UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

☒ Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2020

☐ Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Commission file number 1-7265

AMBASE CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

7857 WEST SAMPLE ROAD, SUITE 134

CORAL SPRINGS, FLORIDA  33065

(Address of principal executive offices)  (Zip Code)

(201) 265-0169

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

YES

☒

NO

☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).  ☒  Yes    ☐  No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company or an emerging growth company.  See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

(Check one):	Large Accelerated Filer	☐		Accelerated Filer	☐		Non-Accelerated Filer	☐		Smaller Reporting Company	☒
	Emerging Growth Company	☐

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.

YES

☐

NO

☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).

YES

☐

NO

☒

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class

Trading Symbol(s)

Name of each exchange on which registered

None.

At April 30, 2020, there were 40,737,751 shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock, $0.01 par value per share.

---

AmBase Corporation

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

March 31, 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except per share data)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

(Unaudited)

(in thousands, except per share data)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(Unaudited)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated financial statements.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 1 – The Company and Basis of Presentation

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements of AmBase Corporation and subsidiaries (“AmBase” or the “Company”) are unaudited and subject to year-end adjustments. All material intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated. In the opinion of management, these financial statements reflect all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments unless otherwise disclosed, necessary for a fair presentation of the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Results for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of results for the full year. The condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 8 of Regulation S-X. The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that it deems reasonable, that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period.  Actual results could differ from such estimates and assumptions. The unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements presented herein are condensed and should be read in conjunction with the Company’s consolidated financial statements filed in its Annual Report on Form 10‑K for the year ended December 31, 2019.

At March 31, 2020, the Company’s assets consisted primarily of cash and cash equivalents and tax assets. The Company is engaged in the management of its assets and liabilities. In March 2020, the Company received a federal tax refund of alternative minimum tax (“AMT”) credit carryforwards based on the Company’s 2019 federal income tax return as filed. The Company’s remaining AMT credit carryforward amounts are reflected as a federal income tax receivable at March 31, 2020, based on the Company’s filing of its amended 2019 federal income tax return in April 2020, as provided for in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“2020 CARES Act”). For additional information see Note 6.

In June 2013, the Company purchased an equity interest in a real estate development property through a joint venture agreement to purchase and develop real property located at 105 through 111 West 57^th Street in New York, New York (the “111 West 57^th Property”). The Company is engaged in material disputes and litigation with the sponsors of the joint venture (the “Sponsor”), both mezzanine lenders to the joint venture (“Apollo” and “Spruce”), and the title owner of the 111 West 57^th Property, 111 West 57th Property Owner LLC (“Property Owner”).  Despite ongoing litigation challenging the legitimacy of the actions taken in connection with the “Strict Foreclosure”, (as defined and as further discussed herein) in accordance with GAAP, the Company recorded an impairment for the full amount of its equity investment in the 111 West 57th 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.

For additional information regarding the Company’s recording of an impairment of its equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property in 2017 and the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57^th Property, including the Company’s challenge to the Strict Foreclosure, see Note 3 and Note 7.

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 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. The Company can give no assurances with regard if it will prevail with respect to any of its claims.

The Company has incurred operating losses and used cash for operating activities for the past several years. The Company has continued to keep operating expenses at a reduced level; however, there can be no assurance that the Company’s current level of operating expenses will not increase or that other uses of cash will not be necessary. The Company believes that based on its current level of operating expenses its existing cash and cash equivalents, together with the federal tax refund expected to be received in 2020, will be sufficient to fund operating activities for at least the next twelve months from the financial statement issuance date. The Company's management expects that operating cash needs in 2020 will be met principally by the Company's current financial resources. Over the next several months, the Company will seek to manage its current level of cash and cash equivalents, including but not limited to reducing operating expenses and seeking recoveries from various sources, although this cannot be assured.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 2 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

New accounting pronouncements

There are no new accounting pronouncements that would likely materially affect the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

Note 3 – Investment in 111 West 57^th Partners LLC

In June 2013, the Company purchased an equity interest in the 111 West 57^th Property.  The Company is engaged in material disputes and litigation with regard to the 111 West 57^th Property. Despite ongoing litigation challenging the legitimacy of the actions taken in connection with the “Strict Foreclosure”, (as defined below and as further discussed herein), in accordance with GAAP, the Company recorded an impairment for the full amount of its equity investment in the 111 West 57th Property in 2017.

For additional information regarding the Company’s 111 West 57^th Property equity investment, events leading up to the Strict Foreclosure, the Company’s recording of an impairment of its equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property and the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57^th Property, including the Company’s challenge to the Strict Foreclosure, see herein below and Note 7.

In June 2013, 111 West 57^th Investment LLC (“Investment LLC”), a then newly formed subsidiary of the Company, entered into a joint venture agreement (as amended, the “JV Agreement”) with 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, (the “Sponsor”), pursuant to which Investment LLC invested (the “Investment”) in a real estate development property to purchase and develop the 111 West 57^th Property.  In consideration for making the Investment, Investment LLC was granted a membership interest in 111 West 57^th Partners LLC (“111 West 57^th Partners”), which indirectly acquired the 111 West 57^th Property on June 28, 2013 (the “Joint Venture,” and such date, the “Closing Date”).  The Company also indirectly contributed an additional amount to the Joint Venture in exchange for an additional indirect interest in the Joint Venture.  Other members and the Sponsor contributed additional cash and/or property to the Joint Venture. The Company recorded its investment in 111 West 57^th Partners utilizing the equity method of accounting. The Joint Venture plans were to redevelop the 111 West 57^th Property into a luxury residential tower and retail project.

Amounts relating to the Company’s initial June 2013 investment and other information relating to the 111 West 57^th Property follow:

The JV Agreement and related operating agreements generally provide that all distributable cash shall be distributed as follows: (i) first, 100% to the members in proportion to their percentage interests until Investment LLC has received distributions yielding a 20% internal rate of return as calculated; (ii) second, 100% to the Sponsor as a return of (but not a return on) any additional capital contributions made by the Sponsor on account of manager overruns; and (iii) thereafter, (a) 50% to the members in proportion to their respective percentage interests at the time of such distribution, and (b) 50% to the Sponsor.

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.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

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 as set forth in the JV Agreement. 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 below the Company’s initial membership interest percentage. 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 initially had certain repayment term dates with extension option(s) 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.

Information relating to the June 30, 2015 financing for 111 West 57^th Partners is as follows:

In April 2016, the Company 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 include 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, Kevin Maloney, Michael Stern and various members and affiliates (collectively, “Defendants”) and nominal defendant 111 West 57th Partners LLC.  For additional information with regard to the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57^th Property, see Note 7.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

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 it claims 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 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.

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”).

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 Spruce Action, see Note 7.

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 (the “Strict Foreclosure”). Despite ongoing litigation challenging the legitimacy of the actions taken in connection with the Strict Foreclosure, 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.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

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. For additional information with regard to the Apollo Action, see Note 7.

In May 2019, the Company’s subsidiary, 111 West 57th Investment LLC (“Investment LLC”) initiated a case in the New York State Supreme Court for New York County (the “NY Court”), Index No. 653067/2019 (the “Property Owner Action”).  The defendant in that litigation is 111 West 57th Property Owner LLC (“Property Owner”), which owns title to the 111 West 57th Street Property, and the nominal defendants are 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57th Mezz 1 LLC.  Investment LLC alleges that the Strict Foreclosure was invalid and seeks to impose a constructive trust over the 111 West 57^th Property, requiring Property Owner to hold that property for the benefit of 111 West 57th Partners and 111 West 57th Mezz 1 LLC, its rightful indirect parents.  Investment LLC also alleges that Property Owner aided and abetted Michael Stern, Kevin Maloney, and the Sponsor in their breach of fiduciary duties.  In addition to filing a complaint, Investment LLC filed a notice of pendency on the title to the 111 West 57th Street Property. For additional information regarding the Property Owner Action and the notice of pendency filing, see Note 7.

In April 2020, the Company initiated a litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-02763-VSB, (the “Custom House Action”). The defendants in the Custom House Action are Custom House Risk Advisors, Inc. and Elizabeth Lowe (collectively, the “Custom House Defendants”). In the Custom House Action, the Company alleges that the Custom House Defendants (a) aided and abetted Sponsor, Stern, and Maloney in breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company by structuring an insurance policy to the personal benefit of Sponsor, Stern and Maloney and the detriment of the 111 West 57th Project and concealing the structure and ownership of the insurance policy from the Company and (b) committed fraud by making material misrepresentations about the terms of the policy to the Company, inducing the Company to contribute additional capital to the 111 West 57th Project to cover the costs of the insurance policy. The Company is seeking damages as well as disgorgement of profits the Custom House Defendants earned from their wrongful conduct. For additional information regarding the Custom House Action, see Note 7.

 

With respect to its disputes and litigation relating to its interest in the 111 West 57th Property, the Company is pursuing, and will continue to pursue, other options to realize the Company’s investment value, various legal courses of action to protect its legal rights, recovery of its asset value from various sources of recovery, 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 57^th Property; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail with respect to any of its claims.

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 7.

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 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. The Company can give no assurances with regard to if it will prevail with respect to any of its claims.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 4 - Savings Plan

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:

Note 5 – 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:

Note 6 - Income Taxes

The Company and its domestic subsidiaries file a consolidated federal income tax return.  The Company recognizes both the current and deferred tax consequences of all transactions that have been recognized in the condensed consolidated financial statements, calculated based on the provisions of enacted tax laws, including the tax rates in effect for current and future years.  Net deferred tax assets are recognized immediately when a more likely than not criterion is met; that is, a greater than 50% probability exists that the tax benefits will actually be realized sometime in the future.

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 2017. 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.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

The Company recorded an income tax provision of $1,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2020. For the three months ended March 31, 2019, the Company recorded an income tax benefit of $30,000, which reflects an additional refund of $30,000 received in March 2019 relating to the AMT credit carryforwards. State income tax amounts for the three months ended March 31, 2020, reflect a provision for a tax on capital imposed by the state jurisdictions.

In March 2020, the Company received a federal income tax refund for AMT credit carryforwards based on the Company’s 2019 federal income tax return as filed, as provided for in the 2017 Tax Act. This amount was reflected as a federal income tax receivable at December 31, 2019. The Company’s remaining AMT credit carryforward amounts are reflected as a federal income tax receivable at March 31, 2020, based on the Company’s filing of its amended 2019 federal income tax return in April 2020, as provided for in the 2020 CARES Act. In March 2019, the Company received a federal tax refund based on the Company’s 2018 federal income tax return as filed.

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 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. The AMT credit carryforward amounts from prior tax years and related refund(s) received and/or 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.

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.

The Company was a plaintiff in a legal proceeding seeking recovery of damages from the United States Government for the loss of the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Carteret Savings Bank, F.A. (the “SGW Legal Proceedings”).  A settlement agreement in the SGW Legal Proceedings between the Company, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation-Receiver (“FDIC-R”) and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) on behalf of the United States of America (the “United States”), was executed (the “SGW 2012 Settlement Agreement”) which was approved by the United States Court of Federal Claims (the “Court of Federal Claims”) in October 2012.

As part of the SGW 2012 Settlement Agreement, the Company is entitled to a tax gross-up when any federal taxes are imposed on the settlement amount.  Based on the Company’s 2012 federal income tax return as filed, in March 2013, the Company paid $501,000 of federal income taxes attributable to AMT rate calculations (the “2012 Tax Amount”, i.e. $501,000) resulting from the SGW 2012 Settlement Agreement.  In May 2013, the Company filed a motion with the Court of Federal Claims seeking a tax gross-up from the United States for the 2012 Tax Amount, plus applicable tax consequences relative to the reimbursement of this amount.  Subsequently, Senior Judge Smith filed an order directing the United States to pay AmBase reimbursement for 2012 Tax Amount as provided for in the Settlement Agreement. In September 2013, the Company received reimbursement for the 2012 Tax Amount.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

On August 6, 2013, Senior Judge Smith issued an opinion which addressed the relief sought by AmBase. In summary, the court held that the Settlement Agreement is a contract and that it entitles the Company to receive both “(1) the amount of the tax consequences resulting from taxation of the damages award plus (2) the tax consequences of receiving the first component.”  But the court did not award additional damages for the second component of the damages at that time given the remaining uncertainty surrounding the ultimate tax treatment of the settlement proceeds and the gross-up, as well as uncertainty relating to the Company’s future income.  The Court indicated that either the Company or the government is entitled to seek further relief “if, and when, the facts justify.”

In July 2019, the Company received a letter from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), requesting the Company reimburse the FDIC for the 2012 Tax Amount that the FDIC had previously reimbursed the Company. The FDIC requested the amount be reimbursed on a pro-rata basis in accordance with the same percentages that the AMT credits are refundable to the Company in accordance with the 2017 Tax Act and as further set forth herein above. The Company is currently reviewing the FDIC request, along with the SGW 2012 Settlement Agreement and Court of Federal Claims August 2013 ruling, with its outside legal and tax advisors. The Company is unable to predict at this time whether the 2012 Tax Amount is refundable back to the FDIC in current and/or future years.

The Company has a deferred tax asset arising primarily from NOL carryforwards and AMT Credit carryforwards. 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 Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 7 - 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 include 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, Kevin Maloney, Michael Stern, and various members and affiliates (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, 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. On April 13, 2018, AmBase filed a notice of appeal of the NY Court Order entered on January 29, 2018 to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Judicial Department (the “Appellate Division”). 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 was docketed as case number 18-cv-5482-AT.

On October 25, 2018, the Federal Court issued an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Company’s RICO claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Company’s state-law claims. The next month, the Company noticed an appeal. On August 30, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Federal Court’s dismissal of the federal RICO claims, vacated the Federal Court’s dismissal of the state-law claims, and remanded with instructions for the Federal Court to remand those claims to the NY Court. On September 25, 2019, the Federal Court remanded the case to the NY Court, where it was assigned to the Honorable O. Peter Sherwood. On January 22, 2020, AmBase filed a motion with the Appellate Division seeking to enlarge the time to perfect the Company’s appeal of the NY Court’s January 29, 2018 Order to be heard during the September 2020 Term of the Appellate Division. The motion to enlarge the time to perfect was fully briefed on March 9, 2020 and is pending a ruling by the Appellate Division. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property, see Note 3.

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 3.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed 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.

In January 2019, the Appellate Division 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 plaintiff 111 West 57th Investment LLC (“Investment LLC”) might be entitled to damages from defendant 111 W57 Mezz Investor LLC if it is judicially determined that Investment LLC had the right to object to the Strict Foreclosure pursuant to the “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 May 3, 2019, the Company’s subsidiary, Investment LLC, entered into a stipulation with 111 W57 Mezz Investor LLC (“Spruce”) to amend the complaint in the 111 West 57th Spruce Action to state claims against Spruce for breaches of the Uniform Commercial Code and Pledge Agreement and various torts. The amended complaint seeks the entry of 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 amended complaint does not name the Company as a plaintiff or Spruce Capital Partners as a defendant. On May 31, 2019, Spruce filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 29, 2020, the Court entered a decision and order denying most of Spruce’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint and determined that Investment LLC sufficiently pleaded claims for declaratory relief, constructive trust and damages based on the unlawful strict foreclosure, thus allowing Investment LLC’s action against Spruce to continue. On February 26, 2020, Spruce filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division seeking the appeal of the January 29, 2020 order. On March 4, 2020, Investment LLC filed a notice of cross-appeal to the Appellate Division, seeking to appeal the January 29, 2020 order to the extent the NY Court dismissed some of Investment LLC’s claims.

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 3.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed 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 Apollo Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 17, 2018. The Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on March 12, 2019. On October 22, 2019, the NY Court entered an order dismissing the Company’s complaint in the Apollo Action in its entirety. On November 8, 2019, the NY Court entered judgment dismissing the Apollo Action in favor of the Apollo Defendants. On December 10, 2019, the Company filed a notice of appeal seeking the Appellate Division’s review of the NY Court’s order dismissing the complaint in the Apollo Action. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property, see Note 3.

111 West 57th Investment, LLC v. 111 West 57th Property Owner LLC. In May 2019, the Company’s subsidiary, 111 West 57th Investment LLC (“Investment LLC”) initiated a case in the New York State Supreme Court for New York County (the “NY Court”), Index No. 653067/2019 (the “Property Owner Action”). The defendant in that litigation is 111 West 57th Property Owner LLC (“Property Owner”), which owns title to the 111 West 57^th Property, and the nominal defendants are 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57th Mezz 1 LLC. Investment LLC alleges that the Strict Foreclosure was invalid and seeks to impose a constructive trust over the 111 West 57^th Property, requiring Property Owner to hold that property for the benefit of 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57th Mezz 1 LLC, its rightful indirect parents. Investment LLC also alleges that Property Owner aided and abetted Michael Stern, Kevin Maloney, and 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC in their breach of fiduciary duties. In addition to filing a complaint, Investment LLC filed a notice of pendency (the “Notice of Pendency”) on the title to the 111 West 57^th Property. On July 8, 2019, Property Owner filed a motion, by order to show cause, to cancel the Notice of Pendency (“Motion to Cancel”). On July 10, 2019, the NY Court entered an order to show cause (the “Order Show Cause”) why the notice of pendency should not be cancelled. On August 8, 2019, the NY Court entered a decision and order canceling the Notice of Pendency (the “Cancellation Order”). The same day, Investment LLC immediately filed a motion with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Judicial Department (“Appellate Division”) for a stay, pending appeal, of the Cancellation Order, or in the alternative an injunction restraining Property Owner from selling the from the 111 West 57^th Property (the “First Stay Motion”). On August 8, 2019, the Appellate Division granted an interim stay of the Cancellation Order pending determination of the First Stay Motion. On October 10, 2019, a panel of the Appellate Division vacated the interim stay and granted the First Stay Motion “to the extent of staying, pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, the sale or transfer of the subject property, other than the sale of individual condominium units in the ordinary course of business, on the condition that plaintiff-appellate perfect the appeal for the February 2020 Term” (the “Appellate Injunction Order”).

On December 2, 2019, Investment LLC perfected its appeal of the Cancellation Order. On January 17, 2020, Property Owner filed its brief in response to Investment LLC’s appeal of the Cancellation Order, and, on February 7, 2020, Investment LLC filed its reply brief in further support of its appeal of the Cancellation Order. On February 5, 2020, Investment LLC and Property Owner stipulated to adjourn the oral argument on the appeal of the Cancellation Order to the Appellate Division’s April 2020 Term. On April 6, 2020, Investment LLC and Property Owner entered into a stipulation (the “April 2020 Stipulation”) whereby the parties agreed, subject to the conditions of the April 2020 Stipulation, to adjourn the oral argument on the appeal of the Cancellation Order to the Appellate Division’s October 2020 Term.

On July 31, 2019, Property Owner filed a motion to dismiss Investment LLC’s complaint in the Property Owner Action. On March 2, 2020, the NY Court entered a decision and order (the “Property Owner Dismissal Order”) granting Property Owner’s motion to dismiss and dismissing the Property Owner Action in its entirety. On March 4, 2020, Investment LLC filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division seeking an appeal of the March 2, 2020 order (the “Property Owner Dismissal Appeal”).

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

On March 11, 2020, Investment LLC filed a motion (the “Second Stay Motion”) with the Appellate Division for a stay, pending appeal, of the Property Owner Dismissal Order, or, in the alternative, extending the Appellate Injunction Order pending the appeal of the Property Owner Dismissal Order. In addition, Investment LLC requested interim relief until the Second Stay Motion is determined by the Appellate Division. On March 12, 2020, the Appellate Division entered an order (the “Interim Stay Order”) granted interim relief to the extent of continuing the Appellate Injunction Order until the Second Stay Motion is resolved by the Appellate Division. Pursuant to the terms of the April 2020 Stipulation, Investment LLC and Property Owner agreed to resolve the Second Stay Motion by agreeing to extend the Interim Stay Order until the Appellate Division resolves the Property Owner Dismissal Appeal. In the April 2020 Stipulation, Investment LLC agreed to perfect the Property Owner Dismissal Appeal by July 10, 2020 such that the Property Owner Dismissal Appeal is heard by the Appellate Division during its October 2020 Term. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property, see Note 3.

AmBase Corp., et al. v. Custom House Risk Advisors, Inc., et al. On April 2, 2020, the Company initiated a litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:20-cv-02763-VSB (the “Custom House Action”). The defendants in the Custom House Action are Custom House Risk Advisors, Inc. and Elizabeth Lowe (collectively, the “Custom House Defendants”). In the Custom House Action, the Company alleges that the Custom House Defendants (a) aided and abetted Sponsor, Stern, and Maloney in breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company by structuring an insurance policy to the personal benefit of Sponsor, Stern and Maloney and the detriment of the 111 West 57th Project and concealing the structure and ownership of the insurance policy from the Company and (b) committed fraud by making material misrepresentations about the terms of the policy to the Company, inducing the Company to contribute additional capital to the 111 West 57th Project to cover the costs of the insurance policy. The Company is seeking damages as well as disgorgement of profits the Custom House Defendants earned from their wrongful conduct. On April 10, 2020, the Custom House Defendants waived service of process. The Custom House Defendants are required to respond to the complaint by June 8, 2020. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property, see Note 3.

With respect to its disputes and litigation relating to its interest in the 111 West 57th Property, the Company is pursuing, and will continue to pursue, other options to realize the Company’s investment value, various legal courses of action to protect its legal rights, recovery of its asset value from various sources of recovery, 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 57^th Property; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail with respect to any of its claims.

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 3.

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 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. The Company can give no assurances with regard to if it will prevail with respect to any of its claims.

AMBASE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 8 – Litigation Funding Agreement

In September 2017, the Company entered into a Litigation Funding Agreement (the “LFA”) with Mr. R. A. Bianco. Pursuant to the LFA, Mr. R. A. Bianco agreed to provide litigation funding to the Company to satisfy actual documented litigation costs and expenses of the Company, including attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, consulting fees and disbursements in connection with the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property, (the “Litigation Fund Amount”).

After receiving substantial AMT credit carryforward refunds in March 2019, in light of the Company’s improved liquidity, in April 2019 the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) authorized the establishment of a Special Committee of the Board (the “Special Committee”) to evaluate and negotiate possible changes to the LFA. The Special Committee was comprised exclusively of the independent directors on the Board.

On May 20, 2019, after receiving approval from the Special Committee, the Company and Mr. R. A. Bianco entered into an amendment to the LFA (the “Amendment”) which provides for the following: (i) the repayment of $3,672,000 in funds previously provided to the Company by Mr. R. A. Bianco pursuant to the LFA (the “Advanced Amount”), (ii) the release of Mr. R. A. Bianco from all further funding obligations under the LFA, and (iii) a modification of the relative distribution between Mr. R. A. Bianco and the Company of any Litigation Proceeds received by the Company from the 111 West 57^th Litigation, as described below.

The Amendment provides that, in the event that the Company receives any Litigation Proceeds from the 111 West 57^th Litigation, such Litigation Proceeds shall be distributed as follows:

Note 9 - Subsequent Events

The Company has performed a review of events subsequent to the balance sheet dated March 31, 2020, through the filing of these interim financial statements.  The Company has events and transactions, subsequent to March 31, 2020, and through the date these condensed consolidated financial statements were issued, as further discussed herein.

Cautionary Statement for Forward-Looking Information

This quarterly report together with other statements and information publicly disseminated by the Company may contain certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), or make oral statements that constitute forward looking statements. The Company intends such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are inherently subject to risks and uncertainties, many of which cannot be predicted or quantified. The forward-looking statements may relate to such matters as anticipated financial performance, future revenues or earnings, business prospects, projected ventures, anticipated market performance, anticipated litigation results or the timing of pending litigation, and similar matters. When used in this Quarterly Report, the words “estimates,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “plans,” “intends” and variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties.  The Company cautions readers that a variety of factors could cause the Company’s actual results to differ materially from the anticipated results or other expectations expressed in the Company’s forward-looking statements.  These risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the Company’s control, include, but are not limited to those set forth in “Item 1A, Risk Factors” and elsewhere in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K and in the Company’s other public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission including, but not limited to: (i) risks with regard to the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern; (ii) assumptions regarding the outcome of legal and/or tax matters, based in whole or in part upon consultation with outside advisors; (iii) risks arising from unfavorable decisions in tax, legal and/or other proceedings; (iv) transaction volume in the securities markets; (v) the volatility of the securities markets; (vi) fluctuations in interest rates; (vii) risks inherent in the real estate business, including, but not limited to, insurance risks, tenant defaults, risks associated with real estate development activities, changes in occupancy rates or real estate values; (viii) changes in regulatory requirements which could affect the cost of doing business; (ix) general economic conditions; (x) risks with regard to whether or not the Company’s current financial resources will be adequate to fund operations over the next twelve months from financial statement issuance date and/or continue operations; (xi) changes in the rate of inflation and the related impact on the securities markets; (xii) changes in federal and state tax laws and (xiii) 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; risks regarding changes in, and/or interpretations of federal and state income tax laws; and risk of IRS and/or state tax authority assessment of additional tax plus interest. These are not the only risks that we face. There may be additional risks that we do not presently know of or that we currently believe are immaterial which could also impair our business and financial position.

Undue reliance should not be placed on these forward-looking statements, which are applicable only as of the date hereof. The Company undertakes no obligation to revise or update these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that arise after the date of this Quarterly Report or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. Accordingly, there is no assurance that the Company’s expectations will be realized.

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, which follows, should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes, which are contained in Part I - Item 1, herein and in Part II – Item 8 in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019.

BUSINESS OVERVIEW

AmBase Corporation (the “Company” or “AmBase”) is a Delaware corporation that was incorporated in 1975.  AmBase is a holding company. At March 31, 2020, the Company’s assets consisted primarily of cash and cash equivalents and tax assets. The Company is engaged in the management of its assets and liabilities.

In March 2020, the Company received a federal income tax refund of alternative minimum tax (“AMT”) credit carryforwards based on the Company’s 2019 federal income tax return as filed. The remaining AMT credit carryforward amounts are reflected as a federal income tax receivable at March 31, 2020, based on the Company’s filing of its amended 2019 federal income tax return in April 2020. For additional information see herein and Part I – Item 1 – Note 6 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

In June 2013, the Company purchased an equity interest in a real estate development property through a joint venture agreement to purchase and develop real property located at 105 through 111 West 57^th Street in New York, New York (the “111 West 57^th Property”). The Company is engaged in material disputes and litigation with the sponsors of the joint venture, both mezzanine lenders to the joint venture, and the title owner of the 111 West 57^th Property, 111 West 57^th Property Owner LLC (“Property Owner”). Despite ongoing litigation challenging the legitimacy of the actions taken in connection with the “Strict Foreclosure”, (as defined and further discussed herein), in accordance with GAAP, the Company recorded an impairment for the full amount of its equity investment in the 111 West 57th 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.

For additional information concerning the Company’s recording of an impairment of its equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property in 2017 and the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57^th Property, including the Company’s challenge to the Strict Foreclosure, see Part I – Item 1 – Note 3 and Note 7 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

FINANCIAL CONDITION AND LIQUIDITY

The Company’s assets at March 31, 2020, aggregated $12,502,000, consisting principally of cash and cash equivalents of $7,115,000 and tax assets aggregating $5,370,000.  At March 31, 2020, the Company’s liabilities aggregated $709,000.  Total stockholders’ equity was $11,793,000. The Company’s tax assets consist of AMT credit carryforwards which are to be refundable as part of the 2017 Tax Act.

In March 2020, the Company received a $5.4 million federal income tax refund for AMT credit carryforwards based on the Company’s 2019 federal income tax return as filed, as provided for in the 2017 Tax Act. This amount was reflected as a federal income tax receivable at December 31, 2019. The Company’s remaining AMT credit carryforward amounts are reflected as a federal income tax receivable at March 31, 2020, based on the Company’s filing of its amended 2019 federal income tax return in April 2020, as provided for in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“2020 CARES Act”). 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. For additional information see herein and Part I – Item 1 – Note 6 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

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 Internal Revenue Service (“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. The AMT credit carryforward amounts from prior tax years and related refund(s) received and/or 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 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (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. For additional information see Part I – Item 1 – Note 6 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for additional information.

In July 2019, the Company received a letter from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), requesting the Company reimburse the FDIC for 2012 federal taxes of $501,000 that the FDIC had previously reimbursed the Company, pursuant to a 2012 settlement agreement which was approved by the United States Court of Federal in October 2012. The FDIC requested the amount be reimbursed on a pro-rata basis in accordance with the same percentages that the AMT credits are refundable to the Company in accordance with the 2017 Tax Act. The Company is currently reviewing the FDIC request, along with the SGW 2012 Settlement Agreement and Court of Federal Claims August 2013 ruling, with its outside legal and tax advisors. The Company is unable to predict at this time whether the 2012 Tax Amount is refundable back to the FDIC in current and/or future years. For additional information see Part I – Item 1 – Note 6 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for additional information.

The Company has incurred operating losses and used cash for operating activities for the past several years. The Company has continued to keep operating expenses at a reduced level; however, there can be no assurance that the Company’s current level of operating expenses will not increase or that other uses of cash will not be necessary. The Company believes that based on its current level of operating expenses its existing cash and cash equivalents, together with the federal tax refund expected to be received in 2020, will be sufficient to fund operating activities for at least the next twelve months from the financial statement issuance date. The Company's management expects that operating cash needs in 2020 will be met principally by the Company's current financial resources. Over the next several months, the Company will seek to manage its current level of cash and cash equivalents, including but not limited to reducing operating expenses and seeking recoveries from various sources, although this cannot be assured.

In April 2016, the Company filed an action in New York State Supreme Court for New York County (the “NY Court”) against the Sponsor, et al., pursuant to which the Company is seeking compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages, indemnification and equitable relief, including a declaration of the parties’ rights, and an accounting. For additional information concerning the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57^th Property see Part I – Item 1 – Note 3 and Note 7 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial.

In July 2017, the Company initiated a 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 (the “Sponsor”), 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. The junior mezzanine lender (“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”), and the Company sought by instituting the litigation to prevent the Strict Foreclosure.

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 (“the Strict Foreclosure”).Despite ongoing litigation challenging the legitimacy of the actions taken in connection with the Strict Foreclosure as further discussed herein, in accordance with GAAP, the Company recorded an impairment for the full amount of its equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property of $63,745,000 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.

For additional information concerning the Company’s recording of an impairment of its equity investment in the 111 West 57^th Property in 2017 and the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57^th Property, including the Company’s challenge to the Strict Foreclosure, see Part I – Item 1 – Note 3 and Note 7 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

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, “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. For additional information regarding the Apollo Action see Part I – Item 1 – Note 7 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

In May 2019, the Company’s subsidiary, 111 West 57th Investment LLC (“Investment LLC”) initiated a case in the New York State Supreme Court for New York County (the “NY Court”), Index No. 653067/2019 (the “Property Owner Action”).  The defendant in that litigation is 111 West 57th Property Owner LLC (“Property Owner”), which owns title to the 111 West 57th Street Property, and the nominal defendants are 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57th Mezz 1 LLC.  Investment LLC alleges that the Strict Foreclosure was invalid and seeks to impose a constructive trust over the 111 West 57th Street Property, requiring Property Owner to hold that property for the benefit of 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57th Mezz 1 LLC, its rightful indirect parents.  Investment LLC also alleges that Property Owner aided and abetted Michael Stern, Kevin Maloney, and 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC in their breach of fiduciary duties.  In addition to filing a complaint, Investment LLC filed a notice of pendency on the title to the 111 West 57th Street Property. For additional information regarding the Property Owner Action and the notice of pendency filing see Part I – Item 1 – Note 7 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

In April 2020, the Company initiated a litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Index No. 1:20-cv-02763-VSB, (the “Custom House Action”). The defendants in the Custom House Action are Custom House Risk Advisors, Inc. and Elizabeth Lowe (collectively, the “Custom House Defendants”). In the Custom House Action, the Company alleges that the Custom House Defendants (a) aided and abetted Sponsor, Stern, and Maloney in breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company by structuring an insurance policy to the personal benefit of Sponsor, Stern and Maloney and the detriment of the 111 West 57th Project and concealing the structure and ownership of the insurance policy from the Company and (b) committed fraud by making material misrepresentations about the terms of the policy to the Company, inducing the Company to contribute additional capital to the 111 West 57th Project to cover the costs of the insurance policy. The Company is seeking damages as well as disgorgement of profits the Custom House Defendants earned from their wrongful conduct. For additional information with regard to the Custom House Action see Part I – Item 1 – Note 7 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

In September 2017, the Company entered into a Litigation Funding Agreement (the “LFA”) with Mr. R. A. Bianco. Pursuant to the LFA, Mr. R. A. Bianco agreed to provide litigation funding to the Company, to satisfy actual documented litigation costs and expenses of the Company, including attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, consulting fees and disbursements in connection with the Company’s legal proceedings related to the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57th Street Property. In May 2019, the Company and Mr. R. A. Bianco entered into an amendment to the LFA (the “Amendment). See Part I – Item 1 – Note 8 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for additional information including the terms of the Litigation Funding Agreement, as amended by the Amendment.

With respect to its disputes and litigation relating to its interest in the 111 West 57th Property, the Company is pursuing, and will continue to pursue, other options to realize the Company’s investment value, various legal courses of action to protect its legal rights, recovery of its asset value from various sources of recovery, 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 57^th Property; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail with respect to any of its claims.

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 Sponsors 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 Sponsors’, 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. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property and the legal proceedings related thereto, see Part I – Item 1 – Note 3 and Note 7 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

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 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. The Company can give no assurances with regard to if it will prevail with respect to any of its claims.

For the three months ended March 31, 2020, cash of $4,264,000 was provided by operations as a result of the federal tax refund received in March 2020, partially offset by the payment of operating expenses and prior year accruals.

For the three months ended March 31, 2019, cash of $9,912,000 was provided by operations as a result of the federal tax refund received in March 2019, partially offset by the payment of operating expenses and prior year accruals.

There are no other material commitments for capital expenditures as of March 31, 2020.  Inflation has had no material impact on the business and operations of the Company.

Results of Operations for the Three Months Ended March 31, 2020 vs. the Three Months Ended March 31, 2019

The Company recorded a net loss of $1,418,000 or $0.03 per share in the three months ended March 31, 2020, compared to a net loss of $858,000, or $0.02 per share in the respective 2019 period.

Compensation and benefits increased to $419,000 in the three months ended March 31, 2020, compared to $343,000 in the respective 2019 period.  The increase in the 2020 three-month period is due to an increase in compensation expense recorded in the 2020 period versus compensation expense in 2019 period.  No stock based compensation expense was recorded in the three months ended March 31, 2020 or March 31, 2019.

Professional and outside services increased to $920,000 in the three months ended March 31, 2020, compared to $476,000 in the respective 2019 period.  The increase in the 2020 period as compared to the 2019 period is principally the result of a higher level of legal and professional fees incurred in 2020 in connection with the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57^th Property.

Property operating and maintenance expenses remained at the same levels for the three months ended March 31, 2020, compared to the respective March 31, 2019 period.

Insurance expenses decreased to $43,000 in 2020, compared with $46,000 in 2019. The decrease is due to a slight decrease in insurance premium costs in the three months ended March 31, 2020, compared to the respective 2019 period.

Other operating expenses increased to $29,000 in the three months ended March 31, 2020, compared with $15,000 in the respective 2019 period, due to a higher level of other expenses in the 2020 period.

Interest income in the three months ended March 31, 2020, increased to $2 from $- in the respective 2019 period.  The increased interest income is due to a higher average level of cash and cash equivalents and investments on hand in the 2020 period compared with the 2019 period.

The Company recorded an income tax provision of $1,000 for the three month period ended March 31, 2020, versus an income tax benefit of $30,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2019. The income tax provision for the three months ended March 31, 2020, reflects a provision for a tax on capital imposed by the state jurisdictions. The income tax benefit of $30,000 for the three month period ended March 31, 2019, reflects an additional refund received in March 2019 relating to the AMT credit carryforwards.

Income taxes applicable to operating income (loss) are generally determined by applying the estimated effective annual income tax rates to pretax income (loss) for the year-to-date interim period.  Income taxes applicable to unusual or infrequently occurring items are provided in the period in which such items occur.

For additional information including a discussion of income tax matters, see Part I – Item 1 – Note 6 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

Our disclosure controls and procedures include our controls and other procedures to ensure that information required to be disclosed in this and other reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure and to ensure that such information is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods.

Our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have conducted an evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures as of March 31, 2020.  Based upon this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rule 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) promulgated under the Exchange Act) are effective to ensure that the information required to be disclosed by us in the reports we file under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported with adequate timeliness.

There have been no changes during the most recent fiscal quarter in our internal control over financial reporting, as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Exchange Act, that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

PART II - OTHER INFORMATION

For a discussion of the Company’s legal proceedings, see Part I - Item 1 - Note 7 – to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements.

The following risk factor supplements the risk factors previously disclosed in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, in response to Item 1A of Part I of Form 10-K.

The current pandemic of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is expected to, and the future outbreak of other highly infectious or contagious diseases may, materially and adversely impact the business, income, cash flow, results of operations and financial condition of the Company, including the 111 West 57th Property.

In December 2019, a novel strain of coronavirus (COVID-19) was reported to have surfaced in Wuhan, China. COVID-19 has since spread globally, including to every state in the United States. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, and on March 13, 2020, the United States declared a national emergency with respect to COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had, and another pandemic in the future could have, repercussions across regional and global economies and financial markets. The outbreak of COVID-19 has significantly adversely impacted global economic activity and has contributed to significant volatility and negative pressure in financial markets. The impact of the outbreak has been rapidly evolving and, as cases of COVID-19 have continued to be identified, many countries, including the United States, have reacted by instituting quarantines, mandating business and school closures and restricting travel.

Preventative measures taken to alleviate the public health crisis, including "shelter-in-place" or "stay-at-home" orders issued by local, state and federal authorities, may have a material adversely effect on the business, income, cash flow, results of operations and financial condition of the Company, including the 111 West 57th Street Property, including without limitation a reduction in demand and sales prices and increased management and health maintenance costs.

Common Stock Repurchase Plan

The Company’s common stock repurchase plan (the “Repurchase Plan”) allows for the repurchase by the Company of up to 10 million shares 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.  No common stock repurchases have been made pursuant to the Repurchase Plan during the year to date 2020 period. See Part I - Item 1 - Note 5 to the Company’s unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements for further information.

Not Applicable.

Not Applicable.

None.

Item 6.

EXHIBITS

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

AMBASE CORPORATION

---