Contingencies, Guarantees and Indemnifications	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Contingencies, Guarantees and Indemnifications
Contingencies, Guarantees and Indemnifications	8. 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 (“DOL”) 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 December 30, 2015, Mary Ventura, William Littlejohn and Ryan Kadota filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against Principal Management Corporation (“PMC”). The lawsuit alleges PMC breached its fiduciary duty under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act by charging excessive fees on the LargeCap Growth I Fund, SmallCap Growth I Fund, SmallCap Fund, High Yield Fund, MidCap Fund and the MidCap Value III Fund. Plaintiffs’ counsel dismissed this case with prejudice. The stipulation of dismissal was filed on October 16, 2017. 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 PMC and Principal Global Investors, LLC (the “ACE Defendants”). The lawsuit alleged 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. Principal Global Investors, LLC was dismissed from the case on December 29, 2015. PMC was granted summary judgment on February 8, 2016, and the case was dismissed. ACE appealed the grant of summary judgment and subsequent dismissal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 24, 2017, the Eighth Circuit issued a decision affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of PMC and dismissing the case. Plaintiff elected not to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court; as such, the dismissal stands as affirmed and the case is concluded. 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 lawsuits seeking to recover from numerous sources significant amounts to which it claims entitlement under various theories. We are one of a large group of defendants to this action. The estate’s claim against Principal Life, including interest, was approximately $600.0 million. On June 28, 2016, the bankruptcy court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss directed at common issues and dismissed with prejudice all claims against Principal Life. Lehman has appealed the bankruptcy court’s decision to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. While the outcome of any pending or future litigation or regulatory matter cannot be predicted, management does not believe any such matter will have a material adverse effect on our business or financial position. As of September 30, 2017, we had no estimated losses accrued related to the legal matters discussed above because we believe the chance of loss from these matters is not probable and the amount of loss 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 such outcomes could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts we could not estimate as of September 30, 2017. Guarantees and Indemnifications In the normal course of business, we have provided guarantees to third parties primarily related to former subsidiaries and joint ventures. The terms of these agreements range in duration and often are not explicitly defined. The maximum exposure under these agreements as of September 30, 2017, was approximately $149.0 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 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 manage mandatory privatized social security funds in Chile. By regulation, we have a required minimum guarantee on the funds’ relative return. Because the guarantee has no limitation with respect to duration or amount, the maximum exposure of the guarantee in the future is indeterminable. 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.

8. 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 (“DOL”) 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 December 30, 2015, Mary Ventura, William Littlejohn and Ryan Kadota filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against Principal Management Corporation (“PMC”). The lawsuit alleges PMC breached its fiduciary duty under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act by charging excessive fees on the LargeCap Growth I Fund, SmallCap Growth I Fund, SmallCap Fund, High Yield Fund, MidCap Fund and the MidCap Value III Fund. Plaintiffs’ counsel dismissed this case with prejudice. The stipulation of dismissal was filed on October 16, 2017.

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 PMC and Principal Global Investors, LLC (the “ACE Defendants”). The lawsuit alleged 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. Principal Global Investors, LLC was dismissed from the case on December 29, 2015. PMC was granted summary judgment on February 8, 2016, and the case was dismissed. ACE appealed the grant of summary judgment and subsequent dismissal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 24, 2017, the Eighth Circuit issued a decision affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of PMC and dismissing the case. Plaintiff elected not to file a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court; as such, the dismissal stands as affirmed and the case is concluded.

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 lawsuits seeking to recover from numerous sources significant amounts to which it claims entitlement under various theories. We are one of a large group of defendants to this action. The estate’s claim against Principal Life, including interest, was approximately $600.0 million. On June 28, 2016, the bankruptcy court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss directed at common issues and dismissed with prejudice all claims against Principal Life. Lehman has appealed the bankruptcy court’s decision to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

While the outcome of any pending or future litigation or regulatory matter cannot be predicted, management does not believe any such matter will have a material adverse effect on our business or financial position. As of September 30, 2017, we had no estimated losses accrued related to the legal matters discussed above because we believe the chance of loss from these matters is not probable and the amount of loss 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 such outcomes could require us to pay damages or make other expenditures or establish accruals in amounts we could not estimate as of September 30, 2017.

Guarantees and Indemnifications

In the normal course of business, we have provided guarantees to third parties primarily related to former subsidiaries and joint ventures. The terms of these agreements range in duration and often are not explicitly defined. The maximum exposure under these agreements as of September 30, 2017, was approximately $149.0 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 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 manage mandatory privatized social security funds in Chile. By regulation, we have a required minimum guarantee on the funds’ relative return. Because the guarantee has no limitation with respect to duration or amount, the maximum exposure of the guarantee in the future is indeterminable.

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.