ABCP Ambase Corporation (PK)

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Additionally, the JV Agreement provides that (i) Mr. R. A. Bianco, his immediate family, and/or any limited liability company wholly-owned thereby, and/or a trust in which Mr. R. A. Bianco and/or his immediate family is the beneficiary, shall at all times own, in the aggregate, not less than 20% of the outstanding shares of AmBase; and (ii) Mr. R. A. Bianco shall remain the Chairman of the Board of Directors of AmBase for the duration of the JV Agreement.

In March 2014, the Company entered into an amended and restated operating agreement for Investment LLC (the “Amended and Restated Investment Operating Agreement”) to grant a 10% subordinated participation interest in Investment LLC to Mr. R. A. Bianco as contingent future incentive for Mr. R. A. Bianco’s past, current and anticipated ongoing role to develop and commercialize the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57 ^th Property.  Pursuant to the terms of the Amended and Restated Investment Operating Agreement, Mr. R.A. Bianco has no voting rights with respect to his interest in Investment LLC, and his entitlement to receive 10% of the distributions from Investment LLC is subject to the Company first receiving distributions equal to 150% of the Company’s initial aggregate investment in Investment LLC and the Joint Venture, plus any additional investments by the Company, and only with respect to any distributions thereafter. At the current time the Company has not expensed nor accrued any amounts relating to this subordinated participation interest, as no amount or range of amounts can be reasonably estimated or assured.

During 2014, in connection with the funding of additional capital calls under the JV Agreement for required borrowing and development costs for the 111 West 57 ^th Property, the Company’s management and its Board of Directors concluded that, given the continuing development risks of the 111 West 57 ^th Property and the Company’s financial position, the Company should not at that time increase its already significant concentration and risk exposure to the 111 West 57th Property.  Nonetheless, the Company sought to limit dilution of its interest in the Joint Venture resulting from any failure to fund the capital call requirements, but at the same time wished to avoid the time, expense and financial return requirements (with attendant dilution and possible loss of voting rights) that obtaining a replacement third-party investor would require. The Company therefore entered into a second amended and restated operating agreement for Investment LLC (“Second Amended and Restated Investment Operating Agreement”) pursuant to which Capital LLC was admitted as a member of Investment LLC. In exchange for Capital LLC contributing toward Investment LLC capital calls in respect of the 111 West 57 ^th Property, available cash of Investment LLC will be distributed first to Capital LLC until it has received a 20% internal rate of return (calculated as provided for in the JV Agreement as noted above), second to the Company until it has received 150% of its capital, and, thereafter, available cash is split 10/90, with 10% going to Mr. R. A. Bianco as the subordinated participation interest noted above and 90% going to Capital LLC and the Company pari-passu, with Capital LLC receiving one-half of its pro-rata share based on capital contributed and the Company receiving the balance. No other material changes were made to the Amended and Restated Investment Operating Agreement, and neither Mr. R. A. Bianco nor Capital LLC has any voting rights with respect to their interest and investment in Investment LLC.

In accordance with the JV Agreement, Shortfall Capital Contributions may be treated either as a member loan or as a dilutive capital contribution by the funding party valued at one and one-half times the amount actually contributed.  The Sponsor deemed the Shortfall Capital Contributions as dilutive capital contributions to the Company.  The Company disagrees with the Sponsor’s investment percentage calculations. The Sponsor has taken the position that the Capital Contribution Requests, if taken together, would have caused the Company’s combined ownership percentage to be diluted to approximately 48%. The parties have a dispute with regard to the calculation of the revised investment percentages resulting from the Capital Contribution Requests, along with the treatment and allocation of these Shortfall Capital Contribution amounts.

On June 30, 2015, 111 West 57 ^th Partners obtained financing for the 111 West 57 ^th Property.  The financing was obtained in two parts: (i) a first mortgage construction loan with AIG Asset Management (US), LLC (along with its affiliates “AIG”); and (ii) a mezzanine loan with Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc. (along with its affiliates “Apollo”), as detailed herein.  Both loans have a four-year term with a one-year extension option subject to satisfying certain conditions.  The loan agreements (the “Loan Agreements”) also include customary events of default and other customary terms and conditions.  Simultaneously with the closing of the AIG and the Apollo financing, 111 West 57 ^th Partners repaid all outstanding liabilities and obligations to Annaly CRE, LLC under the initial mortgage and acquisition loan agreement, dated June 28, 2013, between the joint venture entities and Annaly CRE, LLC.  The remaining loan proceeds were to be drawn down and used as necessary for construction and related costs, loan interest escrow and other related project expenses for development of the 111 West 57 ^th Property.

In April 2016, AmBase initiated a litigation in the New York State Supreme Court for New York County (the “NY Court”), Index No. 652301/2016, (“ AmBase v. 111 West 57 ^th Sponsor LLC, et al.”) (the “111 West 57 ^th Action”).  The defendants in that litigation are 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, 111 West 57th JDS LLC, PMG West 57th Street LLC, 111 West 57th Control LLC, 111 West 57th Developer LLC, 111 West 57 ^th KM Equity LLC, 111 West 57 ^th KM Group LLC, Kevin Maloney, Matthew Phillips, Michael Stern, Ned White, 111 Construction Manager LLC, Property Markets Group, Inc., JDS Development LLC, JDS Construction Group LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) and nominal defendant 111 West 57th Partners LLC . In June 2018, Defendants removed the complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Federal Court”), where it is docketed as case number 18-cv-5482-AT. For additional information with regard to the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57 ^th Property, see Note 9 herein .

In December 2016, the Sponsor proposed for approval a “proposed budget” (the “Proposed Budget”), which the Sponsor claims reflected an increase in other costs resulting in the need for additional funding in order to complete the project. The Company disputes, among other items, the calculation of the percentage increase of hard costs shown in the Proposed Budget. The Company believes the aggregate projected hard costs in the Proposed Budget exceed a contractually stipulated limit as a percentage of the hard costs set forth in the prior approved budget, thus allowing Investment LLC the option to exercise its Equity Put Right. Consequently, subsequent to the Sponsor’s presentation of the Proposed Budget, Investment LLC notified the Sponsor that it was exercising its Equity Put Right pursuant to the JV Agreement. The Sponsor refused to honor the exercise of Investment LLC’s Equity Put Right. The Sponsor claims, among other things, that the conditions precedent were not met because they claim that the increase in aggregate hard costs in the Proposed Budget does not exceed the contractually stipulated limit that would allow the exercise of the Equity Put Right.

The Company further contends that a portion of the Proposed Budget increases are manager overruns (as defined in the JV Agreement) and thus should be paid for by the Sponsor. The Sponsor denies that the Proposed Budget increases were manager overruns. The Company continues to challenge the nature and substance of the Proposed Budget increases and how they should be treated pursuant to the JV Agreement.

The Sponsor claimed that additional borrowings of $60 million to $100 million were needed to complete the project. Shortly thereafter, the Sponsor informed the Company that Apollo had indicated that due to budget increases, it believed the current loan was “out of balance” (meaning, according to Apollo, the projected budget exceeds the original budget approved in connection with the loan); and thus 111 West 57th Partners LLC, or its subsidiaries would need additional funding in order to bring the loan back into balance. The Company considered approving the additional financing, but informed the Sponsor that it had concerns about the Proposed Budget and the implications of the Proposed Budget, as well as other questions which needed to be addressed first.

In March 2017, the Company and Mr. R. A. Bianco entered into an agreement for Mr. R. A. Bianco to provide to the Company a financial commitment in the form of a line of credit up to ten million dollars ($10,000,000) or additional amount(s) as may be necessary and agreed to enable AmBase to contribute capital to Investment LLC and/or other affiliated subsidiaries of the Company to meet capital calls for the of 111 West 57 ^th Property if and when the case may be necessary on terms agreeable to/by the Company (as determined by the independent members of the Board of Directors) and Mr. R. A. Bianco at such time.  The agreement provided that additional borrowings from Mr. R. A. Bianco pursuant to this line of credit would be secured by the Company’s commercial office building in Greenwich, Connecticut. As a result of the sale of the Company’s commercial office building in Greenwich Connecticut. In January 2018, any borrowings from Mr. R. A. Bianco under this line of credit will be unsecured.

Around this time, Apollo provided loan forbearances to the borrowers and guarantors in order to allow the Sponsor time (while the building continued to be built) to raise the additional financing that Sponsor claimed would be needed in order to complete the 111 West 57th project. This forbearance period ended on June 29, 2017. Around this date, the Company was advised that Apollo sold a portion of the mezzanine loan—broken off as a junior mezzanine loan—to an affiliate of Spruce Capital Partners LLC, (“Spruce”) (the “Junior Mezzanine Loan”).

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

On June 30, 2017, Spruce declared an event of default under the Junior Mezzanine Loan and demanded immediate payment of the full outstanding balance of the Junior Mezzanine Loan.  Spruce then gave notice to the junior mezzanine borrower that it proposed to accept the pledged collateral (including the joint venture members’ collective interest in the property) in full satisfaction of the joint venture’s indebtedness under the Junior Mezzanine Loan (i.e., a “Strict Foreclosure”).

On July 25, 2017, the Company filed a complaint against Spruce and the Sponsor and requested injunctive relief halting the Strict Foreclosure from the New York State Supreme Court for New York County, (the “NY Court”) Index No. 655031/2017, (the “111 West 57 ^th Spruce Action”) . The defendants in the 111 West 57 ^th Spruce action were 111 W57 Mezz Investor, LLC, Spruce Capital Partners LLC, 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, Michael Z. Stern, and Kevin P. Maloney (collectively, “Defendants”) and nominal defendants 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57 ^th Mezz 1 LLC. The Company has since voluntarily discontinued its claims against Sponsor, Stern, and Maloney, without prejudice to reinstating them in the 111 West 57 ^th Spruce Action or any other action. For additional information with regard to the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57 ^th Property, see Note 9 herein .

On August 30, 2017, Spruce issued a Notice of Retention of Pledged Collateral in Full Satisfaction of Indebtedness. By purporting to accept the pledged collateral, pursuant to a Strict Foreclosure process, Spruce claims to have completed the retention of the collateral pledged by the junior mezzanine borrower, and therefore, the Company’s interest in the 111 West 57th Street Property.

In June 2018, the Company initiated another litigation in the NY Court, Index No. 655031/2017, (the “Apollo Action”) . The defendants in the Apollo Action are ACREFI Mortgage Lending, LLC, Apollo Credit Opportunity Fund III AIV I LP, AGRE Debt 1 – 111 W 57, LLC, and Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc. (collectively, the “Apollo Defendants”). In the Apollo Action, the Company alleges that the Apollo Defendants aided and abetted the Sponsor, Stern, and Maloney in breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company in connection with the 111 West 57 ^th Property and tortuously interfered with the JV Agreement. See Note 9 herein for additional information regarding the Apollo Action.

As further discussed herein, despite ongoing litigation challenging the legitimacy of the actions taken by the Sponsor and Spruce in connection with the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57 ^th Property, in accordance with GAAP, the Company recorded an impairment for the full amount of its equity investment in the 111 West 57 ^th Property, in 2017. Prior to the Strict Foreclosure, the carrying value of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57 ^th Property represented a substantial portion of the Company’s assets and net equity value. The Company is and will continue to pursue the recovery of its asset value from various sources of recovery; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail with respect to any of its claims.

With respect to its disputes and litigation relating to its interest in the 111 West 57th Property, the Company is continuing to pursue various legal courses of action, as well as considering other possible economic strategies, including the possible sale of the Company’s interest in and/or rights with respect to the 111 West 57th Property. The Company is continuing to pursue other options to realize the Company’s investment value and/or protect its legal rights.

The Company can give no assurances regarding the outcome of the matters described herein, including as to the effect of Spruce’s actions described herein, whether the Sponsor will perform their contractual commitments to the Company under the JV Agreement, as to what further action, if any, the lenders may take with respect to the project, as to the ultimate resolution of the ongoing litigation proceedings relating to the Company’s investment interest in the 111 West 57 ^th Property, as to the ultimate effect of the Sponsor’s, the Company’s or the lenders’ actions on the project, as to the completion or ultimate success of the project, or as to the value or ultimate realization of any portion of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57 ^th Street Property. For additional information with regard to the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57 ^th Property, see Note 9 herein .

For information relating to the Litigation Funding Agreement entered into between the Company and Mr. Richard A. Bianco, the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, see Note 10.

While the Company’s management is evaluating future courses of action to protect and/or recover the value of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57 ^th Property, the adverse developments make it uncertain as to whether any such courses of action will be successful. Any such efforts are likely to require sustained effort over a period of time and require substantial additional financial resources. Inability to recover all or most of such value would in all likelihood have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and future prospects.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 5 - Savings Plans

The Company sponsors the AmBase 401(k) Savings Plan (the “Savings Plan”), which is a “Section 401(k) Plan” within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). The Savings Plan permits eligible employees to make contributions of a percentage of their compensation, which are matched by the Company at a percentage of the employees’ elected deferral.  Employee contributions to the Savings Plan are invested at the employee’s discretion, in various investment funds. The Company’s matching contributions are invested in the same manner as the compensation reduction contributions.  All contributions are subject to maximum limitations contained in the Code.

The Company’s matching contributions to the Savings Plan, charged to expense, were as follows:

Authorized cumulative preferred stock consists of the following:

Changes in the outstanding shares of Common Stock of the Company are as follows:

Common Stock Repurchase Plan

The Company’s common stock repurchase plan (the “Repurchase Plan”) allows for the repurchase by the Company of its common stock in the open market.  The Repurchase Plan is conditioned upon favorable business conditions and acceptable prices for the common stock.  Purchases under the Repurchase Plan may be made, from time to time, in the open market, through block trades or otherwise.  Depending on market conditions and other factors, purchases may be commenced or suspended any time or from time to time without prior notice.  Pursuant to the Repurchase Plan, the Company has repurchased shares of common stock from unaffiliated parties at various dates at market prices at their time of purchase, including broker commissions.

Information relating to the Repurchase Plan is as follows:

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Stockholder Rights Plan

On March 27, 2019, the Company’s Board of Directors adopted an amended and restated shareholder rights plan (the “New Rights Plan”) pursuant to which the Board of Directors declared a dividend distribution of one right (a “Right”) for each outstanding share of Common Stock of the Company on April 17, 2019. In connection with the New Rights Plan, the Company entered into an amended and restated rights agreement with American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC, as rights agent (the “New Rights Agreement”). The Rights Plan replaces the Company’s former shareholder rights plan originally adopted by the Company in January 1986 (the (“Original Rights Plan”).

Under the New Rights Plan, each Right entitles the holder to purchase from the Company one share of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.01 per share (the “Common Stock”), at a price equal to 50% of the then current market value of the Common Stock.  The Rights are not exercisable until either a person or group of affiliated persons acquires 25% or more of the Company’s outstanding Common Stock or upon the commencement or disclosure of an intention to commence a tender offer or exchange offer for 20% or more of the Common Stock. The Rights are redeemable by the Company at $0.01 per Right at any time until the earlier of the tenth day following an accumulation of 20% or more of the Company’s shares by a single acquirer or group, or the occurrence of certain Triggering Events (as defined in the New Rights Agreement).  In addition, the Board of Directors may, at its option and in its sole and absolute discretion, at any time after a Triggering Event, mandatorily exchange all or part of the then outstanding and exercisable Rights for consideration per Right consisting of one-half of the securities that would be issuable at such time upon the exercise of one Right. The Rights are subject to adjustment to prevent dilution and expire on March 27, 2029.

The New Rights Plan differs from the Original Rights Plan in the following material respects:

1.            The purchase price of the Rights has been updated from a fixed amount per Right to the formula based on a 50% discount to the current market value of the Common Stock to align with the Company’s current per share market price of the Common Stock as well as the number of shares of Common Stock authorized for issuance under the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation;

2.            The redemption price of the Rights has been reduced from $0.05 per share to $0.01 per Right, the par value of the Company’s Common Stock;

3.            An exchange feature has been added that grants the Board of Directors the authority to exchange outstanding, exercisable Rights for shares of the Company’s Common Stock; and

4.            Administrative provisions have been added that require a stockholder to make certain representations regarding its beneficial ownership of Company securities upon exercise or exchange of Rights.

Rent expense was as follows:

The Company also rents on a short term basis approximately 200 square feet of office space in Emerson, NJ.

The components of pretax income (loss) and the difference between income taxes computed at the statutory federal rate and the provision for income taxes are as follows:

A reconciliation of the United States federal statutory rate to the Company’s effective income tax rate is as follows:

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

For the year ended December 31, 2018, the Company recorded an income tax benefit of $1,386,000. This amount reflects an income tax benefit of $1,391,000 attributable to a release of a valuation allowance in relation to additional AMT credit carryforwards available for refund under the 2017 Tax Act, due to the elimination of reductions for the effect of sequestration amounts. This amount is partially offset by a $5,000 state tax expense, attributable to a provision for a tax on capital imposed by the state jurisdictions.

For the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company recorded an income tax benefit partially offset by a state tax expense, attributable to a provision for a tax on capital imposed by the state jurisdictions.  The income tax benefit for the year ended December 31, 2017, is attributable to a release of a valuation allowance in relation to the AMT credit carryforwards and resulting deferred tax asset due to recognition of AMT credit carryforwards projected to be refundable as provided for in the 2017 Tax Act as further detailed herein. For the year ended December 31, 2017, other includes amounts relating to deferred tax true-ups.

The Company has not been notified of any potential tax audits by any federal, state or local tax authorities. As such, the Company believes the statutes of limitations for the assessment of additional federal and state tax liabilities are generally closed for tax years prior to 2015.  Interest and/or penalties related to uncertain tax positions, if applicable, would be included as a component of income tax expense (benefit).  The accompanying financial statements do not include any amounts for interest and/or penalties.

The utilization of certain carryforwards and carrybacks is subject to limitations under U.S. federal income tax laws. Based on the Company’s federal tax returns as filed and to be filed, the Company estimates it has federal NOL carryforwards available to reduce future federal taxable income which would expire if unused, as indicated below.

Based on the Company’s 2017 income tax returns as filed in October 2018, the Company’s NOL carryforwards increased due to the 2017 income tax loss recognized with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57 ^th Street Property. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57 ^th Property and the Company’s legal proceedings related thereto, see Note 4 and Note 9.

The federal NOL carryforwards as of December 31, 2018, are as follows:

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

AMT credit carryforwards available, which can be used to offset income generated in future years which are not subject to expiration, are as follows :

As noted above the Company has AMT credit carryforwards from prior tax years. In accordance with the 2017 Tax Act AMT credit carryforwards, are expected to be claimed by the Company as refundable on tax returns filed and/or to be filed in future tax years and at various percentages as noted below.

The Company’s AMT credit carryforward amount(s) projected to be claimed as refundable for each tax year are as follows:

In January 2019, the Company filed its 2018 federal income tax return seeking a refund of approximately $10.7 million of AMT credit carryforwards as provided for in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This amount is reflected as a federal tax receivable at December 31, 2018. The remaining amount of $10.7 million is reflected as a deferred tax asset at December 31, 2018, based on tax returns to be filed in future years. In March 2019, the Company received a $10.7 million federal tax refund based on the Company’s 2018 federal income tax return as filed. The IRS typically has broad discretion to examine taxpayer tax returns, even after refunds have been paid to taxpayers, which could result in adjustments to AMT credit carryforward amounts refunded and/or claimed as refundable and/or AMT credit carryforward amounts ultimately received. See herein for additional information.

The Company’s management is continuing to work closely with outside advisors on the Company’s tax matters as they relate to the 2017 Tax Act and on the various federal tax return matters for the numerous interrelated tax years, including the provisions and application of the 2017 Tax Act along with the amounts and timing of any AMT credit carryforward refunds.  The AMT credit carryforward amounts from prior tax years and related refund(s) received and/or projected to be received could potentially be subject to IRS or other tax authority audits, including possible IRS Joint Committee review and/or approval. The Company cannot predict whether or not the IRS and/or other tax authorities will review the Company’s tax returns filed, to be filed and/or as filed in prior years, and/or if they will seek repayment from the Company of any amounts already refunded as a result of an IRS review, if any.  Moreover, applicable provisions of the Code and IRS regulations permit the IRS to challenge Company tax positions and filed returns and seek recovery of refunded amounts or of additional taxes for an extended period of time after such returns are filed.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

The 2017 Tax Act makes broad and complex changes to the Code, including, among other changes, significant changes to the U.S. corporate tax rate and certain other changes to the Code that impact the taxation of corporations. The U.S. Treasury Department, the IRS, and other standard-setting bodies could interpret or issue additional guidance in the future on how provisions of the 2017 Tax Act will be applied or otherwise administered that differs from our interpretation. As we complete our analysis of the 2017 Tax Act, and IRS regulations and guidance issued in respect thereof and collect and prepare necessary data, and interpret any additional guidance, we may make adjustments to provisional amounts that we have recorded that may materially impact our provision for income taxes in the period in which the adjustments are made. Additionally, there is risk relating to assumptions regarding the outcome of tax matters, based in whole or in part upon consultation with outside advisors; risk relating to potential unfavorable decisions in tax proceedings; and risks regarding changes in, and/or interpretations of federal and state income tax laws. The Company can give no assurances as to the final outcome of any IRS review of the AMT credit carryforward refunds already received or the final amount of any future AMT credit carryforward refunds, if any, or when they might be received.

Based on the Company’s state tax returns as filed and to be filed, the Company estimates that it has state NOL carryforwards to reduce future state taxable income, which would expire if unused.

The state NOL carryforwards as of December 31, 2018, are as follows:

The Company has a deferred tax asset arising primarily from NOL carryforwards and AMT credit carryforwards as follows:

At December 31, 2017, a valuation allowance was released in relation to the AMT credit carryforwards which are projected to be refundable as part of the 2017 Tax Act enacted in December 2017.  In 2018, the Company released its valuation allowance in relation to additional AMT credit carryforwards available for refund (under the 2017 Tax Act), due to the elimination of reductions for the effect of sequestration amounts. A full valuation allowance remains on the remaining deferred tax asset amounts, as management has no basis to conclude that realization is more likely than not.  Management does not believe that any significant changes in unrecognized income tax benefits are expected to occur over the next year.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 9 - Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company and its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant in various lawsuits or proceedings.  At the current time except as set forth below, the Company is unaware of any legal proceedings pending against the Company.  The Company intends to aggressively contest all litigation and contingencies, as well as pursue all sources for contributions to settlements.

The Company is a party to material legal proceedings as follows:

AmBase Corp., et al. v. 111 West 57 ^th Sponsor LLC, et al.   In April 2016, AmBase initiated a litigation in the New York State Supreme Court for New York County (the “NY Court”), Index No. 652301/2016, (“ AmBase v. 111 West 57 ^th Sponsor LLC, et al.”) (the “111 West 57 ^th Action”).  The defendants in that litigation are 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, 111 West 57th JDS LLC, PMG West 57th Street LLC, 111 West 57th Control LLC, 111 West 57th Developer LLC, 111 West 57 ^th KM Equity LLC, 111 West 57 ^th KM Group LLC, Kevin Maloney, Matthew Phillips, Michael Stern, Ned White, 111 Construction Manager LLC, Property Markets Group, Inc., JDS Development LLC, JDS Construction Group LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) and nominal defendant 111 West 57th Partners LLC . In the current version of the complaint, AmBase alleges that Defendants violated multiple provisions in the JV Agreement, including by failing to honor the exercise of AmBase’s contractual “equity put right” as set forth in the JV Agreement (the “Equity Put Right”), and committed numerous acts of fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty. AmBase is seeking compensatory damages, as well as treble damages under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), punitive damages, indemnification and equitable relief including a declaration of the parties’ rights, and an accounting. The Company has also demanded from the Sponsor access to the books and records for the 111 West 57 ^th Property which the Sponsor refused, claiming they have provided all books and records as required. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss, and on January 12, 2018, the NY Court issued an opinion allowing some of AmBase’s claims to go forward and dismissing others. Among other claims that the NY Court declined to dismiss was AmBase’s claim that the Defendants violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by frustrating AmBase’ s Equity Put Right. Claims that the NY Court dismissed included AmBase’s claim that the Defendants breached their contract with AmBase by financing capital contributions for the project through funds obtained from third parties. On January 16, 2018, some of the Defendants wrote to the NY Court suggesting that the opinion contained certain clerical errors and was missing a page. On January 18, 2018, the NY Court removed its previous opinion from the docket and on January 29, 2018, posted a revised opinion. A discovery conference in this case is was held on February 27, 2018. On April 27, 2018, the Company filed a third amended complaint adding federal RICO claims, and new claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty, based on information discovered during the course of discovery and events that have transpired since the Company filed its previous complaint in the 111 West 57th Action. On June 18, 2018, Defendants removed the complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Federal Court”), where it is docketed as case number 18-cv-5482-AT.

AmBase Corp., et al. v. Spruce Capital Partners, et al. In July 2017, the Company initiated a second litigation in the NY Court, Index No. 655031/2017, (the “111 West 57 ^th Spruce Action”) . The defendants in the 111 West 57 ^th Spruce action were 111 W57 Mezz Investor, LLC, Spruce Capital Partners LLC, 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, Michael Z. Stern, and Kevin P. Maloney (collectively, “Defendants”) and nominal defendants 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57 ^th Mezz 1 LLC. The Company has since voluntarily discontinued its claims against Sponsor, Stern, and Maloney, without prejudice to reinstating them in the 111 West 57 ^th Spruce Action or any other action.

Spruce had given notice to the junior mezzanine borrower that it proposed to accept the pledged collateral (including the joint venture members’ collective interest in the property) in full satisfaction of the joint venture’s indebtedness under the Junior Mezzanine Loan (i.e., a “Strict Foreclosure”). After the Sponsor refused to object to Spruce’s proposal on behalf of the junior mezzanine borrower, and Spruce refused to commit to honor Investment LLC’s objection on its own behalf, the Company initiated the 111 West 57 ^th Spruce Action to obtain injunctive relief halting the Strict Foreclosure.  For additional information on the events leading to this litigation see Note 4 .

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

On July 26, 2017, the NY Court issued a temporary restraining order barring Spruce from accepting the collateral, pending a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for August 14, 2017. Spruce and the Sponsor subsequently filed papers in opposition to the request for a preliminary injunction and cross-motions to dismiss and quash subpoenas. On August 14, 2017, the NY Court postponed the hearing until August 28, 2017, keeping the temporary restraining order preventing a Strict Foreclosure in effect until the August 28, 2017 hearing. Subsequently the Company filed response briefs in support of their request for injunctive relief halting the Strict Foreclosure process and briefs in opposition to the motions to quash the subpoenas.

On August 28, 2017, the NY Court held a preliminary injunction hearing, lifted the temporary restraining order, denied Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, and granted Defendants’ cross-motions. In order to prevent the Strict Foreclosure process from going forward, the Company immediately obtained an interim stay from the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Judicial Department (“Appellate Division”). That stay remained in place until four (4) P.M. August 29, 2017, permitting the Company to obtain an appealable order, notice an appeal, and move for a longer-term stay or injunctive relief pending appeal. The Appellate Division held a hearing on August 29, 2017, to consider the Company’s motion for an interim stay or injunctive relief pending appeal, both of which it denied, thus allowing the purported Strict Foreclosure to move forward.

On August 30, 2017, Spruce issued a Notice of Retention of Pledged Collateral in Full Satisfaction of Indebtedness. By purporting to accept the pledged collateral, pursuant to a Strict Foreclosure process, Spruce claims to have completed the retention of the collateral pledged by the junior mezzanine borrower, and therefore, the Company’s interest in the 111 West 57th Street Property. Prior to the Strict Foreclosure, the carrying value of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57 ^th Property represented a substantial portion of the Company’s assets and net equity value. The Company will continue to challenge the validity of the actions that led to this purported transfer of title.

The Appellate Division recently issued a decision that resolves the Company’s appeal from the order denying a preliminary injunction and dismissing its claims. The Appellate Division’s decision indicates that the Company’s request for a declaratory judgment is not moot “because plaintiff 111 West 57th Investment LLC (‘Investment’) might be entitled to damages from defendant 111 W57 Mezz Investor LLC (‘Junior Mezz Lender’) if it is judicially determined that Investment had the right to object to the Strict Foreclosure pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code.” The Appellate Division noted that the Company should be allowed to move for leave to amend to state claims for damages and/or the imposition of a constructive trust, as the dismissal of the Company’s claims was without prejudice.

On March 20, 2019, the Company’s subsidiary, 111 West 57th Investment LLC, moved for leave to amend the complaint in the 111 West 57th Spruce Action to state claims for breaches of the Uniform Commercial Code and Pledge Agreement, various torts, and constructive trust. The proposed amended complaint seeks a declaratory judgment, the impression of a constructive trust, permanent injunctive relief restraining Spruce from disposing of or encumbering the Property, and damages, including punitive damages. The proposed amended complaint does not name the Company as a plaintiff or Spruce Capital Partners as a defendant.

Since the Company is not party to the Loan Agreements, it does not have access to communications with the lenders, except for those individual communications that the Sponsor has elected to share or that have been produced in the ongoing litigation.  The Company has continued to demand access to such information, including access to the books and records for the 111 West 57 ^th Property both under the JV Agreement and as part of the 111 West 57 ^th Action and the 111 West 57 ^th Spruce Action.

For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57 ^th Property and the Company’s recording of an impairment of its equity investment in the 111 West 57 ^th Property in 2017; see Note 4.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

AmBase Corp., et al. v. ACREFI Mortgage Lending LLC, et al.   In June 2018, the Company initiated another litigation in the NY Court, Index No. 655031/2017, (the “Apollo Action”) . The defendants in the Apollo Action are ACREFI Mortgage Lending, LLC, Apollo Credit Opportunity Fund III AIV I LP, AGRE Debt 1 – 111 W 57, LLC, and Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc. (collectively, the “Apollo Defendants”). In the Apollo Action, the Company alleges that the Apollo Defendants aided and abetted the Sponsor, Stern, and Maloney in breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company in connection with the 111 West 57 ^th Property and tortuously interfered with the JV Agreement. The Company is seeking damages as well as punitive damages for tortious interference with the JV Agreement and aiding and abetting the Sponsor’s breaches of their fiduciary duties to the joint venture. The Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on August 17, 2018, and the Company filed its opposition brief on September 17, 2018, and the Defendants filed their reply brief on October 5, 2018. The Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss in March 2019. The Company is awaiting a decision on the motion to dismiss from the Court. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57 ^th Property and the JV Agreement; see Note 4.

With respect to its disputes and litigation relating to its interest in the 111 West 57th Property, the Company is continuing to pursue various legal courses of action, as well as considering other possible economic strategies, including the possible sale of the Company’s interest in and/or rights with respect to the 111 West 57th Property. The Company is continuing to pursue other options to realize the Company’s investment value and/or protect its legal rights.

The Company can give no assurances regarding the outcome of the matters described herein, including as to the effect of Spruce’s actions described herein, whether the Sponsor will perform their contractual commitments to the Company under the JV Agreement, as to what further action, if any, the lenders may take with respect to the project, as to the ultimate resolution of the ongoing litigation proceedings relating to the Company’s investment interest in the 111 West 57 ^th Property, as to the ultimate effect of the Sponsor’s, the Company’s or the lenders’ actions on the project, as to the completion or ultimate success of the project, or as to the value or ultimate realization of any portion of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57 ^th Street Property. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57 ^th Property see Note 4.

While the Company’s management is evaluating future courses of action to protect and/or recover the value of the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57 ^th Property, the adverse developments make it uncertain as to whether any such courses of action will be successful. Any such efforts are likely to require sustained effort over a period of time, and require substantial additional financial resources. Inability to recover all or most of such value would in all likelihood have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and future prospects.

For information relating to the Litigation Funding Agreement entered into between the Company and Mr. Richard A. Bianco, the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer, see Note 10.

IsZo Capital L.P. derivatively and on behalf of AmBase Corporation v. Richard A. Bianco, et al .   In February 2018, IsZo Capital L.P. commenced an action, IsZo Capital L.P. derivatively and on behalf of AmBase Corporation v. Richard A. Bianco, et al. , Index No. 650812/2018 in the New York State Supreme Court for New York County (the “IsZo Capital L.P. action”). The defendants in the action include all officers and directors of AmBase Corporation and AmBase Corporation as a nominal defendant.  The plaintiff alleges various breaches of fiduciary duty against all of the directors and officers concerning the decisions made in the 111 West 57 ^th Street Property investment and a certain litigation funding agreement.  IsZo Capital L.P. also seeks declaratory judgment relief concerning a litigation funding agreement and the 111 West 57 ^th Street Property.  AmBase and the officers and directors intend to vigorously defend themselves. Service of the summons and complaint has been accepted by counsel on behalf of all defendants and a motion to dismiss was served and filed in early May 2018. The motion was returnable on July 17, 2018 and all motion papers have now been submitted to the Court.

Oral argument on the Company’s motion to dismiss was held on the motion on October 19, 2018, at which time the Court decided that Alessandra Bianco, Richard Bianco, Jr., Jerry Carnegie, John Ferrara and Joseph Bianco should be dismissed as defendants in the case.  The Court reserved decision as to dismissal of the balance of the case pending the Court’s receipt of a transcript of the oral argument.  On December, 26, 2018, the Court issued its written decision on the balance of the motion to dismiss.  The Court dismissed a cause of action against Richard Bianco, dismissed in part the single cause of action against Kenneth Schmidt, and dismissed a cause of action for declaratory judgment.  What remains is a single cause of action against Richard Bianco, a single cause of action against Kenneth Schmidt (in part), and a single declaratory judgment cause of action.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

The remaining defendants moved for re-argument of the December 26, 2018 decision, which motion was fully submitted as of March 13, 2019.  Defendants, upon re-argument, are seeking dismissal of the entirety of plaintiff’s action, and currently await a decision from the Court on that motion.  Defendants, in addition, filed a Notice of Appeal as regards the December 26, 2018 decision on March 6, 2019, which appeal must be perfected on or before September 6, 2019.

On January 15, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the surviving causes of action, as well as asserted counterclaims against the plaintiff.   It also served initial discovery demands upon the plaintiff.  The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against plaintiff’s action and prosecute its counterclaims.  The Company can give no assurances regarding the outcome of the matters described herein.

Note 10 – Litigation Funding Agreement

In September 2017, the Company’s executive officers and its Board of Directors concluded that it was in the Company’s interest to obtain a litigation funding commitment to finance litigation with respect to the ongoing disputes with the Sponsors and the lenders in the 111 West 57 ^th Street Property project, and to seek to recover value for the Company with respect to its equity investment in 111 West 57 ^th Street Property, whether by direct recovery or from asserting claims against the Sponsors, their principals and/or certain of the lenders (collectively, “Future Recovery Litigation”).

As a result of developments in the legal proceedings concerning the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57 ^th Property, the Company’s interest in obtaining a litigation funding commitment to finance litigation with respect to the ongoing disputes with the Sponsors and the lenders in the 111 West 57 ^th Street Property project, and the Company’s efforts to seek to recover value for the Company with respect to its equity investment in the 111 West 57 ^th Property, the Company’s Board of Directors negotiated and accepted an offer from Mr. R. A. Bianco, its long-time chief executive officer, to provide a litigation fund of seven million dollars ($7,000,000) (along with additional amounts as may be necessary from time to time as agreed to by the Company and Mr. Bianco), to fund the Company’s litigation expenses in connection with Future Recovery Litigation, (the “Litigation Funding Agreement”).

In consideration of such financial commitment, the Litigation Funding Agreement provides that any financial recovery in such Future Recovery Litigation shall be distributed as follows:

The payment of the amounts pursuant to the Litigation Funding Agreement could become payable by the Company in the future based on the recovery by the Company of amounts relating to the 111 West 57 ^th Property.  The recovery, by the Company, of any amounts are not within the control of the Company and cannot be predicted at this time, and therefore, the aggregate amounts funded pursuant to the Litigation Funding Agreement are presented in a temporary equity classification below total liabilities in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets for the periods presented, until such time that the legal proceedings or the Litigation Funding Agreement are concluded. The Company shall not be obligated to repay such funded amounts except as described herein.

Legal expenses incurred attributable to the Litigation Funding Agreement are included in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations as part of professional and outside services, as follows:

In the first quarter of 2019, Mr. R. A. Bianco funded an additional $470,000 of legal expenses pursuant to the Litigation Funding Agreement, for litigation services rendered in 2019 and 2018.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 11 – Loans Payable

In May 2016, the Company and Mr. R. A. Bianco entered into an agreement for Mr. R. A. Bianco to provide to the Company a secured working capital line of credit of up to one million dollars ($1,000,000) or additional amount(s) as may be necessary and agreed to on an as needed basis, if and when necessary, subject to customary and market terms and conditions to be agreed upon at such time (the “WC Agreement”).

Pursuant to the WC Agreement, Mr. R. A. Bianco made several loans to the Company for use as working capital.  The loans were due on the earlier of the date the Company received funds from any source sufficient to pay all amounts due under the loans, including accrued interest thereon, or the due date noted below. Accrued interest payable associated with the loans was included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet.

In January 2018, pursuant to the WC Agreement, Mr. R.A. Bianco made an additional loan to the Company, as noted in the consolidated statement of cash flows, for use as working capital as reflected and in accordance with the same terms of the loans payable noted herein.

Information regarding the loans payable is as follows:

Information regarding accrued interest expense on the loans payable is as follows:

The amounts noted above pursuant to the WC Agreement are distinct from the line of credit agreement for the 111 West 57 ^th Property as discussed in Note 4 herein and distinct from the Litigation Funding Agreement amounts as discussed in Note 9 herein.

In January 2018, in connection with the sale by the Company of its commercial office building in Greenwich, Connecticut, the Company repaid the full amount of the working capital loan, plus accrued interest aggregating $2,623,000 to Mr. R. A. Bianco, and the WC Agreement was terminated. See Note 3 herein for additional information.