13. Contingencies, Guarantees and Indemnifications

Litigation and Regulatory Contingencies

We are regularly involved in litigation, both as a defendant and as a plaintiff, but primarily as a defendant. Litigation naming us as a defendant ordinarily arises out of our business operations as a provider of asset management and accumulation products and services; individual life insurance, specialty benefits insurance and our investment activities. Some of the lawsuits may be class actions, or purport to be, and some may include claims for unspecified or substantial punitive and treble damages.

We may discuss such litigation in one of three ways. We accrue a charge to income and disclose legal matters for which the chance of loss is probable and for which the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. We may disclose contingencies for which the chance of loss is reasonably possible and provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. Finally, we may voluntarily disclose loss contingencies for which the chance of loss is remote in order to provide information concerning matters that potentially expose us to possible losses.

In addition, regulatory bodies such as state insurance departments, the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the Department of Labor, the Federal Reserve Board and other regulatory agencies regularly make inquiries and conduct examinations or investigations concerning our compliance with, among other things, insurance laws, securities laws, ERISA and laws governing the activities of broker-dealers. We receive requests from regulators and other governmental authorities relating to industry issues and may receive additional requests, including subpoenas and interrogatories, in the future.

On November 8, 2006, a trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement Savings Plan filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Principal Life. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Principal Life breached its alleged fiduciary duties while performing services to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose, or adequately disclose, to employers or plan participants the fact that Principal Life receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual funds that are included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and allegedly failed to use the revenue to defray the expenses of the services provided to the plans. Plaintiff sought to certify a class of all retirement plans to which Principal Life was a service provider and for which Principal Life received and retained "revenue sharing" fees from mutual funds. On June 13, 2011, the court entered a consent judgment resolving the claims of the plaintiff. On July 12, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal related to the issue of the denial of class certification. On February 13, 2013, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on October 7, 2013.

On August 29, 2013, American Chemicals & Equipment, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Plan ("ACE") filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against Principal Management Corporation and Principal Global Investors, LLC (the "ACE Defendants"). The lawsuit alleges the ACE Defendants breached their fiduciary duty under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act by charging excessive fees on certain of the LifeTime series target date funds. On January 24, 2014, the court granted the motion filed by the ACE Defendants to transfer the case to the Southern District of Iowa. The ACE Defendants are aggressively defending the lawsuit.

On December 2, 2009 and December 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise and Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us; Principal Life; Principal Global Investors, LLC; Principal Management Corporation; and Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC (the "Cruise/Mullaney Defendants"). The lawsuits alleged the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants failed to manage the Principal U.S. Property Separate Account ("PUSPSA") in the best interests of investors, improperly imposed a "withdrawal freeze" on September 26, 2008, and instituted a "withdrawal queue" to honor withdrawal requests as sufficient liquidity became available. The two lawsuits, as well as two subsequently filed complaints asserting similar claims, have been consolidated and are now known as In re Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation. Plaintiffs' request for permission to appeal the denial of class certification was denied by the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 31, 2013. The Cruise/Mullaney Defendants are aggressively defending the lawsuit.

In 2008, Principal Life received approximately $440.0 million in connection with the termination of certain structured transactions and the resulting prepayment of Principal Life's investment in those transactions. The transactions involved Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (collectively, "Lehman") in various capacities. Subsequent to Lehman's 2008 bankruptcy filing, its bankruptcy estate initiated several law suits seeking to recover from numerous sources significant amounts to which it claims entitlement under various theories. The estate is attempting to recover from Principal Life an amount, including interest, of approximately $500.0 million. We are one of numerous defendants to this action, which has been stayed by the bankruptcy court. We believe that we have meritorious defenses to Lehman's claims and intend to aggressively defend against them once the stay is lifted and we are allowed to do so.

While the outcome of any pending or future litigation or regulatory matter cannot be predicted, management does not believe that any such matter will have a material adverse effect on our business or financial position. As of December 31, 2013, there were no estimated losses accrued related to the legal matters discussed above because we believe the loss from these matters is not probable and cannot be reasonably estimated.

We believe all of the litigation contingencies discussed above involve a chance of loss that is either remote or reasonably possible. Unless otherwise noted, all of these matters involve unspecified claim amounts, in which the respective plaintiffs seek an indeterminate amount of damages. To the extent such matters present a reasonably possible chance of loss, we are generally not able to estimate the possible loss or range of loss associated therewith.

The outcome of such matters is always uncertain, and unforeseen results can occur. It is possible that such outcomes could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts that we could not estimate at December 31, 2013.

Guarantees and Indemnifications

In the normal course of business, we have provided guarantees to third parties primarily related to former subsidiaries and joint ventures. These agreements generally expire through 2019. The maximum exposure under these agreements as of December 31, 2013, was approximately $251.0 million. At inception, the fair value of such guarantees was insignificant. In addition, we believe the likelihood is remote that material payments will be required. Therefore, any liability accrued within our consolidated statements of financial position is insignificant. Should we be required to perform under these guarantees, we generally could recover a portion of the loss from third parties through recourse provisions included in agreements with such parties, the sale of assets held as collateral that can be liquidated in the event that performance is required under the guarantees or other recourse generally available to us; therefore, such guarantees would not result in a material adverse effect on our business or financial position. While the likelihood is remote, such outcomes could materially affect net income in a particular quarter or annual period.

We are also subject to various other indemnification obligations issued in conjunction with divestitures, acquisitions and financing transactions whose terms range in duration and often are not explicitly defined. Certain portions of these indemnifications may be capped, while other portions are not subject to such limitations; therefore, the overall maximum amount of the obligation under the indemnifications cannot be reasonably estimated. At inception, the fair value of such indemnifications was insignificant. In addition, we believe the likelihood is remote that material payments will be required. Therefore, any liability accrued within our consolidated statements of financial position is insignificant. While we are unable to estimate with certainty the ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these indemnifications, we believe that performance under these indemnifications would not result in a material adverse effect on our business or financial position. While the likelihood is remote, performance under these indemnifications could materially affect net income in a particular quarter or annual period.

Guaranty Funds

Under state insurance guaranty fund laws, insurers doing business in a state can be assessed, up to prescribed limits, for certain obligations of insolvent insurance companies to policyholders and claimants. A state's fund assesses its members based on their pro rata market share of written premiums in the state for the classes of insurance for which the insolvent insurer was engaged. Some states permit member insurers to recover assessments paid through full or partial premium tax offsets. We accrue liabilities for guaranty fund assessments when an assessment is probable, can be reasonably estimated and when the event obligating us to pay has occurred. While we cannot predict the amount and timing of any future assessments, we have established reserves we believe are adequate for assessments relating to insurance companies that are currently subject to insolvency proceedings. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, the liability balance for guaranty fund assessments, which is not discounted, was $22.5 million and $31.0 million, respectively, and was reported within other liabilities in the consolidated statements of financial position. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, $11.5 million and $16.5 million, respectively, related to premium tax offsets were included in premiums due and other receivables in the consolidated statements of financial position.

Operating Leases

As a lessee, we lease office space, data processing equipment, office furniture and office equipment under various operating leases. Rental expense for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively, was $36.3 million, $41.9 million and $51.1 million.

The following represents payments due by period for operating lease obligations (in millions):


Year ending December 31:
2014	$	42.3
2015		37.0
2016		30.9
2017		23.2
2018		10.8
2019 and thereafter		53.9


Total operating lease obligations		198.1
Less: Future sublease rental income on noncancelable leases		7.7


Total future minimum lease payments	$	190.4

Capital Leases

We lease buildings and hardware storage equipment under capital leases. As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, these leases had a gross asset balance of $42.6 million and $35.5 million and accumulated depreciation of $16.1 million and $11.5 million, respectively. Depreciation expense for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 was $10.5 million, $7.9 million and $4.4 million, respectively.

The following represents future minimum lease payments due by period for capital lease obligations (in millions).


Year ending December 31:
2014	$	7.2
2015		6.1
2016		4.5
2017		1.7
2018		0.1


Total		19.6
Less: Amounts representing interest		0.6


Net present value of minimum lease payments	$	19.0