23. COMMITMENTS AND GUARANTEES, CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND LITIGATION AND REGULATORY MATTERS

The Company occupies leased office space in many locations under various long-term leases and has entered into numerous leases covering the long-term use of computers and other equipment. Rental expense, net of sub-lease income, incurred for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 was $287 million, $280 million and $199 million, respectively.

The following table presents, at December 31, 2012, the Company's future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating leases along with associated sub-lease income:

			Operating Leases		Sub-lease Income

		(in millions)

2013				135		(15)
2014				117		(14)
2015				72		0
2016				52		0
2017				47		0
2018 and thereafter				96		0
	Total		$	519	$	(29)

Occasionally, for business reasons, the Company may exit certain non-cancelable operating leases prior to their expiration. In these instances, the Company's policy is to accrue, at the time it ceases to use the property being leased, the future rental expense net of any expected sub-lease income, and to release this reserve over the remaining commitment period. Of the total non-cancelable operating leases and sub-lease income amounts listed above, $10 million and $10 million, respectively, has been accrued at December 31, 2012.

	As of December 31,
		2012		2011

	(in millions)

Total outstanding mortgage loan commitments	$	2,552	$	2,139
Portion of commitment where prearrangement to sell to investor exists		897		1,199

In connection with the Company's commercial mortgage operations, it originates commercial mortgage loans. Commitments for loans that will be held for sale are recognized as derivatives and recorded at fair value. In certain of these transactions, the Company pre-arranges that it will sell the loan to an investor, including to governmental sponsored entities as discussed below, after the Company funds the loan.

	As of December 31,
		2012		2011

	(in millions)

Expected to be funded from the general account and other operations outside the separate accounts (1)	$	3,410	$	4,414
Expected to be funded from separate accounts		757		1,159
Portion of separate account commitments with recourse to Prudential Insurance		7		397

(1) Includes remaining commitments of $200 million and $385 million at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, related to the Company's agreement to co-invest with the Fosun Group (Fosun) in a private equity fund, managed by Fosun, for the Chinese marketplace.

The Company has other commitments to purchase or fund investments, some of which are contingent upon events or circumstances not under the Company's control, including those at the discretion of the Company's counterparties. The Company anticipates a portion of these commitments will ultimately be funded from its separate accounts. Some of the separate account commitments have recourse to Prudential Insurance if the separate accounts are unable to fund the amounts when due.

	As of December 31,
		2012		2011

	(in millions)

Total guarantees of debt issued by entities in which the separate accounts have invested	$	2,178	$	2,433
Amount of above guarantee that is limited to separate account assets		2,167		2,364
Accrued liability associated with guarantee		-		-

A number of guarantees provided by the Company relate to real estate investments held in its separate accounts, in which entities that the separate account has invested in have borrowed funds, and the Company has guaranteed their obligations. The Company provides these guarantees to assist these entities in obtaining financing. The Company's maximum potential exposure under these guarantees is mostly limited to the assets of the separate account. The exposure that is not limited to the separate account assets relates mostly to guarantees limited to fraud, criminal activity or other bad acts. These guarantees generally expire at various times over the next twenty four years. At December 31, 2012, the Company's assessment is that it is unlikely payments will be required. Any payments that may become required under these guarantees would either first be reduced by proceeds received by the creditor on a sale of the underlying collateral, or would provide rights to obtain the underlying collateral.

	As of December 31,
		2012		2011

	(in millions)

Indemnification provided to mutual fund and separate account clients for securities lending	$	15,454	$	13,950
Fair value of related collateral associated with above indemnifications		15,730		14,307
Accrued liability associated with guarantee		-		-

In the normal course of business, the Company may facilitate securities lending transactions on behalf of mutual funds and separate accounts for which the Company is the investment advisor and/or the asset manager. In certain of these arrangements, the Company has provided an indemnification to the mutual funds or separate accounts to hold them harmless against losses caused by counterparty (i.e., borrower) defaults associated with the securities lending activity facilitated by the Company. Collateral is provided by the counterparty to the mutual fund or separate account at the inception of the loan equal to or greater than 102% of the fair value of the loaned securities and the collateral is maintained daily at 102% or greater of the fair value of the loaned securities. The Company is only at risk if the counterparty to the securities lending transaction defaults and the value of the collateral held is less than the value of the securities loaned to such counterparty. The Company believes the possibility of any payments under these indemnities is remote.

As discussed further in Note 21, the Company writes credit derivatives under which the Company is obligated to pay the counterparty the referenced amount of the contract and receive in return the defaulted security or similar security.

	As of December 31,
		2012		2011

	(in millions)

Guaranteed value of third parties assets	$	64,424	$	47,017
Fair value of collateral supporting these assets		67,555		49,044
Asset associated with guarantee, carried at fair value		5		2

Certain contracts underwritten by the Retirement segment include guarantees related to financial assets owned by the guaranteed party. These contracts are accounted for as derivatives and carried at fair value. The collateral supporting these guarantees is not reflected on the Company's balance sheet.

	As of December 31,
		2012		2011

	(in millions)

Guarantees of credit enhancements of debt instruments associated with commercial real estate assets	$	172	$	221
Fair value of properties and associated tax credits that secure the guarantee		215		290
Accrued liability associated with guarantee		-		-

The Company arranges for credit enhancements of certain debt instruments that provide financing primarily for affordable multi-family real estate assets, including certain tax-exempt bond financings. The credit enhancements provide assurances to the debt holders as to the timely payment of amounts due under the debt instruments. The remaining contractual maturities for these guarantees are up to fifteen years. The Company's obligations to reimburse required credit enhancement payments are secured by mortgages on the related real estate. The Company receives certain ongoing fees for providing these enhancement arrangements and anticipates the extinguishment of its obligation under these enhancements prior to maturity through the aggregation and transfer of its positions to a substitute enhancement provider.

	As of December 31,
		2012		2011

	(in millions)

Maximum exposure under indemnification agreements for mortgage loans serviced by the Company	$	1,147	$	1,088
First-loss exposure portion of above		369		353
Accrued liability associated with guarantees		19		21

As part of the commercial mortgage activities of the Company's Asset Management segment, the Company provides commercial mortgage origination, underwriting and servicing for certain government sponsored entities, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Company has agreed to indemnify the government sponsored entities for a portion of the credit risk associated with certain of the mortgages it services through a delegated authority arrangement. Under these arrangements, the Company originates multi-family mortgages for sale to the government sponsored entities based on underwriting standards they specify, and makes payments to them for a specified percentage share of losses they incur on certain loans serviced by the Company. The Company's percentage share of losses incurred generally varies from 2% to 20% of the loan balance, and is typically based on a first-loss exposure for a stated percentage of the loan balance, plus a shared exposure with the government sponsored entity for any losses in excess of the stated first-loss percentage, subject to a contractually specified maximum percentage. The Company services $8,428 million of mortgages subject to these loss-sharing arrangements as of December 31, 2012, all of which are collateralized by first priority liens on the underlying multi-family residential properties. As of December 31, 2012, these mortgages had an average debt service coverage ratio of 1.83 times and an average loan-to-value ratio of 63%. The Company's total share of losses related to indemnifications that were settled was $2 million, $1 million, and $3 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively.

	As of December 31,
		2012		2011

	(in millions)

Maximum potential contingent consideration associated with acquisitions	$	52	$	57

In connection with an acquisition of an operating joint venture, the Company has agreed to pay additional consideration in future periods, contingent upon the attainment by the acquired business of defined operating objectives. The arrangement will be resolved over the following six months. Any payment would result in an increase to the Company's investment in the operating joint venture. The Company considers the likelihood that the acquired business attains the defined operating objectives to be remote.

	As of December 31,
		2012		2011

	(in millions)

Other guarantees where amount can be determined	$	530	$	690
Accrued liability for other guarantees and indemnifications		8		13

The Company is also subject to other financial guarantees and indemnity arrangements. The Company has provided indemnities and guarantees related to acquisitions, dispositions, investments and other transactions that are triggered by, among other things, breaches of representations, warranties or covenants provided by the Company. These obligations are typically subject to various time limitations, defined by the contract or by operation of law, such as statutes of limitation. In some cases, the maximum potential obligation is subject to contractual limitations, while in other cases such limitations are not specified or applicable. Included above are $299 million and $300 million as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, of yield maintenance guarantees related to certain investments the Company sold. The Company does not expect to make any payments on these guarantees and is not carrying any liabilities associated with these guarantees.

Since certain of these obligations are not subject to limitations, it is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount due under these guarantees. The accrued liabilities identified above do not include retained liabilities associated with sold businesses.

Most of the jurisdictions in which the Company is admitted to transact business require insurers doing business within the jurisdiction to participate in guarantee associations, which are organized to pay contractual benefits owed pursuant to insurance policies issues by impaired, insolvent or failed insurers. These associations levy assessments, up to prescribed limits, on all member insurers in a particular state on the basis of the proportionate share of the premiums written by member insurers in the lines of business in which the impaired, insolvent or failed insurer engaged. Some states permit member insurers to recover assessments paid through full or partial premium tax offsets. In addition, Japan has established the Japan Policyholders Protection Corporation as a contingency to protect policyholders against the insolvency of life insurance companies in Japan through assessments to companies licensed to provide life insurance.

			As of December 31,
				2012		2011

			(in millions)

Other assets:
	Premium tax offset for future undiscounted assessments		$	76	$	70
	Premium tax offsets currently available for paid assessments			5		6
		Total	$	81	$	76

Other liabilities:
	Insolvency assessments		$	105		102

On an ongoing basis, the Company's internal supervisory and control functions review the quality of sales, marketing and other customer interface procedures and practices and may recommend modifications or enhancements. From time to time, this review process results in the discovery of product administration, servicing or other errors, including errors relating to the timing or amount of payments or contract values due to customers. In certain cases, if appropriate, the Company may offer customers remediation and may incur charges, including the cost of such remediation, administrative costs and regulatory fines.

The Company is subject to the laws and regulations of states and other jurisdictions concerning the identification, reporting and escheatment of unclaimed or abandoned funds, and is subject to audit and examination for compliance with these requirements. For additional discussion of these matters, see “Litigation and Regulatory Matters” below.

It is possible that the results of operations or the cash flow of the Company in a particular quarterly or annual period could be materially affected as a result of payments in connection with the matters discussed above or other matters depending, in part, upon the results of operations or cash flow for such period. Management believes, however, that ultimate payments in connection with these matters, after consideration of applicable reserves and rights to indemnification, should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position.

The Company is subject to legal and regulatory actions in the ordinary course of its businesses. Pending legal and regulatory actions include proceedings relating to aspects of the Company's businesses and operations that are specific to it and proceedings that are typical of the businesses in which it operates, including in both cases businesses that have been either divested or placed in wind-down status. Some of these proceedings have been brought on behalf of various alleged classes of complainants. In certain of these matters, the plaintiffs are seeking large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive or exemplary damages. The outcome of litigation or a regulatory matter, and the amount or range of potential loss at any particular time, is often inherently uncertain.

The Company establishes accruals for litigation and regulatory matters when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of that loss can be reasonably estimated. For litigation and regulatory matters where a loss may be reasonably possible, but not probable, or is probable but not reasonably estimable, no accrual is established but the matter, if material, is disclosed, including matters discussed below. The Company estimates that as of December 31, 2012, the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of accruals established for those litigation and regulatory matters for which such an estimate currently can be made is $0 to approximately $225 million. This estimate is not an indication of expected loss, if any, or the Company's maximum possible loss exposure on such matters. The Company reviews relevant information with respect to its litigation and regulatory matters on a quarterly and annual basis and updates its accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible loss based on such reviews.

In January 2013, a qui tam action on behalf of the State of Florida, Total Asset Recovery Services v. Met Life Inc., et al., Manulife Financial Corporation, et. al., Prudential Financial, Inc., The Prudential Insurance Company of America, and Prudential Insurance Agency, LLC., filed in the Circuit Court of Leon County, Florida, was served on the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company failed to escheat life insurance proceeds to the State of Florida in violation of the Florida False Claims Act and seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, civil penalties, treble damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

In September 2012, the State of West Virginia, through its State Treasurer, filed a lawsuit, State of West Virginia ex. Rel. John D. Perdue v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, in the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia. The complaint alleges violations of the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Fund Act by failing to properly identify and report all unclaimed insurance policy proceeds which should either be paid to beneficiaries or escheated to West Virginia. The complaint seeks to examine the records of Prudential Insurance to determine compliance with the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Fund Act, and to assess penalties and costs in an undetermined amount. In October 2012, the State of West Virginia commenced a second action, State of West Virginia ex. Rel. John D. Perdue v. Pruco Life Insurance Company making the same allegations stated in the action against the Prudential Insurance Company of America.

In January 2012, a qui tam action on behalf of the State of Illinois, Total Asset Recovery Services v. Met Life Inc, et al., Prudential Financial, Inc., The Prudential Insurance Company of America, and Prudential Holdings, LLC, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, was served on the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company failed to escheat life insurance proceeds to the State of Illinois in violation of the Illinois False Claims Whistleblower Reward and Protection Act and seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, civil penalties, treble damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In April 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In September 2012, the complaint was withdrawn without prejudice. In March 2012, a qui tam action on behalf of the State of Minnesota, Total Asset Recovery v. MetLife Inc., et al., Prudential Financial Inc., The Prudential Insurance Company of America and Prudential Holdings, Inc., filed in the Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin County, in the State of Minnesota was served on the Company. The complaint alleges that the Company failed to escheat life insurance proceeds to the State of Minnesota in violation of the Minnesota False Claims Act and seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, civil penalties, treble damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In June 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In December 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

In January 2012, a Global Resolution Agreement entered into by the Company and a third party auditor became effective upon its acceptance by the unclaimed property departments of 20 states and jurisdictions. Under the terms of the Global Resolution Agreement, the third party auditor acting on behalf of the signatory states will compare expanded matching criteria to the Social Security Master Death File (“SSMDF”) to identify deceased insureds and contract holders where a valid claim has not been made. In February 2012, a Regulatory Settlement Agreement entered into by the Company to resolve a multi-state market conduct examination regarding its adherence to state claim settlement practices became effective upon its acceptance by the insurance departments of 20 states and jurisdictions. The Regulatory Settlement Agreement applies prospectively and requires the Company to adopt and implement additional procedures comparing its records to the SSMDF to identify unclaimed death benefits and prescribe procedures for identifying and locating beneficiaries once deaths are identified. Other jurisdictions that are not signatories to the Regulatory Settlement Agreement are considering proposals that would apply prospectively and require life insurance companies to take additional steps to identify unreported deceased policy and contract holders. These prospective changes and any escheatable property identified as a result of the audits and inquiries could result in: (1) additional payments of previously unclaimed death benefits; (2) the payment of abandoned funds to U.S. jurisdictions; and (3) changes in the Company's practices and procedures for the identification of escheatable funds and beneficiaries, which would impact claim payments and reserves, among other consequences.

The Company is one of several companies subpoenaed by the New York Attorney General regarding its unclaimed property procedures. Additionally, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYDFS”) has requested that 172 life insurers (including the Company) provide data to the NYDFS regarding use of the SSMDF. The New York Office of Unclaimed Funds recently notified the Company that it intends to conduct an audit of the Company's compliance with New York's unclaimed property laws. The Minnesota Attorney General has also requested information regarding the Company's use of the SSMDF and its claim handling procedures and the Company is one of several companies subpoenaed by the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Insurance Division. In February, 2012, the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General requested information regarding the Company's unclaimed property procedures.

From July 2010 to December 2010, four purported nationwide class actions were filed challenging the use of retained asset accounts to settle death benefit claims of beneficiaries of a group life insurance contract owned by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs that covers the lives of members and veterans of the U.S. armed forces. In 2011, the cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation as In re Prudential Insurance Company of America SGLI/VGLI Contract Litigation. The consolidated complaint alleges that the use of the retained assets accounts that earn interest and are available to be withdrawn by the beneficiary, in whole or in part, at any time, to settle death benefit claims is in violation of federal law, and asserts claims of breach of contract, breaches of fiduciary duty and the duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, equitable relief and pre and post-judgment interest. In March 2011, the motion to dismiss was denied. In January 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. In August 2012, the court denied plaintiffs' class certification motion without prejudice pending the filing of summary judgment motions on the issue of whether plaintiffs sustained an actual injury. In October 2012, the parties filed their summary judgment motions.

In September 2010, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company, a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plans was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, challenging the use of retained asset accounts in employee welfare benefit plans to settle death benefit claims as a violation of ERISA and seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits. In July 2011, the Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. In April 2012, the Court stayed the case pending the outcome of a case involving another insurer that is on appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In January 2011, a purported state-wide class action, Garcia v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America was dismissed by the Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada. The complaint was brought on behalf of Nevada beneficiaries of individual life insurance policies for which, unless the beneficiaries elected another settlement method, death benefits were placed in retained asset accounts. The complaint alleges that by failing to disclose material information about the accounts, the Company wrongfully delayed payment and improperly retained undisclosed profits, and seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and pre and post-judgment interest. In February 2011, plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Nevada Supreme Court. As previously reported, in December 2009, an earlier purported nationwide class action raising substantially similar allegations brought by the same plaintiff in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Garcia v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, was dismissed. In December 2011, plaintiff appealed the dismissal. In January 2013, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint.

In December 2010, a purported state-wide class action complaint, Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in state court and removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The complaint makes allegations under Illinois law, substantially similar to the Garcia cases, on behalf of a class of Illinois residents whose death benefit claims were settled by retained assets accounts. In March 2011, the complaint was amended to drop the Company as a defendant and add Pruco Life Insurance Company as a defendant and is now captioned Phillips v. Prudential Insurance and Pruco Life Insurance Company. In November 2011, the complaint was dismissed. In December 2011, plaintiff appealed the dismissal

In July 2010, the Company, along with other life insurance industry participants, received a formal request for information from the State of New York Attorney General's Office in connection with its investigation into industry practices relating to the use of retained asset accounts. In August 2010, the Company received a similar request for information from the State of Connecticut Attorney General's Office. The Company is cooperating with these investigations. The Company has also been contacted by state insurance regulators and other governmental entities, including the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Congressional committees regarding retained asset accounts. These matters may result in additional investigations, information requests, claims, hearings, litigation, adverse publicity and potential changes to business practices.

In February 2011, a fifth amended complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in Clark v. Prudential Insurance Company. The complaint brought on behalf of a purported class of California, Indiana, Ohio and Texas residents who purchased individual health insurance policies alleges that Prudential Insurance failed to disclose that it had ceased selling this type of policy in 1981 and that, as a result, premiums would increase significantly. The complaint alleges claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and omission, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and California's Unfair Competition Law and seeks compensatory and punitive damages. The matter was originally filed in 2008 and certain of the claims in the first four complaints were dismissed. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. In July 2012, Prudential Insurance moved for summary judgment on certain of plaintiffs' claims. In February 2013, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification and granted the motion by Prudential Insurance for summary judgment against two of the named plaintiffs and denied summary judgment against two other plaintiffs.

In April 2009, Schultz v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, a purported nationwide class action on behalf of participants claiming disability benefits under certain employee benefit plans insured by Prudential, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As amended, the complaint alleges that Prudential Insurance and the defendant plans violated ERISA by characterizing family Social Security benefits as "loss of time" benefits that were offset against Prudential contract benefits. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the offsets were improper, damages and other relief. The Company has agreed to indemnify the named defendant plans. In April 2011, Schultz was dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In March 2012, the court affirmed the dismissal.

From November 2002 to March 2005, eleven separate complaints were filed against the Company and the law firm of Leeds Morelli & Brown in New Jersey state court and in the New Jersey Superior Court, Essex County as Lederman v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al. The complaints allege that an alternative dispute resolution agreement entered into among Prudential Insurance, over 235 claimants who are current and former Prudential Insurance employees, and Leeds Morelli & Brown (the law firm representing the claimants) was illegal and that Prudential Insurance conspired with Leeds Morelli & Brown to commit fraud, malpractice, breach of contract, and violate racketeering laws by advancing legal fees to the law firm with the purpose of limiting Prudential's liability to the claimants. In February 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court assigned the cases for centralized case management to the Superior Court, Bergen County. The Company participated in a court-ordered mediation that resulted in a settlement involving 193 of the remaining 235 plaintiffs. The amounts paid to the 193 plaintiffs were within existing reserves for this matter. The remaining plaintiffs continue to pursue their individual lawsuits, and have filed offers of judgment totaling approximately $90 million. In February, 2012, the court granted summary judgment against two of the remaining plaintiffs. In June 2012, the court granted summary judgment against an additional plaintiff reducing to 39 the number of plaintiffs asserting claims against the Company.

In October 2007, Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Co. (“PRIAC”) filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Prudential Retirement Insurance & Annuity Co. v. State Street Global Advisors, in PRIAC's fiduciary capacity and on behalf of certain defined benefit and defined contribution plan clients of PRIAC, against an unaffiliated asset manager, State Street Global Advisors (“SSgA”) and SSgA's affiliate, State Street Bank and Trust Company (“State Street”). This action seeks, among other relief, restitution of certain losses attributable to certain investment funds sold by SSgA as to which PRIAC believes SSgA employed investment strategies and practices that were misrepresented by SSgA and failed to exercise the standard of care of a prudent investment manager. Given the unusual circumstances surrounding the management of these SSgA funds and in order to protect the interests of the affected plans and their participants while PRIAC pursues these remedies, PRIAC implemented a process under which affected plan clients that authorized PRIAC to proceed on their behalf have received payments from funds provided by PRIAC for the losses referred to above. The Company's consolidated financial statements, and the results of the Retirement segment included in the Company's U.S. Retirement Solutions and Investment Management Division, for the year ended December 31, 2007 include a pre-tax charge of $82 million, reflecting these payments to plan clients and certain related costs. In September 2008, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the State Street defendants' motion to dismiss claims for damages and other relief under Section 502(a)(2) of ERISA, but dismissed the claims for equitable relief under Section 502(a)(3) of ERISA. In October 2008, defendants answered the complaint and asserted counterclaims for contribution and indemnification, defamation and violations of Massachusetts' unfair and deceptive trade practices law. In February 2010, State Street reached a settlement with the SEC over charges that it misled investors about their exposure to sub-prime investments, resulting in significant investor losses in mid-2007. Under the settlement, State Street paid approximately $313 million in disgorgement, pre-judgment interest, penalty and compensation into a Fair Fund that was distributed to injured investors and consequently, State Street paid PRIAC, for deposit into its separate accounts, approximately $52.5 million. By the terms of the settlement, State Street's payment to PRIAC does not resolve any claims PRIAC has against State Street or SSgA in connection with the losses in the investment funds SSgA managed, and the penalty component of State Street's SEC settlement cannot be used to offset or reduce compensatory damages in the action against State Street and SSgA. In June 2010, PRIAC moved for partial summary judgment on State Street's counterclaims. At the same time, State Street moved for summary judgment on PRIAC's complaint. In March 2011, the district court denied State Street's motion for summary judgment and denied in part and granted in part PRIAC's motion for partial summary judgment on State Street's counterclaims. In October 2011, the court held a bench trial to determine whether State Street had breached its fiduciary duty to PRIAC's plan clients. In February 2012, the court issued a decision holding that State Street breached its fiduciary duty to the plans under ERISA to manage the investment funds prudently and to diversify them. The court held that PRIAC did not prove that State Street breached its duty of loyalty to the plans under ERISA. The court held that State Street's breaches caused the plans' losses in the amount of $76.7 million and, after crediting State Street for an earlier payment, awarded $28.1 million in damages in addition to the amount previously recovered as a result of the SEC settlement. The court did not yet rule on State Street's counterclaims and reserved judgment on PRIAC's requests for pre-judgment interest and attorney's fees. In May 2012, the Company filed a motion seeking partial summary judgment to dismiss State Street's counterclaims. In November 2012, the court denied PRIAC's motion seeking partial summary judgment to dismiss State Street's counterclaims. In December 2012, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, PRIAC received $33 million in addition to the amount previously recovered as a result of the SEC settlement. These recoveries reimburse PRIAC for amounts previously paid to the plans for their losses and related costs. In January 2013, the action was dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the settlement.

In October 2012, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, Stephen Silverman, Derivatively on Behalf of Prudential Financial, Inc. v. John R. Strangfeld, et. al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment by certain senior officers and directors. The complaint names as defendants the Company's Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the Principal Accounting Officer, the Company's Board of Directors and a former Director. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's current and future financial condition based on, among other things, the alleged failure to disclose: (i) potential liability for benefits that should either have been paid to policyholders or their beneficiaries, or escheated to applicable states; and (ii) the extent of the Company's exposure for alleged state and federal law violations concerning the settlement of claims and the escheatment of unclaimed property. The complaint seeks an undetermined amount of damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable relief including a direction for the Company to reform and to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws.

In October 2012, the Board of Directors received a shareholder demand letter (the “Demand”), containing allegations of wrongdoing similar to those alleged in the Silverman complaint. The Demand alleges that the Company's Senior Management: (i) breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith in connection with the management, operation and oversight of the Company's business; (ii) breached their fiduciary duty of good faith to establish and maintain adequate internal controls; and (iii) breached their fiduciary duties by disseminating false, misleading and/or incomplete information, all in connection with the Company's alleged failure to use the SSDMF and to pay beneficiaries and escheat funds to states. The Demand requests that the Board of Directors: (a) undertake an independent internal investigation into Senior Management's violations of New Jersey and/or federal law; and (b) commence a civil action against each member of Senior Management to recover for the benefit of the Company the amount of damages sustained by the Company as a result of the alleged breaches described above.

In August 2012, a purported class action lawsuit, City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging violations of federal securities law. The complaint names as defendants the Company's Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the Principal Accounting Officer and certain Company Board of Directors. The complaint alleges that knowingly false and misleading statements were made regarding the Company's current and future financial condition based on, among other things, the alleged failure to disclose: (i) potential liability for benefits that should either have been paid to policyholders or their beneficiaries, or escheated to applicable states; and (ii) the extent of the Company's exposure for alleged state and federal law violations concerning the settlement of claims and the escheatment of unclaimed property. The complaint seeks an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

In October 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, claiming that Prudential failed to pay overtime to insurance agents in violation of federal and Pennsylvania law, and that improper deductions were made from these agents' wages in violation of state law. The complaint seeks back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees. In March 2008, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class on the federal overtime claim. Separately, in March 2008, a purported nationwide class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Wang v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance, claiming that the Company failed to pay its agents overtime and provide other benefits in violation of California and federal law and seeking compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts. In September 2008, Wang was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with the Bouder matter. Subsequent amendments to the complaint have resulted in additional allegations involving purported violations of an additional nine states' overtime and wage payment laws. In February 2010, Prudential moved to decertify the federal overtime class that had been conditionally certified in March 2008 and moved for summary judgment on the federal overtime claims of the named plaintiffs. In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of the state law claims. In August 2010, the district court granted Prudential's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the federal overtime claims. In January 2013, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in its entirety.

In April 2012, the Company filed two actions in New Jersey state court captioned The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase, et al. and The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. Both matters seek to recover damages attributable to Company and affiliate entities' and funds' investments in residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS"). Among other allegations stemming from the defendants' origination, underwriting and sales of RMBS, the complaints assert claims of common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breaches of the New Jersey Uniform Securities Act and breaches of the New Jersey Civil RICO statute. The complaints seek unspecified damages. In August 2012, the Company filed four additional actions in New Jersey state court captioned The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al. v. Nomura Securities International, Inc., et al., The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, et al,, The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al. v. Goldman Sachs & Company, et al. and The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al. v. RBS Financial Products, Inc., et al. upon the same grounds and seeking the same damages, as articulated above. In November 2012, the Company filed a similar matter captioned The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al. In December 2012, the Goldman Sachs matter was removed to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. In December 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In January 2013, the Morgan Stanley defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Company's litigation and regulatory matters are subject to many uncertainties, and given their complexity and scope, their outcome cannot be predicted. It is possible that the Company's results of operations or cash flow in a particular quarterly or annual period could be materially affected by an ultimate unfavorable resolution of pending litigation and regulatory matters depending, in part, upon the results of operations or cash flow for such period. In light of the unpredictability of the Company's litigation and regulatory matters, it is also possible that in certain cases an ultimate unfavorable resolution of one or more pending litigation or regulatory matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position. Management believes, however, that, based on information currently known to it, the ultimate outcome of all pending litigation and regulatory matters, after consideration of applicable reserves and rights to indemnification, is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position.