AmBase Corp

To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of

AmBase Corporation and Subsidiaries

Opinion on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of AmBase Corporation and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2023, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”). In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2023 and 2022, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2023, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Explanatory Paragraph – Going Concern

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As more fully described in Note 1, the Company has a significant working capital deficiency, has incurred significant losses and needs to raise additional funds to meet its obligations and sustain its operations. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 1. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Basis for Opinion

These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (“PCAOB”) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Critical Audit Matters

Critical audit matters are matters arising from the current period audit of the financial statements that were communicated or required to be communicated to the audit committee and that: (1) relate to accounts or disclosures that are material to the financial statements and (2) involved our especially challenging, subjective, or complex judgments. We determined that there are no critical audit matters.

/s/ Marcumllp

Marcum LLP

We have served as the Company’s auditor since 2007, such date takes into account the acquisition of a portion of UHY LLP by Marcum LLP in April 2010.

Hartford, Connecticut

March 18, 2024

(in thousands, except per share data)

(in thousands, except per share data)

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)

Years Ended December 31, 2023 and 2022

Note 1 – Organization and Going Concern

AmBase Corporation (the “Company” or “AmBase”) is a Delaware corporation that was incorporated in 1975. AmBase is a holding company. At December 31, 2023, the Company’s assets consisted of cash and cash equivalents. The Company is engaged in the management of its assets and liabilities.

A fundamental principle of the preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP is the assumption that an entity will continue in existence as a going concern, which contemplates continuity of operations and the realization of assets and settlement of liabilities occurring in the ordinary course of business. In accordance with this requirement, the Company has prepared its accompanying consolidated financial statements assuming the Company will continue as a going concern.

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 may not be sufficient to cover operating cash needs through the twelve month period from the financial statement reporting date. Based on the above factors, management determined there is substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that the financial statements are issued. The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include adjustments to the carrying value of assets and liabilities, which might be necessary should the Company not continue in operation.

In order to continue as a going concern, the Company must take steps to manage its current level of cash and cash equivalents, through various ways, including but not limited to, raising additional capital through the sale of equity or debt securities or long term borrowings, which may include additional borrowings from affiliates of the Company, reducing operating expenses, and seeking recoveries from various sources. There can be no assurance that the Company will be able to adequately implement these cash management measures, in whole or in part or raise capital or obtain financing on terms acceptable to the Company, if at all. On February 28, 2024, the Company commenced an offering of common stock and entered into a securities purchase agreement with an affiliate of the Company as standby purchaser for the entire amount of securities being offered. For additional information about this offering, including the material terms and conditions of the offering and information about how stockholders may subscribe for shares in the offering, including the form of subscription agreement to be entered into between the Company and subscribing stockholders, see Note 11.

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 57th Street in New York, New York (the “111 West 57th Property”). The Company is engaged in material disputes and litigation with regard to the 111 West 57th Property. Despite ongoing litigation challenging the legitimacy of the actions taken in connection with the “Strict Foreclosure”, (as defined and as further discussed herein), 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 57th 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 57th Property in 2017 and the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57th Property, including the Company’s challenge to the Strict Foreclosure, see Note 3 and Note 8.

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 57th 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.

Note 2 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Accounting

The consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”).

Use of estimates

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.

Principles of consolidation

The consolidated financial statements are comprised of the accounts of the Company and its wholly owned subsidiaries. All material intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated.

Equity method investment

Investments and ownership interests are accounted for under the equity method of accounting if the Company has the ability to exercise significant influence, but not control (under GAAP), over the investment. Investments accounted for under the equity method are carried at cost, plus or minus the Company’s equity in the increases and decreases in the net assets after the date of acquisition and certain other adjustments. The Company’s share of income or loss for equity method investments is recorded in the consolidated statements of operations as equity income (loss). Dividends received, if any, would reduce the carrying amount of the Company’s investment.

Cash and cash equivalents

Highly liquid investments, consisting principally of funds held in short-term money market accounts, with original maturities of less than three months, are classified as cash equivalents. The majority of the Company’s cash and cash equivalents balances are maintained with a limited number of major financial institutions. Cash and cash equivalents balances at institutions may, at times, be above the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insured limit per account.

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 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. For additional information including a discussion of income tax matters see Note 7.

Earnings per share

Basic earnings per share (“EPS”) excludes dilution and is computed by dividing net income (loss) by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding for the period. The Company has no stock options or securities outstanding which could be potentially dilutive.

New Accounting Pronouncements

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments. This ASU and its related amendments (collectively, the “Credit Loss Standard”) modifies the impairment model to utilize an expected loss methodology in place of the incurred loss methodology for financial instruments, including trade receivables, contract assets and off-balance sheet credit exposures. The Credit Loss Standard requires consideration of a broader range of information to estimate expected credit losses, including historical information, current economic conditions, and a reasonable forecast period. This Credit Loss Standard requires that the statement of operations reflect estimates of expected credit losses for newly recognized financial assets as well as changes in the estimate of expected credit losses that have taken place during the period, which may result in earlier recognition of certain losses. We adopted this standard effective January 1, 2023, and this standard did not have a material impact on the Company’s 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), 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 8.

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 in 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 the Company’s Chairman, President and Chief Executive Office, Mr. Richard A. Bianco (“Mr.R.A. Bianco”), as a 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 57th 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 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.

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 “Sponsor Action”). The defendants in that litigation include 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, Kevin Maloney, Michael Stern, and various members and affiliates, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (collectively, “Defendants”) and nominal defendants 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57th Mezz 1 LLC. For additional information with regard to the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57 th Property, see Note 8.

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 as set forth in the JV Agreement (the “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 to allow the Sponsor time (while the building continued to be built) to raise the additional financing that Sponsor claimed would be needed 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 “Lender Action”). The defendants in the Lender 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 57th Mezz 1 LLC. The Company has since voluntarily discontinued its claims against Sponsor, Stern, and Maloney, without prejudice to reinstating them in the Lender Action or any other action. For additional information with regard to the Lender Action, see Note 8.

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

For additional information regarding the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the 111 West 57th Property, including the Company’s challenge to the Strict Foreclosure, see Note 8.

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 57th 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 57th 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 57th Property.

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 57th 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.

Note 4 - 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 the maximum limitations contained in the Code.

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

Note 5 - Stockholders’ Equity

Authorized common stock consists of the following:

Authorized cumulative preferred stock consists of the following:

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

Changes in the treasury 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 at 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. Due to the Company’s current financial condition and ongoing litigation proceedings, the Company does not anticipate that it will make any stock purchases pursuant to the Repurchase Plan in the next twelve months.

Information relating to the Repurchase Plan is as follows:

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 ofone 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”).

Under the New Rights Plan, each Right entitles the holder to purchase from the Companyone 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 10 days 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 50% of the securities that would be issuable at such time upon the exercise of one Right. The Rights Plan also provides certain administrative provisions that require a stockholder to make certain representations regarding its beneficial ownership of Company securities upon exercise or exchange of Rights. The Rights are subject to adjustment to prevent dilution and expire on March 27, 2029.

Note 6 – Commitments and Contingencies

Rent expense was as follows:

The Company rents on a short-term basis approximately 150 square feet of office space in Coral Springs, Florida, and approximately 200 square feet of office space in Emerson, NJ.

The Company follows the practical expedient method for the accounting of leases and has elected to follow the short-term lease accounting policy election which allows lessees not to recognize right-of-use assets and liabilities for leases with a term of 12 months or less.

Note 7 - Income Taxes

The components of income tax expense (benefit) are as follows:

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:

For the year ended December 31, 2023, the Company recorded an income tax expense of $1,000 attributable to a provision for a tax on capital imposed by the state jurisdictions.

For the year ended December 31, 2022, the Company recorded an income tax expense of $1,000, attributable to a provision for a tax on capital imposed by the state jurisdictions.

The utilization of net operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards are subject to limitations under U.S. federal income tax and various state tax laws. Based on the Company’s federal tax returns as filed, the Company estimates it has approximately $133 million of federal NOL carryforwards available to reduce future federal taxable income which if not utilized will begin to expire in 2026 and continue to expire at various dates thereafter. Additionally, based on the Company’s state tax returns as filed and to be filed, the Company estimates that it has approximately $238 million of state NOL carryforwards to reduce future state taxable income which if not utilized will begin to expire in 2030 and continue to expire at various dates thereafter.

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 2020. 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.

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. Moreover, applicable provisions of the Code and IRS regulations permit the IRS to challenge Company tax positions and filed returns or additional taxes for an extended period of time after such returns are filed. The Company can give no assurances as to the final outcome of any IRS review, if any.

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. 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 of Federal Claims did not award an additional amount for the second component 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 of Federal Claims indicated that either the Company or the government is entitled to seek further relief “if, and when, the facts justify it.”

The Company’s deferred tax asset, arising primarily from NOL carryforwards, is as follows:

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.

Note 8 - 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. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will prevail with respect to any of its claims.

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 and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) 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 57th Sponsor LLC, et al.”) (the “Sponsor Action”). The defendants in that litigation include 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC (the “Sponsor”), Kevin Maloney, Michael Stern, and various members and affiliates, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (collectively, “Defendants”) and nominal defendants 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57th Mezz 1 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 by not objecting to the 2017 foreclosure of the junior mezzanine loan on the project, as well as fraudulent misrepresentation or omission. 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 57th Property which the Sponsor refused, claiming they have provided all books and records as required.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss an earlier complaint, and on January 12, 2018, the NY Court issued an opinion allowing some of AmBase’s claims to go forward and dismissing others (“2018 Order”). 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 2018 Order to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Judicial Department (the “Appellate Division”). On January 22, 2020, the Company filed a motion with the Appellate Division seeking to enlarge the time to perfect the Company’s appeal of the 2018 Order, in light of an intervening removal to and remand from federal court. On July 2, 2020, the Appellate Division granted AmBase’s motion and enlarged the time to perfect the Company’s appeal to the October 2020 Term of the Appellate Division. On April 29, 2021, the Appellate Division affirmed Justice Bransten’s dismissal of the claims on appeal, while the claims that were not previously dismissed remain pending in the trial court.

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 Sponsor 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 Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Company’s RICO claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Company’s state-law claims, dismissing the latter claims without prejudice. 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 June 11, 2020, Defendants filed a motion with the NY Court to dismiss some of the state law claims asserted by the Company in the third amended complaint. On July 28, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the third amended complaint, which Defendants opposed. The proposed complaint added, among other things, claims arising from certain defendants’ role in the 2017 foreclosure of the junior mezzanine loan on the project. On July 22, 2021, the NY Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot in light of the Court’s decision granting Plaintiffs leave to amend.

On July 29, 2021, Plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint. On September 3, 2021, Defendants submitted a motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint in part, which Plaintiffs opposed. On May 9, 2022, the NY Court issued a Decision and Order on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, allowing some of AmBase’s claims to go forward and dismissing others (“May 9, 2022 Order”). The NY Court declined to dismiss AmBase’s claims that the Defendants breached their contracts with AmBase by permitting transfers or encumbrances upon 111 West 57th Control LLC’s membership interests in connection with third-party financing without seeking or obtaining prior written approval. The Court also declined to dismiss AmBase’s claim that Defendants breached their obligations under the Development Agreement by, among other things, failing to use “commercially reasonable efforts” to plan, design, develop, construct, and obtain permits for the Property in a timely manner and failing to devote sufficient time and attention to its obligations under the Development Agreement.

Claims that the NY Court dismissed included AmBase’s claims that Defendants breached their contract with AmBase by making capital contributions to Sponsor from third parties; consenting to the strict foreclosure without obtaining AmBase’s prior written approval in violation of the “Major Decisions” provision; refusing to cooperate and share information with AmBase’s construction consultant; and engaging in fraud and intentional misconduct in violation of Joint Venture Agreement section 8.5. The NY Court also dismissed AmBase’s claim that Defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions (as duplicative of the breach of contract claims) and other claims whose dismissal was compelled by a prior decision of the First Department, namely, AmBase’s claims that Sponsor, Stern, and Maloney breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty; to impose a constructive trust on the insurance loss fund; and to impose a constructive trust on Stern’s, Maloney’s, JDS’s, PMG’s, and the construction manager’s construction management fees and Stern’s and Maloney’s equity interest in the Project. Finally, the Court dismissed AmBase’s current allegations that piercing certain of Defendants’ corporate veils is warranted. On January 18, 2023, the Company filed a notice of appeal appealing the May 9, 2022 Order with regard to all defendants in the Sponsor Action and perfected the appeal on July 10, 2023.

On November 28, 2023, the Appellate Division First Department issued its decision modifying the NY Court’s decision in part and affirming the NY Court’s decision in part. The First Department modified the NY Court’s decision by reinstating Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim based on Defendants’ refusing to cooperate and share information with AmBase’s construction consultant and one part of Plaintiffs’ fraudulent misrepresentation or omission claim asserted against one of the individual defendants. The First Department otherwise affirmed the NY Court’s decision.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual Defendants”) were named as defendants in the fourth amended complaint. On September 30, 2021, the Liberty Mutual Defendants answered the fourth amended complaint and filed a counterclaim against the Company’s subsidiaries for specific performance of a pledge agreement securing certain insurance policies issued for the Project. Plaintiffs replied to those counterclaims on October 20, 2021. On March 14, 2024, the parties filed a Stipulation of Discontinuance Against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company whereby all causes of action, counterclaims, and cross-claims by and against the Liberty Mutual Defendants were discontinued without prejudice. The Court entered the Stipulation on March 15, 2024.

On January 30, 2023, Sponsor, Stern, Maloney, and various defendant members and affiliates filed their answer and asserted counterclaims against the Company’s subsidiaries for breach of the Joint Venture Agreement in connection with a proposed refinancing of the Project in 2016. Plaintiffs replied to those counterclaims on February 21, 2023. Discovery in the case is currently ongoing. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57 th Property, including the foreclosure, 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 “Lender Action”). The defendants in the 111 West 57 th Spruce action were 111 W57 Mezz Investor, LLC (“Spruce”), Spruce Capital Partners LLC, 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, Michael Z. Stern, and Kevin P. Maloney 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.

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 a response brief in support of their request for injunctive relief halting the Strict Foreclosure process and 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 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 affirmed the decision below in part and otherwise dismissed the appeal. It 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 Spruce to amend the complaint in the Lender 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 111 West 57 th Property, and damages, including punitive damages. The amended complaint did 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 granting in part and denying in part Spruce’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. 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. On March 30, 2021, the Appellate Division issued a decision and order revising the January 29, 2020, order by reinstating Investment LLC’s derivative claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and dismissing the remaining claims.

While the appeal was pending, the parties to the Lender Action conducted discovery. On April 13, 2021, Investment LLC moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to (1) bolster its factual allegations against the existing Defendant, (2) add claims against Spruce Capital Partners, Joshua Crane, and Robert Schwartz (“Spruce Defendants”), Arthur Becker and his affiliates (“Atlantic Defendants”), Apollo and its affiliates (“Apollo Defendants”), and AIG and its affiliates (“AIG Defendants”). On September 30, 2021, the Court granted the motion, and Investment LLC filed its Second Amended Complaint on the same day. On November 22, 2021, the various defendants filed separate motions to dismiss the claims against them. On December 13, 2021, Investment LLC filed a combined opposition to the motions. The defendants filed their replies on January 7, 2022.

On May 17, 2022, Plaintiff in the Lender Action filed a motion requesting that the court hold oral argument on the pending motions to dismiss. The court granted the motion and heard argument on July 22, 2022. During argument, counsel for Plaintiff made an oral motion to amend the complaint to add an express allegation that Defendants committed the tort of interference with contractual relations by procuring Sponsor’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the JV Agreement. The court called for supplemental briefs on the issue, which were filed on August 5, 2022.

On December 15, 2022, the NY Court issued a decision and order granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss (“December 15, 2022 Order”). Specifically, the NY Court declined to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Spruce and ACREFI Mortgage Lending, LLC, Apollo Credit Opportunity Fund III AIV I LP, and AGRE Debt 1 – 111 W 57, LLC (“Apollo Lenders”) for breach of the Pledge Agreement in connection with the strict foreclosure. The NY Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for tortious interference with contract against the Spruce Defendants, AIG Defendants, and Apollo Defendants, and Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment against the Atlantic Defendants.

On January 3, 2023, the Apollo Lenders filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division seeking review of the December 15, 2022 Order. On January 18, 2023, the Company filed notices of appeal and cross-appeal appealing the December 15, 2022, Order with regard to all Defendants. On August 9, 2023, pursuant to mutual agreement with the Company and the AIG Defendants, the Company filed a stipulation to withdraw its appeal against the AIG Defendants. Following briefing and oral argument, the Appellate Division First Department issued its decision on October 5, 2023. The First Department modified the NY Court’s decision to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim against the Apollo Lenders for breach of the Pledge Agreement in connection with the strict foreclosure, and otherwise affirmed the NY Court’s decision. On November 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed motions for leave to appeal the First Department’s decision to the Court of Appeals in both the First Department and the Court of Appeals. On December 19, 2023, the First Department denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which concerned Plaintiff’s claim against the Apollo Lenders for breach of the Pledge Agreement in connection with the strict foreclosure and Plaintiff’s claims against the Spruce Defendants and Apollo Lenders for tortious interference with contract.

On January 13, 2023, the Apollo Lenders filed their answer and affirmative defenses to the Company’s Second Amended Complaint together with crossclaims against 111 W57th Mezz Investor LLC, Spruce Capital Partners LLC, Joshua Crane, Robert Schwartz, Michael Stern, Kevin Maloney, 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, 111 West 57th Control LLC, and 111 West 57th Manager LLC (the “Crossclaim Defendants”). The crossclaims are for (1) contribution against all Crossclaim Defendants; (2) indemnification against 111 W57th Mezz Investor LLC, Spruce Capital, Crane, and Schwartz; and (3) a declaratory judgment that 111 W57th Mezz Investor LLC, through Spruce Capital, Crane, and Schwartz, has indemnified the Apollo Lenders against any and all loss that the Apollo Lenders have incurred or may incur in defending against this case. On January 23, 2023, the Apollo Lenders filed a notice of voluntary discontinuance without prejudice, voluntarily discontinuing their first crossclaim for contribution only as it is brought against Stern, Maloney, Sponsor, 111 West 57th Control LLC, and 111 West 57th Manager LLC.

On January 30, 2023, Defendant 111 W57 Mezz Investor LLC filed its answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. Because the Court has resolved the motions to dismiss, discovery has recommenced, and Plaintiffs are actively seeking the production of documents.

Since the Company is not a 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 Sponsor Action and the Lender 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.

111 West 57th Investment LLC, et al. v. Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, et al., No. 151139/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.). On February 6, 2024, 111 West 57th Investment LLC, derivatively on behalf of 111 West 57th Partners LLC and 111 West 57th Mezz 1 LLC, and 111 West 57th Manager Funding LLC, derivatively on behalf of 111 West 57th Manager LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed a Summons with Notice against Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP and Douglas B. Heitner (collectively, “Defendants”) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of Defendants’ representation of 111 West 57th Partners LLC, 111 West 57th Mezz 1 LLC, and 111 West 57th Manager LLC in connection with the real estate development project of 111 West 57th Street (the “Project”) and related financing and other transactions, while simultaneously representing persons and entities with interests adverse to and in conflict with 111 West 57th Partners LLC’s, 111 West 57th Mezz 1 LLC’s, and 111 West 57th Manager LLC’s interests (and the interests of other members of these represented entities), including but not limited to: 111 West 57th Sponsor LLC, 111 West 57th Control LLC, 111 West 57th Developer LLC, 111 Construction Manager LLC, Michael Stern, JDS Construction Group LLC, and JDS Development LLC. Specifically, in representing 111 West 57th Partners LLC, 111 West 57th Mezz 1 LLC, and 111 West 57th Manager LLC throughout the restructuring of the financing and the raising of capital for the Project, including, without limitation, the New York Uniform Commercial Code “strict foreclosure” in 2017 on the Project, Defendants acted to the detriment of these clients to benefit their other, longtime clients, resulting in 111 West 57th Partners LLC losing an extremely valuable asset in the strict foreclosure. Plaintiffs seek to recover money damages, improperly paid legal fees, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as is just and proper (together with interest thereon). Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered damages and demand relief of no less than $100 million, improperly paid legal fees, and Plaintiffs’ own attorneys’ fees and costs. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57th Property, see Note 3.

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 were 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 alleged 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 57th Property and tortiously interfered with the JV Agreement. The Company was 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. 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 (the “Apollo Dismissal”) dismissing the Apollo Action in favor of the Apollo Defendants. On December 10, 2019, the Company filed a notice of appeal seeking the appeal of the Apollo Dismissal. On August 7, 2020, the Company perfected its appeal of the Apollo Dismissal. After Investment LLC filed its motion to amend the complaint in the Lender Action to add claims against Apollo, the parties to the Apollo Action filed a stipulation to withdraw the appeal in the Apollo Action. For additional information with regard to the Company’s investment in the 111 West 57th Property, see Note 3.

AmBase Corp., et al. v. Custom House Risk Advisors, Inc., et al. On April 2, 2020, the Company initiated 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 were required to respond to the complaint by June 8, 2020. The Custom House Defendants have not responded to the Company’s complaint. In an agreement dated July 31, 2020, the Company and the Custom House Defendants agreed to certain terms for a settlement and entered into a settlement agreement which requires that the Custom House Defendants satisfy certain conditions prior to any dismissal of the Custom House Action. On December 6, 2021, the Court approved a stipulation dismissing the Company’s claims and agreed to retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. 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 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.

Note 9 – Litigation Funding Agreement

In 2017, the Company entered into a Litigation Funding Agreement (the “2017 LFA”) with Mr. R.A. Bianco, to provide litigation funding to the Company for litigation costs in connection with the Company’s legal proceedings relating to the Company’s equity investment in the 111 West 57 th Property.

In 2019, after receiving approval from the Special Committee, the Company and Mr. R.A. Bianco entered into an amendment to the 2017 LFA (the “2019 LFA Amendment”). In summary the 2019 LFA Amendment provided for the release of Mr. R.A. Bianco from all further funding obligations under the 2017 LFA and that, in the event the Company receives any litigation proceeds from the 111 West 57 th Litigation, such litigation proceeds shall be distributed as follows:

Note 10 – Loan(s) Payable – Related Party

The Company and Mr. R.A. Bianco entered into an agreement(s) for Mr. R.A. Bianco to provide senior loan(s) to the Company for working capital. The loan(s) are due on the earlier of the date the Company receives funds from any source, (excluding funds received by the Company by any litigation funding entity to fund any of the 111 West 57 th legal proceedings), sufficient to pay all amounts due under the loan(s), including all accrued interest thereon, including without limitation, from a settlement of the 111 West 57 th legal proceedings or (b) the date(s) indicated herein.

The Company and Mr. R.A. Bianco further agreed that amounts due pursuant to the loan(s) plus interest can be converted by Mr. R.A. Bianco, at his option, into a litigation funding agreement pari-pasu with any litigation funding agreement entered into by the Company with a litigation funding entity.

Information regarding the loan(s) payable is as follows:($ in thousands)

Information regarding accrued interest expense on the loan(s) payable is as follows:

In January 2024, the Company and Mr. R.A. Bianco entered into an additional agreement pursuant to which Mr. R.A. Bianco made an additional loan to the Company of $100,000 for use as working capital in accordance with the same terms of the loan(s) payable noted herein.

In February 2024, the Company and Mr. R.A. Bianco entered into additional agreement(s) pursuant to which Mr. R.A. Bianco made additional loan(s) to the Company of $50,000 and $100,000, for use as working capital in accordance with the same terms of the loan(s) payable noted herein.

In March 2024, the Company and Mr. R.A. Bianco entered into an additional agreement pursuant to which Mr. R.A. Bianco made an additional loan to the Company of $100,000, for use as working capital in accordance with the same terms of the loan(s) payable noted herein.

For additional information regarding the Company’s litigation funding effort, see Note 1. For additional information regarding 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 8.

Note 11 - Subsequent Events

The Company has performed a review of events subsequent to the balance sheet dated December 31, 2023, through the report issuance date. Other than as discussed herein, the Company has no events, subsequent to December 31, 2023, and through the date these consolidated financial statements were issued.

To provide the necessary cash resources to continue operations and continue the litigation related to the 111 West 57th Property, the Company has commenced a private placement offering (the “Equity Offering”) of 44,200,460 shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Shares”) to existing shareholders of the Company (the “Equity Offering”) in reliance on the exemption from registration under Rule 506(c) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The purchase price forone share of Common Stock in the Equity Offering is $0.20. The Company expects to receive gross proceeds of approximately $8.8 million in connection with the Equity Offering before deducting offering expenses. There are no limitations on the Company’s use of such proceeds when received, although it is anticipated that a substantial part of the proceeds will be applied to repayment of existing Company obligations. The Shares are not being registered under the Securities Act and will be “restricted securities” under the Securities Act and will generally be subject to a minimum holding period of six months under Rule 144 before the Shares may be resold. The Shares will be offered and sold only to existing stockholders of record of the Company as of February 28, 2024 (the “Record Date”). Each qualifying stockholder will be permitted to purchase up to his, her or its pro rata share of the Shares in the Equity Offering, based on the amount of shares of Common Stock owned by such stockholder as of the Record Date, in an amount equal to up to one hundred and eight and one-half percent (108.5%) of the number of shares of Common Stock beneficially owned by such stockholder as of the Record Date. The Equity Offering commenced on or about February 28, 2024, and will remain open for a period of thirty (30) calendar days ending on March 29, 2024 (the “Subscription Deadline”). The Shares will be offered and sold pursuant to a Subscription Agreement (the “Subscription Agreement”) to be entered into by and between the Company and each subscribing stockholder. In connection with the Equity Offering, the Company has entered into a standby purchase agreement dated February 28, 2024 (the “SPA”) with BARC Investments, LLC (“BARC”), an affiliate of the Company owned and controlled by Company directors Alessandra F. Bianco and Richard A. Bianco, Jr. Under the terms of the SPA, BARC has agreed to act as standby a purchaser for all of the shares of common stock being offered in the Equity Offering that are not otherwise subscribed to by other stockholders prior to the Subscription Deadline. Additional information about the Equity Offering, including the material terms and conditions of the Equity Offering and information about how stockholders may subscribe for Shares in the Equity Offering, including the form of Subscription Agreement, are set forth in the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K as filed with the SEC on February 28, 2024.