 (£144,393), $226,994 (£154,135) and $275,374 (£176,703), respectively, and Euros of $34,866 (€33,108), $43,451 (€40,014) and $74,413 (€61,494), respectively.
The table below summarizes the future gross undiscounted premiums to be collected and future premiums earned, net of reinsurance at December 31, 2016:
Below is the loss and loss expense reserve roll-forward, net of subrogation recoverable and reinsurance, for the affected periods. Current year represents activity related to policies with newly established loss and loss expense reserves. Prior years represents activity related to policies with loss and loss expense reserves established in prior years.
Ambac records the impact of estimated recoveries related to securitized loans in RMBS transactions that breached certain representations and warranties within losses and loss expenses (benefit). The losses and loss expense (benefit) incurred associated with changes in estimated representation and warranties for the year ended December 31, 2016, 2015, and 2014 was $(71,369), $(303,633) and $(481,669), respectively.
Includes Euro denominated gross loss and loss expense reserves of $21,375 (€20,297), $19,019 (€17,515) and $16,094 (€13,300) at December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
For 2015, the net positive development in prior years was primarily due to increases in our estimate of RMBS R&W recoveries as a result of continuous efforts and ongoing assessments of the value of our claims, as well as declines in interest rates on RMBS, student loans and Ambac UK credits, reduced claims expectations for an Ambac UK transaction resulting from proactive remediation efforts and the impact of executed commutations in the student loan portfolio. This was partially offset by negative development in Puerto Rico, the adverse impact of foreign currency rate movements on the Ambac UK portfolio and interest accrued on Deferred Amounts.
The tables below summarize information related to policies currently included in Ambac’s loss and loss expense reserves or subrogation recoverable at December 31, 2016 and 2015. Gross par exposures include capital appreciation bonds which are reported at the par amount at the time of issuance of the insurance policy. The weighted average risk-free rate used to discount loss reserves at December 31, 2016 and 2015 was 2.7% and 2.4%, respectively.
Reinsurance recoverable reported on Balance Sheet includes reinsurance recoverables of $30,767 related to future loss and loss expenses and $(349) related to presented loss and loss expenses and subrogation.
Ambac has recorded RMBS subrogation recoveries of $1,907,035, ($1,878,740 net of reinsurance) and $2,829,575, ($2,800,149 net of reinsurance) at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The balance of RMBS subrogation recoveries and the related loss reserves, using Random Samples as the estimation approach, at December 31, 2016 and 2015, are as follows:
Assumed par outstanding was $243,700 and $245,900 at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. On March 24, 2010, all assumed reinsurance agreements with third parties were allocated to the Segregated Account, which will not allow for cancellations without the approval of the Rehabilitator.
The insurance intangible amortization expense is included in insurance intangible amortization on the Consolidated Statements of Total Comprehensive Income. For the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, the insurance intangible amortization expense was $174,608, $169,557 and $151,830, respectively. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the gross carrying value of the insurance intangible asset was $1,534,419 and $1,626,566, respectively. Accumulated amortization of the insurance intangible asset was $572,339 and $414,454, as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, resulting in a net insurance intangible asset of $962,080 and $1,212,112, respectively.
New York’s comprehensive financial guarantee insurance law defines the scope of permitted financial guarantee insurance and governs the conduct of business of all financial guarantors licensed to do business in New York, including Ambac Assurance and Everspan. The New York financial guarantee insurance law also establishes single risk and aggregate limits with respect to insured obligations insured by financial guarantee insurers. Such single risk limits are specific to the type of insured obligation (for example, municipal or asset-backed). Under the aggregate limits, policyholders’ surplus and contingency reserves must at least equal a percentage of aggregate net liability that is equal to the sum of
various percentages of aggregate net liability for various categories of specified obligations. At December 31, 2016, Ambac Assurance is in compliance with applicable aggregate risk limits but not in compliance with applicable single risk limits. Through run-off of the portfolio, Ambac Assurance will continue to seek the reduction in its exposure to maintain its compliance with applicable single and aggregate risk limits, but may not be able to do so. Everspan is in compliance with all of such limits.
OCI has prescribed an accounting practice that differs from NAIC SAP. Paragraph 8 of Statement of Statutory Accounting Principles No. 60 “Financial Guaranty Insurance” (“SSAP 60”) allows for a deduction from loss reserves for the time value of money by application of a discount rate equal to the average rate of return on the admitted assets of the financial guaranty insurer as of the date of the computation of the reserve. The discount rate shall be adjusted at the end of each calendar year. Additionally, in accordance with paragraph 13.e of Statutory Accounting Principles No. 97 "Investments in Subsidiary, Controlled and Affiliated Entities" and paragraph 8 of Statutory Accounting Principles No. 5R “Liabilities, Contingencies and Impairments of Assets - Revised”, Ambac Assurance records probable losses on its subsidiaries for which it guarantees their obligations. Ambac also discounts probable losses on guarantees of subsidiary obligations using a discount rate equal to the average rate of return on its admitted assets. Ambac Assurance’s average rates of return on its admitted assets at December 31, 2016 and 2015 were 7.63% and 8.06%, respectively. OCI has directed Ambac Assurance to utilize a prescribed discount rate of 5.10% for the purpose of discounting both its loss reserves and its estimated impairment losses on subsidiary guarantees.
OCI had extended the preceding prescribed practice related to surplus notes to the evaluation of other-than-temporary impairments for Ambac Assurance guaranteed securities held in the investment portfolio. Paragraph 35 of Statement of Statutory Accounting Principles No. 43R ”Loan-backed and Structured Securities” states that when an other-than-temporary impairment has occurred, the amount of the other-than-temporary impairment recognized as a realized loss shall equal the difference between the investment’s amortized cost basis and the present value of cash flows expected to be collected, discounted at the loan-backed or structured security’s effective interest rate. Under NAIC SAP, the present value of cash flows expected to be collected should include the fair value of surplus notes received from the Segregated Account, as required under the originally confirmed Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan. OCI had prescribed an accounting practice that differed from NAIC SAP and has directed Ambac Assurance to utilize par value rather than fair value of these surplus notes in this computation. As a result of the amended Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan becoming effective on June 12, 2014, this prescribed practice is no longer applicable. Ambac Assurance received a new prescribed practice from OCI with regard to the carrying value of investments in Ambac Assurance insured securities with policies that were allocated to the Segregated Account. The new prescribed practice, effective beginning June 11, 2014, exempts Ambac Assurance from evaluating such investments for other than temporary impairments and requires all such investments be reported at amortized cost regardless of its NAIC risk designation. This accounting determination is intended to recognize that Ambac Assurance continues to maintain statutory loss reserves without adjustment for the economic effects of its ownership of the insured investment securities, improve transparency to the users of the statutory financial statements and to minimize operational risks.
OCI has prescribed an accounting practice related to the total liabilities and total surplus of the Segregated Account that are reported as discrete components of Ambac Assurance’s liabilities and surplus reported in Ambac Assurance’s statutory basis financial statements. Pursuant to this prescribed practice, the results of the Segregated Account are not included in Ambac Assurance’s financial statements if
The PRA requires that non-life insurance companies such as Ambac UK maintain a margin of solvency at all times in respect of the liabilities of the insurance company, the calculation of which depends on the type and amount of insurance business a company writes. These solvency requirements were amended on January 1, 2016 in order to implement the European Union's "Solvency II" directive on risk-based capital. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Ambac UK is deficient in terms of compliance with currently applicable regulatory capital requirements under Solvency II directive. The PRA and FCA are aware of the same, and dialogue between Ambac UK management and its regulators remains ongoing with respect to options for addressing the shortcoming, although such options remain few.
Due to losses experienced by Ambac Assurance, Ambac Assurance has been unable to pay common dividends to Ambac since 2008 and will be unable to pay common dividends in 2017 without the prior consent of the OCI, which is unlikely. Ambac Assurance’s ability to pay dividends is further restricted by the Settlement Agreement (as described below), by the terms of its AMPS (as described below) and by certain covenants made for the benefit of the Segregated Account. See Note 1. Background and Business Description for further information.
Subject to the foregoing, pursuant to the Wisconsin Insurance Laws, Ambac Assurance and Everspan may declare dividends, subject to restrictions in their respective articles of incorporation, provided that, after giving effect to the distribution, such dividends would not violate certain statutory equity, solvency, income and asset tests. Board action authorizing a shareholder distribution by Ambac Assurance or Everspan (other than stock dividends) must be reported to the OCI at least 30 days prior to payment, unless the distribution is no more than 15% larger than for the corresponding period in the previous year. In addition, Wisconsin Insurance Laws restrict the payment of extraordinary dividends, which is any distribution which, together with distributions in the prior 12 months, is greater than the lesser of (a) 10% of policyholders’ surplus as of the preceding December 31, and (b) the greater of (i) statutory net income (loss) for the calendar year preceding the date of the dividend, minus realized capital gains for that calendar year or (ii) the aggregate of statutory net income (loss) for three calendar years preceding the date of the dividend, minus realized capital gains for those calendar years and minus dividends paid or credited within the first two of the three preceding calendar years. In connection with the termination of reinsurance contracts, OCI requires adjustments to the dividend calculation for any surplus or net income gains recognized. Extraordinary dividends must be reported to OCI at least 30 days prior to payment and are subject to disapproval by the OCI.
UK law prohibits Ambac UK from declaring a dividend to its shareholders unless it has “profits available for distribution.” The determination of whether a company has profits available for distribution is based on its accumulated realized profits less its accumulated realized losses. While the UK insurance regulatory laws impose no statutory restrictions on a general insurer’s ability to declare a dividend, the PRA’s and FCA’s capital requirements in practice act as a restriction on the payment of dividends. Further, the FSA amended Ambac UK’s license in 2010 such that the PRA must specifically approve (“non-objection”) any transfer of value and/or assets from Ambac UK to Ambac Assurance or any other Ambac
group company, other than in respect of certain disclosed contracts between the two parties (such as in respect of a management services agreement between Ambac Assurance and Ambac UK). Ambac UK is not expected to pay any dividends to Ambac Assurance for the foreseeable future.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Ambac Assurance may not make any “Restricted Payment” (which includes dividends from Ambac Assurance to Ambac) in excess of $5,000 in the aggregate per annum, other than Restricted Payments from Ambac Assurance to Ambac in an amount up to $7,500 per annum solely to pay operating expenses of Ambac. Concurrent with making any such Restricted Payment, a pro rata amount of the surplus notes issued by Ambac Assurance under the Settlement Agreement would also need to be redeemed at par.
Quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active; and model-derived valuations in which all significant inputs and significant value drivers are observable in active markets. Assets and liabilities classified as Level 2 generally include direct investments in fixed income securities representing municipal, asset-backed and corporate obligations, most financial services derivatives, and most long-term debt of variable interest entities consolidated under the Consolidation Topic of the ASC.
Model derived valuations in which one or more significant inputs or significant value drivers are unobservable. This hierarchy requires the use of observable market data when available. Assets and liabilities classified as Level 3 include credit derivative contracts written as part of the financial guarantee business, certain financial services interest rate swap contracts, equity interests in Ambac sponsored special purpose entities and certain investments in fixed income securities. Additionally, Level 3 assets and liabilities generally include fixed income securities, loan receivables, and certain long-term debt of variable interest entities consolidated under the Consolidation Topic of the ASC.
Excluded from the fair value measurement categories in the table above are investment funds of $336,513 and $239,516 as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, which are measured using NAV per share as a practical expedient.
When available, Ambac uses quoted active market prices specific to the financial instrument to determine fair value, and classifies such items within Level 1. Because many fixed income securities do not trade on a daily basis, pricing sources apply available market information through processes such as matrix pricing to determine fair value. In those cases, the items are classified within Level 2. If quoted market prices are not available, fair value is based upon models that use, where possible, current market-based or independently-sourced market parameters. Items valued using valuation models are classified according to the lowest level input or value driver that is significant to the valuation. Thus, an item may be classified in Level 3 even though there may be significant inputs that are readily observable.
Ambac’s financial instruments carried at fair value are comprised of investments in fixed income securities, equity interests in pooled investment funds, derivative instruments, variable interest entity assets and liabilities and equity interests in Ambac sponsored special purpose entities. Valuation of financial instruments is performed by Ambac’s finance group using methods approved by senior financial management with consultation from risk management and portfolio managers as appropriate. Preliminary valuation results are discussed with portfolio managers quarterly to assess consistency with market transactions and trends as applicable. Market transactions such as trades or negotiated settlements of similar positions, if any, are reviewed quarterly to validate fair value model results. However many of the financial instruments valued using significant unobservable inputs have very little or no observable market activity. Methods and significant inputs and assumptions used to determine fair values across portfolios are reviewed quarterly by senior financial management. Other valuation control procedures specific to particular portfolios are described further below.
The fair values of fixed income investment securities are based primarily on market prices received from dealer quotes or alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency. Such quotes generally consider a variety of factors, including recent trades of the same and similar securities. For those fixed income investments where quotes were not available or cannot be reasonably corroborated, fair values are based on internal valuation models. Key inputs to the internal valuation models generally include maturity date, coupon and yield curves for asset-type and credit rating characteristics that closely match those characteristics of the specific investment securities being valued. Longer (shorter) expected maturities or higher (lower) yields used in the valuation model will, in isolation, result in decreases (increases) in fair value. Generally, lower credit ratings or longer expected maturities will be accompanied by higher yields used to value a security. Certain investments in Ambac insured securities for which projected cash flows consist solely of Deferred Amounts and interest thereon, are internally valued based upon the valuation of Ambac Assurance's surplus notes. At December 31, 2016, approximately 5%, 82%, and 13% of the investment portfolio (excluding variable interest entity investments) was valued using dealer quotes, alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency and internal valuation models, respectively. At December 31, 2015, approximately 9%, 82%, and 9% of the investment portfolio (excluding variable interest entity investments) was valued using dealer quotes, alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency and internal valuation models, respectively.
Ambac performs various review and validation procedures to quoted and modeled prices for fixed income securities, including price variance analyses, missing and static price reviews, overall valuation analyses by senior traders and finance managers and reviews associated with our ongoing impairment analysis. Unusual prices identified through these procedures will be evaluated further against additional market data (if available) and/or internally modeled prices, and the pricing source values will be challenged as necessary. Price challenges generally result in the use of the pricing source’s quote as originally provided or as revised by the source following their internal diligence process. A price challenge may result in a determination by either the pricing source or Ambac management that the pricing source cannot provide a reasonable value for a security or cannot adequately support a quote, in which case Ambac would resort to using either other quotes or internal models. Results of price challenges are reviewed by senior traders and finance managers.
and Business Description for further description of the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Plan and its impact on the payment of Segregated Account policy claims and surplus note redemptions.
Other asset-backed securities: These securities are a subordinated tranche of a resecuritization collateralized by Ambac-insured military housing bonds. The fair value of such securities classified as Level 3 was $65,990 and $0 at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Fair value was calculated using a discounted cash flow approach with expected future cash flows discounted using a yield consistent with the security type and rating. Significant inputs for the valuation at December 31, 2016 include the following weighted averages:
Other investments primarily relate to investments in pooled investment funds. The fair value of pooled investment funds is determined using dealer quotes or alternative pricing sources when such investments have readily determinable fair values. When fair value is not readily determinable, pooled investment funds are valued using the net asset value (“NAV”) per share as a practical expedient as permitted under the Fair Value Measurement Topic of the ASC. Below is additional information about such investments in pooled funds that are reported at fair value using NAV as a practical expedient. There are no unfunded commitments applicable to any of these investments for the periods disclosed.
Ambac’s derivative instruments primarily comprise interest rate and credit default swaps, and exchange traded futures contracts. Fair value is determined based upon market quotes from independent sources, when available. For centrally cleared interest rate swaps, valuations are determined using quotes from the central counterparty. When independent quotes are not available, fair value is determined using valuation models. These valuation models require market-driven inputs, including contractual terms, credit spreads and ratings on underlying referenced obligations, yield curves and tax-exempt interest ratios. The valuation of certain interest rate as well as all credit derivative contracts also require the use of data inputs and assumptions that are determined by management and are not readily observable in the market. Under the Fair Value Measurement Topic of the ASC, Ambac is required to consider its own credit risk when measuring the fair value of derivative and other liabilities. The fair value of credit derivative liabilities was reduced by $1,924 and $10,124 at December 31, 2016 and 2015, as a result of incorporating a CVA into the valuation model for these transactions. Interest rate swaps and other derivative liabilities may also require an adjustment to fair value to reflect Ambac’s credit risk. Derivative liabilities were reduced by $44,943 and $78,728 at December 31, 2016 and 2015, as a result of Ambac CVA adjustments to derivative contracts other than credit derivatives. Additional factors considered in estimating the amount of any Ambac CVA on such contracts include collateral posting provisions, right of set-off with the counterparty, the period of time remaining on the derivatives and the pricing of recent terminations.
Derivatives that are less complex may be valued primarily by reference to interest rates and yield curves that are observable and regularly quoted, such as interest rate swaps, we generally utilize vendor-developed models. These models provide the net present value of the derivatives based on contractual terms and observable market data. Downgrades of Ambac Assurance, as guarantor of the financial services derivatives, have increased collateral requirements and triggered termination provisions in certain interest rate swaps. Termination activity since the initial rating downgrades of Ambac Assurance provided additional information about the replacement and/or exit value of certain financial services derivatives, which has been incorporated into the fair value of these derivatives as appropriate. Generally, the need for counterparty (or Ambac) CVAs is mitigated by the existence of collateral posting agreements under which adequate collateral has been posted. Derivative contracts entered into with financial guarantee customers are not typically subject to collateral posting agreements. Counterparty credit risk related to such customer derivative assets is included in our fair value adjustments.
Key variables used in our valuation of substantially all of our credit derivatives include the balance of unpaid notional, expected term, fair values of the underlying reference obligations, reference obligation credit ratings, assumptions about current financial guarantee CDS fee levels relative to reference obligation spreads and the CVA applied against Ambac Assurance liabilities by market participants. Notional balances, expected remaining term and reference obligation credit ratings are monitored or determined by Ambac’s Portfolio Risk Management group. Fair values of the underlying reference obligations are obtained from broker quotes when available, or are estimated internally. Implicit in the fair values we obtain on the underlying reference obligations are the market’s assumptions about default probabilities, default timing, correlation, recovery rates and collateral values.
Fair values of reference obligations named in our CDS contracts are an input to determine the estimated fair value of the CDS and are determined using the same methodologies used to value Ambac’s fixed income securities in its investment portfolio as described above. CDS reference obligation fair values are based on market prices received from dealer quotes or alternative pricing sources with reasonable levels of price transparency. When quotes for reference obligations are not available or cannot be reasonably corroborated, reference obligation prices used in the valuation model are estimated internally based on available market prices or spreads for securities or indices with similar characteristics such as underlying collateral, credit rating and expected life. Internal estimates may also consider historical quotes on the reference obligation, updated for changes in market factors and security specific developments such as credit rating changes. Reference obligation prices derived internally as described above were used in the determination of CDS fair values related to transactions representing 0% of CDS gross par outstanding and 0% of the CDS derivative liability as of December 31, 2016.
CDS relative to any price decline on the reference obligation. The fundamental assumption is that financial guarantee CDS fees will increase relative to reference obligation spreads as the underlying credit quality of the reference obligation deteriorates and approaches payment default. For example, if the credit spread of an underlying reference obligation was 80 basis points at the inception of a transaction and Ambac received a 20 basis point fee for issuing a CDS on that obligation, the relative change ratio, which represents the CDS fee to cash market spread Ambac would utilize in its valuation calculation, would be 25%. If the reference obligation spread increased to 100 basis points in the current reporting period, absent any observable changes in financial guarantee CDS market pricing or credit deterioration, Ambac’s current period CDS fee would be computed by multiplying the current reference obligation spread of 100 basis points by the relative change ratio of 25%, resulting in a 25 basis point fee. Thus, the model indicates we would need to receive an additional 5 basis points (25 basis points currently less the 20 basis points contractually received) for issuing a CDS in the current reporting period for this reference obligation. We would then discount the product of the notional amount of the CDS and the 5 basis point hypothetical CDS fee increase, over the weighted average life of the reference obligation to compute the current period mark-to-market loss. Using the same example, if the reference obligation spread increased to 100 basis points and there was credit deterioration as evidenced by an internal rating downgrade which increased the relative change ratio from 25% to 35%, we would estimate a 15 basis point CDS fee increase in our model (35% of 100 basis points reference obligation spread, or 35 basis points currently, less the 20 basis points contractually received). Therefore, we would record a higher mark-to-market loss based on the computations described above absent any observable changes in financial guarantee CDS market pricing.
Ambac incorporates its own credit risk into the valuation of its CDS liabilities by applying a CVA to the calculations described above. Under our methodology, determination of the CDS fair value requires estimating hypothetical financial guarantee CDS fees for a given credit at the valuation date and estimating the present value of those fees. Our approach begins with pricing in the risk of default of the reference obligation using that obligation’s credit spread. The widening of the reference obligation spread results in a mark-to-market loss to Ambac, as the credit protection seller, and a gain to the credit protection buyer because the current cost of credit protection on the reference obligation (ignoring CDS counterparty credit risk) will be greater than the amount of the actual contractual CDS fees. The Ambac CVA represents the difference between the present value of the hypothetical fees discounted at LIBOR compared to rates that incorporate Ambac credit risk. The discount rates used to determine the Ambac CVA are estimated using relevant data points, including quoted prices of securities guaranteed by Ambac Assurance which indicate the value placed by market participants on Ambac Assurance’s insurance obligations and the fair value of Ambac Assurance surplus notes. The resulting Ambac CVA, as a percentage of the CDS mark-to-market liability determined by discounting at LIBOR, was 11.1% and 22.7% as of December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. In instances where narrower reference obligation spreads result in a CDS asset to Ambac, those hypothetical future CDS fees are discounted at a rate which incorporates our counterparty’s credit spread (i.e. the discount rate used is LIBOR plus the current credit spread of the counterparty).
Key variables which impact the “Realized gains and losses and other settlements” component of “Net change in fair value of credit derivatives” in the Consolidated Statements of Total Comprehensive Income are the most readily observable variables since they are based solely on the CDS contractual terms and cash settlements. Those variables include premiums received and accrued and losses paid and payable on written credit derivative contracts for the appropriate accounting period. Losses paid and payable reported in “Realized gains and losses and other settlements” include those arising after a credit event that requires a payment under the contract terms has occurred or in connection with a negotiated termination of a contract. The remaining key variables described above impact the “Unrealized gains (losses)” component of “Net change in fair value of credit derivatives.”
The net notional outstanding of Ambac’s CDS contracts were $737,380 and $970,883 at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Credit derivative liabilities at December 31, 2016 and 2015 had a combined fair value of $15,349 and $34,543, respectively, and related to underlying reference obligations that are classified as either collateralized loan obligations (“CLOs”) or Other. Information about the above described model inputs used to determine the fair value of each class of credit derivatives, including the CVA as a percentage of the gross mark-to-market liability before considering Ambac credit risk (“CVA percentage”), as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 is summarized below:
The fair value estimate of financial guarantees is computed by utilizing cash flows calculated at the policy level. For direct and assumed contracts, net cash flows for each policy included: (i) installment premium receipts, (ii) estimated future gross claim payments, (iii) subrogation receipts, and (iv) unpaid claims on claims presented and not yet paid for policies allocated to the Segregated Account, including Deferred Amounts and interest thereon. The timing of future claim payments of the Segregated Account are at the sole discretion of the Rehabilitator. For ceded reinsurance contracts, net cash flows for each policy included: (i) installment ceded premium payments, (ii) ceding commission receipts, (iii) ceded claim receipts, and (iv) ceded subrogation payments. For each direct, assumed, and ceded reinsurance contract, the respective undiscounted cash flow components are aggregated to determine if we are in a net asset or net liability position. U.S. GAAP requires that the nonperformance risk of a financial liability be included in the estimation of fair value, which includes considering Ambac Assurance’s own credit risk. Accordingly, for each contract in a net liability position, we estimate the fair value using internally developed discount rates and market pricing that incorporate Ambac’s own credit risk and subsequently apply a profit margin. This profit margin represents what another market participant would require to assume the financial guarantee contracts. Given the unique nature of financial guarantees there is a lack of observable market information to make this estimate. A profit margin was developed based on discussions with the third-party institutions with valuation expertise, discussions with industry participants and yields on Ambac Assurance surplus notes. The profit margin is applied to the present value of contracts in a net liability position. The discount rates used for contracts in a net liability position are derived from guaranteed securities with future cash flows that are highly dependent upon Ambac financial guarantee payments as well as the rates implicit in the fair value of Ambac Assurance's surplus notes, as applicable. For each contract in a net asset position, we estimate the fair value using a discount rate that is commensurate with a hypothetical buyer’s cost of capital.
European ABS transactions: The fair value of such obligations classified as Level 3 was $2,551,278 and $3,016,966 at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Fair values were calculated by using a discounted cash flow approach. The discount rates used were based on the rates implied from the third party quoted values for comparable notes from the same securitization entity. Significant inputs for the valuation at December 31, 2016 and 2015 include the following weighted averages:
US Commercial ABS transaction: The fair value of such obligations classified as Level 3 was $30,942 and $163,204 at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Fair values were calculated as the sum of the present value of expected future cash flows from the underlying VIE assets plus the present value of the related Ambac financial guarantee cash flows. The discount rates applied to cash flows sourced from VIE assets were based on interest rates for similar obligations. The fair value of financial guarantee cash flows include internal estimates of future loss payments by Ambac discounted at a rate that incorporates Ambac’s own credit risk. Significant inputs for the valuation at December 31, 2016 and 2015, include the following weighted averages:
the fair value of cash flows from Ambac’s financial guarantee. The fair value of financial guarantee cash flows include: (i) estimated future premiums discounted at a rate consistent with that implicit in the fair value of the VIE’s liabilities and (ii) internal estimates of future loss payments by Ambac discounted at a rate that includes Ambac’s own credit risk. Estimated future premium payments to be paid by the VIEs were discounted at a weighted average rate of 3.6% and 4.4% at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The value of future loss payments to be paid by Ambac to the VIEs was adjusted to include an Ambac CVA appropriate for the term of expected Ambac claim payments.
Represents the amount of non-credit other-than-temporary impairment losses remaining in accumulated other comprehensive loss on securities that also had a credit impairment. These losses are included in gross unrealized losses as of December 31, 2016 and 2015.
The following table shows gross unrealized losses and fair values of Ambac’s available-for-sale investments, aggregated by investment category and length of time that the individual securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position, at December 31, 2016 and 2015:
Of the $43,785 of unrealized losses on residential mortgage-backed securities, $43,380 is attributable to Ambac insured securities. The unrealized loss on these securities is primarily the result of discount accretion, which has exceeded the increase in fair value. As part of the quarterly impairment review process, management estimates expected future cash flows from residential mortgage-backed securities. This approach includes the utilization of market accepted software models in conjunction with detailed data of the historical performance of the collateral pools, which assists in the determination of assumptions such as defaults, severity and voluntary prepayment rates that are largely driven by home price forecasts as well as other macro-economic factors. Additionally, for Ambac insured securities that are allocated to the Segregated Account, expected future cash flows include assumptions about the timing of Ambac Assurance claim payments, including interest on Deferred Amounts, although the actual timing of such payments are at the sole discretion of the Rehabilitator. These assumptions are used to project future cash flows for each security. Management considered this analysis in making our determination that a credit loss has not occurred at December 31, 2016 on these transactions.
The following table details amounts included in net realized gains and other-than-temporary impairments included in earnings for the affected periods:
Other-than-temporary impairments exclude impairment amounts recorded in other comprehensive income under ASC Paragraph 320-10-65-1, which comprise non-credit related amounts on securities that are credit impaired but which management does not intend to sell and it is not more likely than not that the company will be required to sell before recovery of the amortized cost basis.
The following table presents a roll-forward of Ambac’s cumulative credit losses on debt securities held as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 for which a portion of an other-than-temporary impairment was recognized in other comprehensive income:
The following table presents (i) the sources of collateral either received from various counterparties where Ambac is permitted to sell or re-pledge the collateral or collateral held directly in the investment portfolio and (ii) how that collateral was pledged to various investment agreement, derivative and repurchase agreement counterparties at December 31, 2016 and 2015:
Securities carried at $5,872 and $6,762 at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, were deposited by Ambac Assurance and Everspan with governmental authorities or designated custodian banks as required by laws affecting insurance companies.
Securities with fair value of $360,759 and $396,100 at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, were held by a bankruptcy remote trust to collateralize and fund repayment of debt issued through a secured borrowing transaction. The securities may not be sold or repledged by the trust. These assets are held and the secured debt issued by entities that qualified as VIEs and were consolidated in Ambac’s consolidated financial statements. Refer to Note 4. Special Purpose Entities, Including Variable Interest Entities for a further description of this transaction.
Ambac’s fixed income portfolio includes securities covered by guarantees issued by Ambac Assurance and other financial guarantors (“insured securities”). The published rating agency ratings on these securities reflect the higher of the financial strength rating of the financial guarantor or the rating of the underlying issuer. Rating agencies do not always publish separate underlying ratings (those ratings excluding the insurance by the financial guarantor) because the insurance cannot be legally separated from the underlying security by the insurer. In the event these underlying ratings are not available from the rating agencies, Ambac will assign an internal rating. The following table represents the fair value, including the value of the financial guarantee, and weighted-average underlying rating, excluding the financial guarantee, of the insured securities at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively:
Includes asset-backed securities with a fair value of $118,813 and $119,802 at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, insured by Ambac UK.
The following tables summarize the gross fair values of individual derivative instruments and the impact of legal rights of offset as reported in the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2016 and 2015.
Ambac maintains internal credit ratings on its guaranteed obligations, including credit derivative contracts, solely to indicate management’s view of the underlying credit quality of the guaranteed obligations. Independent rating agencies may have assigned different ratings on the credits in Ambac’s portfolio than Ambac’s internal ratings. The following tables summarize the gross principal notional outstanding for CDS contracts, by Ambac rating, for each major category as of December 31, 2016 and 2015:
The tables below summarize information by major category as of December 31, 2016 and 2015:
The maximum potential amount of future payments under Ambac’s credit derivative contracts is generally the gross principal notional outstanding amount included in the above table plus future interest payments payable by the derivative reference obligations. Since Ambac’s credit derivatives typically reference obligations of or assets held by special purpose entities that meet the definition of a VIE, the amount of maximum potential future payments for credit derivatives is included in the table in Note 3. Special Purpose Entities, Including Variable Interest Entities.
Ambac, through its subsidiary Ambac Financial Services (“AFS”), provides interest rate swaps to states, municipalities and their authorities, asset-backed issuers and other entities in connection with their financings. AFS manages its interest rate swaps business with the goal of retaining some basis risk and excess interest rate sensitivity as an economic hedge against the effects of rising interest rates elsewhere in the Company, including on Ambac’s financial guarantee exposures. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015 the notional amounts of AFS’s trading derivative products are as follows:
Certain VIEs consolidated under the Consolidation Topic of the ASC entered into derivative contracts to meet specified purposes within the securitization structure. The notional for VIE derivatives outstanding as of December 31, 2016 and 2015 are as follows:
Ambac’s over-the-counter interest rate swaps are centrally cleared when eligible. Certain interest rate swaps remain with professional swap-dealer counterparties and certain front-end counterparties. These non-cleared swaps are generally executed under standardized derivative documents including collateral support and master netting agreements. Under these agreements, Ambac is required to post collateral in the event net unrealized losses exceed predetermined threshold levels. Additionally, given that Ambac Assurance is no longer rated by an independent rating agency, counterparties have the right to terminate the swap positions.
As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the net liability fair value of all derivative instruments with contingent features linked to Ambac’s own credit risk was $82,944 and $95,415, respectively, related to which Ambac had posted cash and securities as collateral with a fair value of $128,754 and $147,974, respectively. All such ratings-based contingent features have been triggered as requiring maximum collateral levels to be posted by Ambac while preserving counterparties’ rights to terminate the contracts. Assuming all contracts terminated on December 31, 2016, settlement of collateral balances and net derivative liabilities would result in a net receipt of cash and/or securities by Ambac. If counterparties elect to exercise their right to terminate, the actual termination payment amounts will be determined in accordance with derivative contract terms, which may result in amounts that differ from values as reported in Ambac’s financial statements.
Other loans had an outstanding principal balance of $4,873 and $6,205 at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. Interest rates on these loans were 4.53% and 4.75% at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The maturity date of these loans were June 2026 as of December 31, 2016 and 2015. Collectability of these loans is evaluated on an ongoing basis; no loan has been considered impaired and as such no loan impairments have been recorded as of December 31, 2016 and 2015.
The Segregated Account surplus notes, with a par amount of $39,102 and $39,102 at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, are reported in long-term debt on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and have a scheduled maturity of June 7, 2020. These surplus notes were recorded at their fair value at the date of issuance. The discount on these notes is currently being accreted into income using the effective interest method at an imputed interest rate of 10.5%. All payments of principal and interest on the Segregated Account surplus notes are subject to the prior approval of the OCI. If the OCI does not approve the payment of interest on the Segregated Account surplus notes, such interest will accrue and compound annually until paid. OCI disapproved of the requests of the Rehabilitator of the Segregated Account, acting for and on behalf of the Segregated Account, to pay interest on the outstanding Segregated Account surplus notes on their respective scheduled interest payment dates since their issuance.
As described in Note 1. Background and Business Description, the Rehabilitator redeemed certain Segregated Account surplus notes (other than junior surplus notes) on November 20, 2014 at a redemption price that included an amount equal to principal plus accrued interest on such redeemed surplus notes. Such redemption also triggered similar proportionate redemption payments on Ambac Assurance surplus notes. The
The Segregated Account junior surplus notes, with a par value of $374,036 and $378,039 at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, are reported in long-term debt on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and have a scheduled maturity of June 7, 2020, subject to the following restrictions. Principal and interest payments on these junior surplus notes cannot be made until all Ambac Assurance (General Account) and Segregated Account surplus notes are paid in full and after all Segregated Account future and existing senior indebtedness, policy and other priority claims have been paid in full. All payments of principal and interest on the junior surplus notes are subject to the prior approval of the OCI. If the OCI does not approve the payment of interest on the junior surplus notes, such interest will accrue and compound annually until paid. No such approval has been sought or obtained to pay interest on junior surplus notes since their issuance.
Par value at December 31, 2016 and 2015 includes $350,000 face amount of a junior surplus note originally issued to Ambac pursuant to Ambac's Reorganization Plan in accordance with the Mediation Agreement and that Ambac sold to a Trust on August 28, 2014. This junior surplus note was recorded at a discount to par based on its fair value on August 28, 2014. Ambac is accreting the discount on this junior surplus note into earnings using the effective interest method, based on an imputed interest rate of 8.4%.
The secured borrowing, with a par value of $102,986 and $132,467 at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, is reported in long-term debt on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and has a legal maturity of July 25, 2047. Interest on the secured borrowing is payable monthly at an annual rate of one month LIBOR + 2.8%. Refer to Note 3. Special Purpose Entities, Including Variable Interest Entities for further discussion on the secured borrowing transaction.
As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the carrying value of obligations under investment agreements, including unamortized discounts or premiums to principal, were $82,358 and $100,358, respectively. As of December 31, 2016 and 2015, the contractual variable interest rates for these agreements, ranged from 0.94% to 0.94% and 0.43% to 0.43%, respectively. The remaining principal amount under investment agreements is due during the year ending December 31, 2017.
As of December 31, 2016 Ambac had loss carryforwards totaling $4,027,329. This includes carryforwards of $74,094 relating to U.S. capital losses and $3,953,235 relating to U.S. federal net operating losses, which, if not utilized, will begin expiring in 2029, and will fully expire in 2033.
The tax effects of temporary differences that give rise to significant portions of the deferred tax liabilities and deferred tax assets at December 31, 2016 and 2015 are presented below:
The components of the provision for income taxes were as follows:
Pursuant to the Amended TSA, to the extent Ambac Assurance generates taxable income after September 30, 2011, which is offset with "Allocated NOLs" of $3,650,000, it is obligated to make payments (“Tolling Payments”), subject to certain credits, to Ambac in accordance with the following
To the extent Ambac Assurance utilizes Allocated NOLs generated prior to September 30, 2011 greater than $3,650,000, beginning on the fifth anniversary date subsequent to Ambac's May 1, 2013 emergence from bankruptcy, and subject to Ambac's consent, not to be unreasonably withheld, Ambac Assurance may utilize Ambac's NOL in exchange for a payment to Ambac of 25% of the federal income tax liability that Ambac Assurance would have been paid if the NOLs were not available.
Ambac provides postretirement and postemployment benefits, including health and life benefits for certain employees who meet certain age and service requirements. None of the plans are currently funded. In addition, Ambac provides severance benefits. Postretirement and postemployment benefits expenses, including severance benefits paid, was $8,846, $2,570 and $2,249 for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
The discount rate used in determining the projected benefit obligations for the postretirement plan is selected by reference to the year-end Citigroup pension liability index with similar duration to that of the benefit plans. The rate used for the projected plan benefit obligations at the measurement date for December 31, 2016 and 2015 was 4.00% and 4.25%, respectively.
Incentive compensation is a key component of our compensation strategy. Incentive compensation payouts can be highly variable from year to year and are generally based on the execution of our strategies at the Company, as well as business unit and individual performance. In January of each year a determination is made as to the total amount of incentive compensation to be awarded. Employees, directors and consultants of Ambac are eligible to participate in Ambac’s 2013 Incentive Compensation Plan (“2013 Plan”) subject to the discretion of the compensation committee of Ambac’s Board of Directors. The 2013 Plan provides for incentives and rewards that are valued or determined by reference to Ambac common stock as traded on the NASDAQ exchange. There are 4,000,000 shares of Ambac’s common stock authorized for awards under the 2013 Plan of which 3,004,639 shares are available for future grant as of December 31, 2016.
Stock options were awarded to directors in 2013 (vested on April 30, 2014) and to the former Chief Executive Officer in 2015 (vested January 1, 2016), all with an expiry term of seven years from the grant date, subject to earlier expiration upon the recipient's departure from the Company. The Company intends to use Treasury shares first and then, if necessary, issue new shares to satisfy stock option exercises. No stock options were awarded in 2014 or 2016.
As of December 31, 2016, 264,230 RSUs remained outstanding, of which (i) 102,794 units required future service as a condition to the delivery of the underlying shares of common stock, (ii) 103,486 units vested on December 31, 2016 but were not settled until January 3, 2017 and (iii) 57,950 units did not require future service and are deferred for future settlement. As of December 31, 2015, 208,502 RSUs remained outstanding, of which (i) 78,460 units required future service as a condition to the delivery of the underlying shares of common stock and (ii) 130,042 units did not require future service.
Ambac’s closing share price on the grant date was used to estimate the fair value of the service condition based RSU on the grant date. The weighted average grant date fair value of RSUs granted during 2016, 2015 and 2014 was $14.34, $23.71 and $30.18, respectively. As of December 31, 2016, there was $696 of total unrecognized compensation costs related to unvested RSUs granted. These costs are expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 1.1 years. The fair value for RSUs vested and delivered during the year ended December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 was $2,965, $864 and $37, respectively.
In 2015, a performance award was granted to the former Chief Executive Officer. This award will vest upon the emergence of the Segregated Account from rehabilitation (or a similar event as determined in the sole and absolute discretion of the Compensation Committee of Ambac's Board of Directors), provided that such emergence occurs no later than December 31, 2018.
As of December 31, 2016 there was $2,874 of total unrecognized compensation costs related to the PSU portion of unvested performance awards, which are expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of 1.8 years.
On July 15, 2016, the Rehabilitator filed a motion to confirm and declare the nature of the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Proceedings in order to avoid misunderstandings that may arise in litigation involving Ambac Assurance concerning certain military housing projects. Certain parties to these military housing litigations filed an opposition to the Rehabilitator’s motion on September 30, 2016. On October 11, 2016 the Rehabilitation Court held a hearing on the motion and on October 24, 2016, the Rehabilitation Court entered an order granting the Rehabilitator’s motion. On November 7, 2016, the interested parties that had opposed the Rehabilitator’s motion filed a notice of appeal from the October 24 order, and filed their opening brief in support of this appeal on January 17, 2017. The Rehabilitator filed a response brief in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on February 15, 2017. On November 21, 2016, the Rehabilitator filed a motion to quash a subpoena served on the Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance by certain parties to the military housing litigations. The Rehabilitation Court granted the Rehabilitator’s motion to quash on November 23, 2016. The interested parties that had served the subpoena filed an opposition to the Rehabilitator’s motion to quash on November 23, 2016, and filed on November 28, 2016 a motion to reconsider the November 23 order, which the Rehabilitator opposed on
December 6, 2016. The Rehabilitation Court held a hearing on January 6, 2017 and entered an order on January 20, 2017 denying the motion to reconsider and clarifying procedures for discovery relating to the Segregated Account Rehabilitation Proceedings.
Ori Wilbush, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ambac Financial Group, Inc., Diana N. Adams, David Trick, Jeffrey S. Stein, Nader Tavakoli and Cathleen Matanle (United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 16-cv-05076-RMB, filed on June 28, 2016). A putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in June 2016 against Ambac and certain of its present and former officers and directors, for alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The court appointed a lead plaintiff on October 11, 2016. The lead plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on November 23, 2016. The suit purports to be on behalf of purchasers of Ambac’s securities from November 13, 2013 through November 17, 2015. It alleges, among other things, that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding Ambac’s (a) risk management and credit rating policies and procedures, (b) credit mitigation strategies, (c) internal controls over financial reporting, and (d) loss exposures on its public finance bond portfolio. In particular, the suit alleges that defendants did not sufficiently disclose Ambac’s exposure to bonds issued by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, despite allegedly being aware of significant risks associated with those exposures. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 27, 2017. Ambac believes the lawsuit is without merit.
County of Alameda et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, second amended complaint filed on or about August 23, 2011) (“Alameda Complaint”); Contra Costa County et al. v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, third amended complaint filed on or about October 21, 2011) (“Contra Costa Complaint”); The Olympic Club v. Ambac Assurance Corporation et al. (Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, fourth amended complaint filed on or about October 21, 2011) (“Olympic Club Complaint”). The Contra Costa Complaint was brought on behalf of five California municipal entities and the non-profit Jewish Community Center of San Francisco. The Alameda Complaint was brought on behalf of nineteen California municipal entities. The Olympic Club Complaint was brought on behalf of the non-profit Olympic Club. The three actions make similar allegations against Ambac Assurance, various other financial guarantee insurance companies and employees thereof (collectively with Ambac Assurance, the “Bond Insurer Defendants”), and, in the case of the Contra Costa Complaint and the Olympic Club Complaint, the major credit rating agencies (the “Rating Agencies”). The actions allege that (1) Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants colluded with the Rating Agencies to perpetuate a “dual rating system” pursuant to which the Rating Agencies rated the debt obligations of municipal issuers differently from corporate debt obligations, thereby keeping municipal ratings artificially low relative to corporate ratings; (2) Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants issued false and misleading financial statements and failed to disclose the extent of the insurers’ respective exposures to mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations; and (3) as a result of these actions, plaintiffs incurred higher interest costs and bond insurance premiums in respect of their respective bond issues. Ambac Financial Group was originally a defendant in each of these actions, but on November 22, 2010, Ambac Financial Group was dismissed without prejudice as a defendant by the plaintiffs in each of these actions. Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of the current amended complaints on September 21, 2011, which was denied on October 20, 2011. On December 2, 2011, Ambac Assurance and the other Bond Insurer Defendants filed a special motion to strike the current amended complaints under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute (Calif. Code of Civ. Proc. Section 425.16). A hearing on the motion was held on March 23, 2012. On May 1, 2012, the Court ruled that the complaints were governed by the Anti-SLAPP statute to the extent they alleged conspiracy to influence the rating agencies’ rating methodologies, but not to the extent that the complaints alleged false or misleading statements or nondisclosures. After oral argument on March 21, 2013, the court dismissed claims related to the conspiracy branch of the complaint under the California Antitrust Law (the Cartwright Act) and after oral argument on April 22, 2013 denied defendants’ motion to dismiss claims under the California Unfair Competition Law. The court entered an order to this effect on July 9, 2013. On February 18, 2016 the California Court of Appeal, First District, issued a decision reversing the lower court’s dismissal of the Cartwright Act claim as against Ambac Assurance and otherwise affirming the lower court’s decision as to Ambac Assurance. Discovery has commenced.
Monterey Bay Military Housing LLC and Monterey Bay Land LLC v. Ambac Assurance Corporation (Superior Court, Monterey County, California, Case No. 15CV000599). Plaintiff filed this action on December 4, 2015. Ambac Assurance filed an answer on January 19, 2016.
Erste Europäische Pfandbriefund Kommunalkreditbank AG In Luxemburg and Ambac Assurance Corporation v. City of San Bernardino, California (United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Riverside Division, Docket No. 15-1185, filed on January 7, 2015). Plaintiffs commenced this adversary proceeding, which relates to the Debtor’s obligations under the Public Employees Retirement Law, California Government Code Section 20000 et seq. (the “Retirement Law”), in connection with the City of San Bernardino’s bankruptcy proceeding. In the complaint, plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Debtor is obligated to make equivalent payments to both the holders of certain pension obligation bonds (the “Bonds”), a portion of which are insured by Ambac, and the California Public Employees Retirement Systems (“CalPERS”) to fund pension and other retirement benefits. It is the plaintiffs’ position that they are entitled to declaratory judgment because (i) when the City issue the Bonds, the City argued and a California court found, that the obligations under the Bonds were of the same legal character as the City’s obligations to CalPERS and (ii) the amounts owed to the bondholders are to CalPERS are merely separate portions of a single obligation owed by the Debtor under the Retirement Law. Plaintiffs therefore seek equivalent payment as to CalPERS, whether such payment takes for the form of current payments during the bankruptcy proceeding and thereafter, payments otherwise made in connection with the Retirement Law or any agreements entered into in accordance therewith, or distributions under a plan of adjustment. On March 13, 2015, the City filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which plaintiffs opposed. On May 11, 2015, the court heard oral argument and granted the City’s motion to dismiss. On June 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court’s order granting the City’s motion to dismiss with the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit and filed their appellate brief on January 5, 2016. The parties have reached a settlement and pursuant to the settlement agreement dated March 28, 2016, the plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss the appeal with prejudice upon confirmation of the City’s plan of adjustment by the bankruptcy judge and the plan of adjustment becoming effective.
Ambac UK v. J.P. Morgan Investment Management (Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed May 4, 2009, No. 650259/2009). Ambac UK commenced this action against J.P. Morgan Investment Management asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and gross negligence relating to defendant’s mismanagement of assets supporting bonds issued by Ballantyne Plc and insured by Ambac UK that funded excess reserves for term life insurance required by regulation. (Pursuant to an agreement with Ballantyne Plc, Ambac UK was given the authority to prosecute Ballantyne plc's claims against J.P. Morgan Investment Management.) On March 24, 2010, the court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. Ambac UK appealed the March 2010 decision and on July 14, 2011, the Appellate Division for the First Department reversed the decision and reinstated Ambac UK's claims in their entirety. Fact and expert discovery have been completed. On January 22, 2016, Ambac UK filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a ruling that defendant breached the Investment Management Agreement between JPMIM and Ballantyne plc under one of the asserted theories of liability. JPMIM opposed the motion. On
February 21, 2017, the court issued a decision that JPMIM had not complied with the contractual provision at issue in the motion, but also decided that an issue of fact remained as to whether such breach violated the standard of care set forth in the investment management agreement and, therefore, denied the motion. Trial is scheduled to begin in March 2017.
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 on January 7, 2016). Ambac Assurance, along with co-plaintiffs Assured Guaranty Corp. and Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp., 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 (including the Government Development Bank (“GDB”) President but solely in her capacity as a member of the Working Group For The Fiscal and Economic Restoration of Puerto Rico) filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on January 29, 2016. The GDB President, in her official capacity, moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on January 29, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their oppositions to the motions on February 16, 2016 and defendants filed replies on February 23, 2016. This case was administratively consolidated with a similar case before the same judge, Financial Guaranty Insurance Company v. Alejandro Garcia Padilla, et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico No. 3:16-cv-01095). On October 4, 2016, the court denied the Defendants’ and GDB President’s motions to dismiss with respect to all claims asserted by Ambac Assurance and Assured. 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 is automatically stayed under section 405 of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”). On October 28, 2016, Plaintiffs informed the court that neither party was currently challenging the stay, and expressly reserved their right to seek to lift the stay at any time. Plaintiffs also objected to Defendants’ assertion that the case should be dismissed as moot.
Lex Claims, LLC et al. v. Alejandro Garcia Padilla et al. (United States District Court, District of Puerto Rico, No. 16-2374). On October 7, 2016, certain General Obligation bondholder plaintiffs in an action to which Ambac Assurance is not currently a party filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint and for partial relief from the PROMESA stay. Plaintiffs’ proposed second amended complaint adds the Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (“COFINA”), COFINA’s executive director, and the trustee for the COFINA bonds as defendants, and asserts numerous claims that challenge the legal validity of the COFINA structure and seek injunctive relief requiring the sales and use tax proceeds securing COFINA’s bonds to be transferred to the Puerto Rico Treasury. The plaintiffs contend that many of the claims challenging COFINA are not subject to PROMESA’s litigation stay provisions. On October 24, 2016, the defendants filed an opposition to the motion for leave to amend, arguing that the entire action is subject to the PROMESA stay. On October 26, 2016, Ambac Assurance filed a motion for leave to intervene and in support of the PROMESA stay. Ambac Assurance seeks to intervene principally to argue that the claims challenging COFINA are stayed by PROMESA, but also reserves the right to move to dismiss or otherwise defend against those claims should the court determine they are not stayed. The court has not ruled yet on plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend or Ambac Assurance’s motion to intervene. On November 4, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint that same day. On November 7, 2016, the government defendants sought to stay the case. On November 29, 2016, the parties’ briefing on Ambac Assurance’s motion to intervene was complete. Other putative intervenors filed motions to intervene. On February 17, 2017, the court granted the motions to intervene by Ambac Assurance and some of the other movants. The court also denied the defendants’ motion to stay and the arguments in support of the stay filed by the intervenors, including Ambac Assurance.
recommendation also filed a cross motion for leave to amend the complaint on November 14, 2014, which the defendants opposed. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the fraudulent inducement claim, which Ambac Assurance opposed. The court heard oral argument on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the fraudulent inducement claim on April 14, 2015. On June 3, 2015, the court denied defendants’ July 2013 motion to dismiss Ambac’s claim for breaches of representations and warranties, but granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Ambac’s claims for breach of the repurchase protocol and for alter ego liability against Nomura Holding. On December 29, 2016, the court issued a decision denying Nomura’s motion to strike Ambac’s amended complaint and its motion to dismiss the fraudulent inducement claim. On January 31, 2017, Nomura filed a notice of appeal from that decision. Discovery is ongoing.
Ambac has two reportable segments, as follows: (i) Financial Guarantee, which provides financial guarantees (including credit derivatives) for public finance, structured finance and international obligations; and (ii) Financial Services, which provides investment agreements, funding conduits, and interest rate swaps, principally to clients of the financial guarantee business. Ambac’s reportable segments were strategic business units that offered different products and services.
Information provided below for unaffiliated “Corporate and Other” primarily relates to investment income on Ambac's investment portfolio. Equity in net income of investees accounted for by the equity method relates to the Owner Trust Certificate received when Ambac deposited its Segregated Account junior surplus note into a Trust (see Note 3. Special Purpose Entities, Including Variable Interest Entities for further information relating to the sale by Ambac of a junior surplus note issued to it by the Segregated Account). Inter-segment for "Corporate and Other" relates to amounts received by Ambac under the Mediation Agreement dated September 21, 2011 (as more fully described in Note 1. Background and Business Description), including accrual of interest on the junior surplus notes issued by the Segregated Account prior to Ambac's deposit into a Trust.