Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies	(7) Commitments and Contingencies (a) Litigation and Regulatory Matters We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including the risk of class action lawsuits. Our pending legal and regulatory actions include proceedings specific to us and others generally applicable to business practices in the industries in which we operate. In our insurance operations, we are, have been, or may become subject to class actions and individual suits alleging, among other things, issues relating to sales or underwriting practices, increases to in-force long-term care insurance premiums, payment of contingent or other sales commissions, claims payments and procedures, product design, product disclosure, administration, additional premium charges for premiums paid on a periodic basis, denial or delay of benefits, charging excessive or impermissible fees on products, recommending unsuitable products to customers, our pricing structures and business practices in our mortgage insurance businesses, such as captive reinsurance arrangements with lenders and contract underwriting services, violations of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act of 1974 (“RESPA”) or related state anti-inducement laws, and mortgage insurance policy rescissions and curtailments, and breaching fiduciary or other duties to customers, including but not limited to breach of customer information. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. In our investment-related operations, we are subject to litigation involving commercial disputes with counterparties. We are also subject to litigation arising out of our general business activities such as our contractual and employment relationships. In addition, we are also subject to various regulatory inquiries, such as information requests, subpoenas, books and record examinations and market conduct and financial examinations from state, federal and international regulators and other authorities. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, we could suffer significant reputational harm, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In April 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., and a former and current officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of Hialeah Employees’ Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleges securities law violations involving certain disclosures in 2012 concerning Genworth’s Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an initial public offering of the business. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, costs and attorneys’ fees and such equitable/injunctive relief as the court may deem proper. We intend to vigorously defend this action. As previously disclosed, in December 2009, one of our former non-insurance subsidiaries, one of the former subsidiary’s officers and Genworth Financial, Inc. (now known as Genworth Holdings, Inc.) were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown v. Genworth Financial Wealth Management, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege securities law and other violations involving the selection of mutual funds by our former subsidiary on behalf of certain of its Private Client Group clients. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary and other relief. Oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action was conducted on January 30, 2013. On April 15, 2014, the court issued its decision denying the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class. On April 29, 2014 plaintiffs filed a motion with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for leave to appeal the District Court’s denial of their motion to certify a class, which we opposed. On July 9, 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs’ motion. As previously disclosed, in April 2012, two of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries were named as respondents in two arbitrations, one brought by Bank of America, N.A. and one brought by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and Bank of America, N.A. as claimants. Claimants alleged breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and seek a declaratory judgment relating to our denial, curtailment and rescission of mortgage insurance coverage. In June 2012, our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries responded to the arbitration demands and asserted numerous counterclaims against the claimants. On December 31, 2013, the parties reached an agreement to resolve that portion of both arbitrations involving rescission practices. The effectiveness of the agreement was conditioned upon consent by the government-sponsored enterprises (“GSEs”) to and the parties’ execution of a definitive agreement requiring submission of curtailment and denial disputes to a binding alternative dispute proceeding (“Curtailment ADR Agreement”). In March 2014, the parties executed the Curtailment ADR Agreement. In the second quarter of 2014, the GSEs consented to the December 31, 2013 agreement, the final condition precedent to the effectiveness of the rescission settlement. The GSEs also consented to the Curtailment ADR Agreement during the second quarter of 2014. With the effectiveness of the rescission settlement, the parties have commenced the process necessary for a final dismissal of the arbitration demands and counterclaims related to that portion of both arbitrations involving rescission practices. That dismissal is expected to occur in the third quarter of 2014. Claims curtailments and denials are the only remaining areas of dispute under the arbitrations. The parties have selected an arbitration panel. The first phase of the arbitration hearing is scheduled to begin in March 2015. Claimants and our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries are engaged in settlement negotiations regarding a potential resolution of the pending disputes related to claims curtailments or denials. In the event settlement is not reached, we intend to vigorously defend our practices in these arbitrations. As previously disclosed, beginning in December 2011 and continuing through January 2013, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries was named along with several other mortgage insurers and mortgage lenders as a defendant in twelve putative class action lawsuits alleging that certain “captive reinsurance arrangements” were in violation of RESPA. On June 26, 2014, the court in the Hill action granted our motion for summary judgment. We intend to vigorously defend the remaining actions. At this time, we cannot determine or predict the ultimate outcome of any of the pending legal and regulatory matters specifically identified above or the likelihood of potential future legal and regulatory matters against us. In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, no amounts have been accrued. We also are not able to provide an estimate or range of possible losses related to these matters. (b) Commitments As of June 30, 2014, we were committed to fund $62 million in limited partnership investments, $105 million in U.S. commercial mortgage loans and $48 million in private placement investments. (c) Other During the second quarter of 2014, we experienced meaningful increases in adverse claims experience for our long-term care insurance products, resulting in significant deterioration in operating income which included an increase to our prior year claim reserves of $39 million. As a result of recent experience, and in connection with our regular review of claims reserve assumptions for our long-term care insurance products, we are conducting a comprehensive review of our long-term care insurance claim reserves. The primary areas of focus in this review are: (i) an analysis of potential causes of the meaningful increase in adverse claims experience and (ii) an assessment of the assumptions and methodology underlying the associated reserves, including morbidity, mortality, interest rates and claim terminations. We intend to complete this review before the release of financial results for the third quarter of 2014. We continue to believe that the existing assumptions and methodology provide the most reliable best estimate. However, given the review underway that will include both long-term and recent experience, we will likely change some of our assumptions, which could increase our long-term care insurance claim reserves, and any increase may or may not be material.

(7) Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Litigation and Regulatory Matters

We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including the risk of class action lawsuits. Our pending legal and regulatory actions include proceedings specific to us and others generally applicable to business practices in the industries in which we operate. In our insurance operations, we are, have been, or may become subject to class actions and individual suits alleging, among other things, issues relating to sales or underwriting practices, increases to in-force long-term care insurance premiums, payment of contingent or other sales commissions, claims payments and procedures, product design, product disclosure, administration, additional premium charges for premiums paid on a periodic basis, denial or delay of benefits, charging excessive or impermissible fees on products, recommending unsuitable products to customers, our pricing structures and business practices in our mortgage insurance businesses, such as captive reinsurance arrangements with lenders and contract underwriting services, violations of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act of 1974 (“RESPA”) or related state anti-inducement laws, and mortgage insurance policy rescissions and curtailments, and breaching fiduciary or other duties to customers, including but not limited to breach of customer information. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. In our investment-related operations, we are subject to litigation involving commercial disputes with counterparties. We are also subject to litigation arising out of our general business activities such as our contractual and employment relationships. In addition, we are also subject to various regulatory inquiries, such as information requests, subpoenas, books and record examinations and market conduct and financial examinations from state, federal and international regulators and other authorities. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, we could suffer significant reputational harm, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

In April 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., and a former and current officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of Hialeah Employees’ Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleges securities law violations involving certain disclosures in 2012 concerning Genworth’s Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an initial public offering of the business. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, costs and attorneys’ fees and such equitable/injunctive relief as the court may deem proper. We intend to vigorously defend this action.

As previously disclosed, in December 2009, one of our former non-insurance subsidiaries, one of the former subsidiary’s officers and Genworth Financial, Inc. (now known as Genworth Holdings, Inc.) were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown v. Genworth Financial Wealth Management, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege securities law and other violations involving the selection of mutual funds by our former subsidiary on behalf of certain of its Private Client Group clients. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary and other relief. Oral argument on plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class action was conducted on January 30, 2013. On April 15, 2014, the court issued its decision denying the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class. On April 29, 2014 plaintiffs filed a motion with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for leave to appeal the District Court’s denial of their motion to certify a class, which we opposed. On July 9, 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs’ motion.

As previously disclosed, in April 2012, two of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries were named as respondents in two arbitrations, one brought by Bank of America, N.A. and one brought by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and Bank of America, N.A. as claimants. Claimants alleged breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and seek a declaratory judgment relating to our denial, curtailment and rescission of mortgage insurance coverage. In June 2012, our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries responded to the arbitration demands and asserted numerous counterclaims against the claimants. On December 31, 2013, the parties reached an agreement to resolve that portion of both arbitrations involving rescission practices. The effectiveness of the agreement was conditioned upon consent by the government-sponsored enterprises (“GSEs”) to and the parties’ execution of a definitive agreement requiring submission of curtailment and denial disputes to a binding alternative dispute proceeding (“Curtailment ADR Agreement”). In March 2014, the parties executed the Curtailment ADR Agreement. In the second quarter of 2014, the GSEs consented to the December 31, 2013 agreement, the final condition precedent to the effectiveness of the rescission settlement. The GSEs also consented to the Curtailment ADR Agreement during the second quarter of 2014. With the effectiveness of the rescission settlement, the parties have commenced the process necessary for a final dismissal of the arbitration demands and counterclaims related to that portion of both arbitrations involving rescission practices. That dismissal is expected to occur in the third quarter of 2014. Claims curtailments and denials are the only remaining areas of dispute under the arbitrations. The parties have selected an arbitration panel. The first phase of the arbitration hearing is scheduled to begin in March 2015. Claimants and our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries are engaged in settlement negotiations regarding a potential resolution of the pending disputes related to claims curtailments or denials. In the event settlement is not reached, we intend to vigorously defend our practices in these arbitrations.

As previously disclosed, beginning in December 2011 and continuing through January 2013, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries was named along with several other mortgage insurers and mortgage lenders as a defendant in twelve putative class action lawsuits alleging that certain “captive reinsurance arrangements” were in violation of RESPA. On June 26, 2014, the court in the Hill action granted our motion for summary judgment. We intend to vigorously defend the remaining actions.

At this time, we cannot determine or predict the ultimate outcome of any of the pending legal and regulatory matters specifically identified above or the likelihood of potential future legal and regulatory matters against us. In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in these matters, no amounts have been accrued. We also are not able to provide an estimate or range of possible losses related to these matters.

(b) Commitments

As of June 30, 2014, we were committed to fund $62 million in limited partnership investments, $105 million in U.S. commercial mortgage loans and $48 million in private placement investments.

(c) Other

During the second quarter of 2014, we experienced meaningful increases in adverse claims experience for our long-term care insurance products, resulting in significant deterioration in operating income which included an increase to our prior year claim reserves of $39 million. As a result of recent experience, and in connection with our regular review of claims reserve assumptions for our long-term care insurance products, we are conducting a comprehensive review of our long-term care insurance claim reserves. The primary areas of focus in this review are: (i) an analysis of potential causes of the meaningful increase in adverse claims experience and (ii) an assessment of the assumptions and methodology underlying the associated reserves, including morbidity, mortality, interest rates and claim terminations. We intend to complete this review before the release of financial results for the third quarter of 2014. We continue to believe that the existing assumptions and methodology provide the most reliable best estimate. However, given the review underway that will include both long-term and recent experience, we will likely change some of our assumptions, which could increase our long-term care insurance claim reserves, and any increase may or may not be material.