Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies	(21) 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 and securities lawsuits. 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 August 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer and its then current chief financial officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Manuel Esguerra v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleged securities law violations involving certain disclosures in 2013 and 2014 concerning Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves. The lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This lawsuit names the same defendants, alleges the same securities law violations, seeks the same damages and covers the same class as the Esguerra lawsuit. Following the filing of the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the Esguerra lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice allowing the City of Pontiac lawsuit to proceed. In the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta and Fresno County Employees’ Retirement Association as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. On December 22, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On February 5, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On March 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in opposition to our motion to dismiss. On March 24, 2015, we filed our reply memorandum of law in further support of our motion to dismiss. The Court heard argument on our motion to dismiss the complaint on April 28, 2015. On May 1, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The Court has scheduled a trial for May 2016. We engaged in mediation in the fourth quarter of 2015, which is ongoing. The plaintiffs have recently taken the position that the class is entitled to recover per share and per bond amounts that, if the plaintiffs were to prevail, would, in the aggregate, be material. If ongoing discussions do not result in a settlement, we intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit. As of December 31, 2015, we have incurred or accrued $25 million, which is the amount of our self-insured retention on our executive and organization liability insurance program. At this stage of the litigation, we are unable to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation or provide an estimate or range of reasonably possible losses arising from this litigation. Nevertheless, we believe that it is reasonably possible we will incur additional losses in resolving this litigation beyond the amounts already incurred or accrued and, if so, that it is reasonably possible the amount of such losses would be material. In April 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its former chief executive officer and its then current chief financial 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. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed City of Hialeah Employees’ Retirement System and New Bedford Contributory Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. On October 3, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On December 2, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint, which motion was fully briefed as of March 4, 2015. On March 25, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion but entered an order dismissing the amended complaint with leave to replead. On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and on June 16, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On January 22, 2016, we filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s June 16, 2015 order denying our motion to dismiss. On January 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. We intend to vigorously defend this action. In August 2015, Genworth Financial, Inc., its former chief executive officer, its current chief executive officer, its then current chief financial officer and the current members of its board of directors were named in two separate shareholder derivative suits, each of which was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties concerning Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves and concerning Genworth’s Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an initial public offering of the business. The cases are captioned, Pinkoski v. McInerney, et al. and Salberg v. McInerney, et al. The cases seek unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and such equitable relief as the court may deem proper. On November 10, 2015, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Pinkoski and Salberg derivative actions. In August 2015, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer, its then current chief financial officer and the current members of its board of directors were named in a shareholder derivative suit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties relating to Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves. The case is captioned Cohen v. McInerney, et al. The case seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and such equitable relief as the court may deem proper. On November 10, 2015, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Cohen shareholder derivative actions. In September 2015, Genworth Financial, Inc., its former chief executive officer, its current chief executive officer, its then current chief financial officer and the current members of its board of directors were named in a shareholder derivative suit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties relating to Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves. The case is captioned Int’l Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 478 Pension Fund v. McInerney, et al. The case seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and such equitable relief as the court may deem proper. On September 28, 2015, the court ordered that all four shareholder derivative suits be consolidated for all purposes under the case name Pinkoski v. McInerney, et al. and directed plaintiffs in the consolidated derivative suit to file an amended consolidated complaint within 21 days of the court’s order appointing lead counsel. The court consolidated the derivative suits with In Re Genworth Financial Securities Litigation for the purposes of discovery. On October 2, 2015, all of the plaintiffs in the consolidated shareholder derivative action filed a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, stating they intend to refile in state court. On November 10, 2015, the court entered an order dismissing all of the shareholder derivative actions without prejudice. In January 2016, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, its former chief financial officer and the current members of its board of directors were named in a shareholder derivative suit filed by International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 478 Pension Fund, Richard L. Salberg and David Pinkoski in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case is captioned Int’l Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 478 Pension Fund, et al v. McInerney, et al. The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duties concerning Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves and concerning Genworth’s Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an initial public offering of the business and seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and such equitable relief as the court may deem proper. In February 2016, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, its former chief financial officer and the current members of its board of directors were named in a shareholder derivative suit filed by Martin Cohen in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case is captioned Cohen v. McInerney, et al. The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duties concerning Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves and concerning Genworth’s Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an initial public offering of the business and seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and such equitable relief as the court may deem proper. On February 23, 2016, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware consolidated these derivative suits under the caption Genworth Financial, Inc. Consolidated Derivative Litigation. We intend to vigorously defend the consolidated action. Beginning in December 2011 and continuing through January 2013, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries was named along with several other mortgage insurance participants and mortgage lenders as a defendant in twelve putative class action lawsuits alleging that certain “captive reinsurance arrangements” were in violation of RESPA. Those cases are captioned as follows: Samp, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California; White, et al., v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Menichino, et al. v. Citibank NA, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; McCarn, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Manners, et al., v. Fifth Third Bank, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Riddle, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Rulison et al. v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; Barlee, et al. v. First Horizon National Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Cunningham, et al. v. M&T Bank Corp., et al., United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Orange, et al. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California; Hill et al. v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and Moriba Ba, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs allege that “captive reinsurance arrangements” with providers of private mortgage insurance whereby a mortgage lender through captive reinsurance arrangements received a portion of the borrowers’ private mortgage insurance premiums were in violation of RESPA and unjustly enriched the defendants for which plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and unspecified monetary damages, including restitution. The McCarn case was dismissed by the court with prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on November 9, 2012. On July 3, 2012, the Rulison case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. The Barlee case was dismissed by the court with prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on February 27, 2013. The Manners case was dismissed by voluntary stipulation in March 2013. In early May 2013, the Samp and Orange cases were dismissed with prejudice as to our subsidiary. Plaintiffs appealed both of those dismissals, but have since withdrawn those appeals. The White case was dismissed by the court without prejudice on June 20, 2013, and on July 5, 2013 plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint again naming our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary as a defendant. The Menichino case was dismissed by the court without prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on July 19, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint again naming our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary as a defendant and we moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. In the Riddle, Hill, Ba and Cunningham cases, the defendants’ motions to dismiss were denied, but the court in the Riddle, Hill and Cunningham cases limited discovery to issues surrounding whether the case should be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. In the Hill case, on December 17, 2013, we moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court granted our motion, and in July 2014, the Hill plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In the Riddle case, in late November 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted our motion for summary judgment dismissing the case. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. In October 2014, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the Riddle action. On January 30, 2015, our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary and all named plaintiffs in the cases still pending as of such date entered into a settlement agreement that has resulted in the dismissal of all actions as to our subsidiary. This settlement had no impact on our financial position or results of operations. 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 damages and other relief. In response to our motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, the court granted the motion to dismiss the state law fiduciary duty claim and denied the motion to dismiss the remaining federal claims. The District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class on April 15, 2014. On April 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for permission 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. Pursuant to a joint stipulation of the parties, on March 20, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a final order dismissing with prejudice all claims against the defendants. 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 sought 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, which settlement took effect in the second quarter of 2014. As a result, the arbitration demands and counterclaims related to that portion of both arbitrations involving rescission practices were dismissed in the third quarter of 2014. In October 2014, the parties executed a definitive settlement agreement to settle all remaining claims in the arbitrations. Implementation of the settlement to resolve the remaining claims was subject to the consent of the GSEs. The settlement provides that our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries will remit a portion of the previously curtailed claim amounts to Bank of America, N.A. and will agree to certain limits on future curtailment activity for loans that are part of the settlement. The consents of the GSEs were obtained in January 2015, and therefore, the parties moved to dismiss all remaining matters in the arbitration. Such dismissals occurred in the fourth quarter of 2015. In addition to the negotiated settlement with Bank of America, N.A. discussed above, we have resolved a matter involving a second servicer’s dispute with us on loss mitigation. This second dispute did not involve any formal legal proceeding, as is the case with other discussions we have had from time to time with other lenders and servicers over disputed loss mitigation activities. During the third quarter of 2014, we recorded an aggregate increase in our claim reserves for our U.S. mortgage insurance business of $53 million principally to provide for the anticipated financial impact in connection with the settlement of the Bank of America, N.A. arbitration, as well as the second dispute, both of which were settled for amounts which in the aggregate were included within the claim reserve increase mentioned above. In early 2006 as part of an industry-wide review, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries received an administrative subpoena from the Minnesota Department of Commerce, which has jurisdiction over insurance matters, with respect to our reinsurance arrangements, including captive reinsurance transactions with lender-affiliated reinsurers. Since 2006, the Minnesota Department of Commerce has periodically requested additional information. In June 2015, we entered into a Consent Order with the Minnesota Department of Commerce pursuant to the terms and conditions of which we agreed to pay a civil penalty of $90,000 and agreed not to enter into any new captive reinsurance transactions from a lender-affiliated reinsurer or to obtain reinsurance under an existing captive reinsurance transaction from a lender-affiliated reinsurer on any new mortgage transactions after the date of the Consent Order for a period of 10 years. Pursuant to the Consent Order, we were discharged from all potential liability that has or might have been asserted by the Minnesota Department of Commerce based on our captive mortgage reinsurance policies or practices, to the extent such practices occurred prior to the date of the Consent Order. Inquiries from other regulatory bodies with respect to the same subject matter have been resolved or dormant for a number of years. At this time, other than as noted above, 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. Except as disclosed above, we also are not able to provide an estimate or range of reasonably possible losses related to these matters. Therefore, we cannot ensure that the current investigations and proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, it is possible that related investigations and proceedings may be commenced in the future, and we could become subject to additional unrelated investigations and lawsuits. Increased regulatory scrutiny and any resulting investigations or proceedings could result in new legal precedents and industry-wide regulations or practices that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. (b) Commitments As of December 31, 2015, we were committed to fund $131 million in limited partnership investments, $17 million in U.S. commercial mortgage loan investments and $23 million in private placement investments. In connection with the issuance of non-recourse funding obligations by Rivermont I, Genworth entered into a liquidity commitment agreement with the third-party trusts in which the floating rate notes have been deposited. The liquidity agreement may require that Genworth issue to the trusts either a loan or a letter of credit (“LOC”), at maturity of the notes (2050), in the amount equal to the then market value of the assets supporting the notes held in the trust. Any loan or LOC issued is an obligation of the trust and shall accrue interest at LIBOR plus a margin. In consideration for entering into this agreement, Genworth received, from Rivermont I, a one-time commitment fee of approximately $2 million. The expected amount of future obligation under this agreement is approximately $15 million based on current projections.

(21) 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 and securities lawsuits. 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 August 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer and its then current chief financial officer were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Manuel Esguerra v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleged securities law violations involving certain disclosures in 2013 and 2014 concerning Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves. The lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This lawsuit names the same defendants, alleges the same securities law violations, seeks the same damages and covers the same class as the Esguerra lawsuit. Following the filing of the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the Esguerra lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice allowing the City of Pontiac lawsuit to proceed. In the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta and Fresno County Employees’ Retirement Association as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. On December 22, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On February 5, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On March 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in opposition to our motion to dismiss. On March 24, 2015, we filed our reply memorandum of law in further support of our motion to dismiss. The Court heard argument on our motion to dismiss the complaint on April 28, 2015. On May 1, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The Court has scheduled a trial for May 2016. We engaged in mediation in the fourth quarter of 2015, which is ongoing. The plaintiffs have recently taken the position that the class is entitled to recover per share and per bond amounts that, if the plaintiffs were to prevail, would, in the aggregate, be material. If ongoing discussions do not result in a settlement, we intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit. As of December 31, 2015, we have incurred or accrued $25 million, which is the amount of our self-insured retention on our executive and organization liability insurance program. At this stage of the litigation, we are unable to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation or provide an estimate or range of reasonably possible losses arising from this litigation. Nevertheless, we believe that it is reasonably possible we will incur additional losses in resolving this litigation beyond the amounts already incurred or accrued and, if so, that it is reasonably possible the amount of such losses would be material.

In April 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its former chief executive officer and its then current chief financial 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. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York appointed City of Hialeah Employees’ Retirement System and New Bedford Contributory Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. On October 3, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On December 2, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint, which motion was fully briefed as of March 4, 2015. On March 25, 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion but entered an order dismissing the amended complaint with leave to replead. On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and on June 16, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On January 22, 2016, we filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s June 16, 2015 order denying our motion to dismiss. On January 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. We intend to vigorously defend this action.

In August 2015, Genworth Financial, Inc., its former chief executive officer, its current chief executive officer, its then current chief financial officer and the current members of its board of directors were named in two separate shareholder derivative suits, each of which was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties concerning Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves and concerning Genworth’s Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an initial public offering of the business. The cases are captioned, Pinkoski v. McInerney, et al. and Salberg v. McInerney, et al. The cases seek unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and such equitable relief as the court may deem proper. On November 10, 2015, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Pinkoski and Salberg derivative actions.

In August 2015, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer, its then current chief financial officer and the current members of its board of directors were named in a shareholder derivative suit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties relating to Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves. The case is captioned Cohen v. McInerney, et al. The case seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and such equitable relief as the court may deem proper. On November 10, 2015, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Cohen shareholder derivative actions.

In September 2015, Genworth Financial, Inc., its former chief executive officer, its current chief executive officer, its then current chief financial officer and the current members of its board of directors were named in a shareholder derivative suit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties relating to Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves. The case is captioned Int’l Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 478 Pension Fund v. McInerney, et al. The case seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and such equitable relief as the court may deem proper. On September 28, 2015, the court ordered that all four shareholder derivative suits be consolidated for all purposes under the case name Pinkoski v. McInerney, et al. and directed plaintiffs in the consolidated derivative suit to file an amended consolidated complaint within 21 days of the court’s order appointing lead counsel. The court consolidated the derivative suits with In Re Genworth Financial Securities Litigation for the purposes of discovery. On October 2, 2015, all of the plaintiffs in the consolidated shareholder derivative action filed a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice, stating they intend to refile in state court. On November 10, 2015, the court entered an order dismissing all of the shareholder derivative actions without prejudice.

In January 2016, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, its former chief financial officer and the current members of its board of directors were named in a shareholder derivative suit filed by International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 478 Pension Fund, Richard L. Salberg and David Pinkoski in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case is captioned Int’l Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 478 Pension Fund, et al v. McInerney, et al. The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duties concerning Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves and concerning Genworth’s Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an initial public offering of the business and seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and such equitable relief as the court may deem proper. In February 2016, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, its former chief financial officer and the current members of its board of directors were named in a shareholder derivative suit filed by Martin Cohen in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case is captioned Cohen v. McInerney, et al. The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duties concerning Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves and concerning Genworth’s Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an initial public offering of the business and seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and such equitable relief as the court may deem proper. On February 23, 2016, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware consolidated these derivative suits under the caption Genworth Financial, Inc. Consolidated Derivative Litigation. We intend to vigorously defend the consolidated action.

Beginning in December 2011 and continuing through January 2013, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries was named along with several other mortgage insurance participants and mortgage lenders as a defendant in twelve putative class action lawsuits alleging that certain “captive reinsurance arrangements” were in violation of RESPA. Those cases are captioned as follows: Samp, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California; White, et al., v. The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Menichino, et al. v. Citibank NA, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; McCarn, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Manners, et al., v. Fifth Third Bank, et al., United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Riddle, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Rulison et al. v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. et al., United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; Barlee, et al. v. First Horizon National Corporation, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Cunningham, et al. v. M&T Bank Corp., et al., United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Orange, et al. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al., United States District Court for the Central District of California; Hill et al. v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and Moriba Ba, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs allege that “captive reinsurance arrangements” with providers of private mortgage insurance whereby a mortgage lender through captive reinsurance arrangements received a portion of the borrowers’ private mortgage insurance premiums were in violation of RESPA and unjustly enriched the defendants for which plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and unspecified monetary damages, including restitution. The McCarn case was dismissed by the court with prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on November 9, 2012. On July 3, 2012, the Rulison case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. The Barlee case was dismissed by the court with prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on February 27, 2013. The Manners case was dismissed by voluntary stipulation in March 2013. In early May 2013, the Samp and Orange cases were dismissed with prejudice as to our subsidiary. Plaintiffs appealed both of those dismissals, but have since withdrawn those appeals. The White case was dismissed by the court without prejudice on June 20, 2013, and on July 5, 2013 plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint again naming our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary as a defendant. The Menichino case was dismissed by the court without prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on July 19, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint again naming our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary as a defendant and we moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. In the Riddle, Hill, Ba and Cunningham cases, the defendants’ motions to dismiss were denied, but the court in the Riddle, Hill and Cunningham cases limited discovery to issues surrounding whether the case should be dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. In the Hill case, on December 17, 2013, we moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The court granted our motion, and in July 2014, the Hill plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In the Riddle case, in late November 2013, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted our motion for summary judgment dismissing the case. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. In October 2014, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the Riddle action. On January 30, 2015, our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary and all named plaintiffs in the cases still pending as of such date entered into a settlement agreement that has resulted in the dismissal of all actions as to our subsidiary. This settlement had no impact on our financial position or results of operations.

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 damages and other relief. In response to our motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, the court granted the motion to dismiss the state law fiduciary duty claim and denied the motion to dismiss the remaining federal claims. The District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class on April 15, 2014. On April 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for permission 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. Pursuant to a joint stipulation of the parties, on March 20, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a final order dismissing with prejudice all claims against the defendants.

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 sought 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, which settlement took effect in the second quarter of 2014. As a result, the arbitration demands and counterclaims related to that portion of both arbitrations involving rescission practices were dismissed in the third quarter of 2014. In October 2014, the parties executed a definitive settlement agreement to settle all remaining claims in the arbitrations. Implementation of the settlement to resolve the remaining claims was subject to the consent of the GSEs. The settlement provides that our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries will remit a portion of the previously curtailed claim amounts to Bank of America, N.A. and will agree to certain limits on future curtailment activity for loans that are part of the settlement. The consents of the GSEs were obtained in January 2015, and therefore, the parties moved to dismiss all remaining matters in the arbitration. Such dismissals occurred in the fourth quarter of 2015.

In addition to the negotiated settlement with Bank of America, N.A. discussed above, we have resolved a matter involving a second servicer’s dispute with us on loss mitigation. This second dispute did not involve any formal legal proceeding, as is the case with other discussions we have had from time to time with other lenders and servicers over disputed loss mitigation activities. During the third quarter of 2014, we recorded an aggregate increase in our claim reserves for our U.S. mortgage insurance business of $53 million principally to provide for the anticipated financial impact in connection with the settlement of the Bank of America, N.A. arbitration, as well as the second dispute, both of which were settled for amounts which in the aggregate were included within the claim reserve increase mentioned above.

In early 2006 as part of an industry-wide review, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries received an administrative subpoena from the Minnesota Department of Commerce, which has jurisdiction over insurance matters, with respect to our reinsurance arrangements, including captive reinsurance transactions with lender-affiliated reinsurers. Since 2006, the Minnesota Department of Commerce has periodically requested additional information. In June 2015, we entered into a Consent Order with the Minnesota Department of Commerce pursuant to the terms and conditions of which we agreed to pay a civil penalty of $90,000 and agreed not to enter into any new captive reinsurance transactions from a lender-affiliated reinsurer or to obtain reinsurance under an existing captive reinsurance transaction from a lender-affiliated reinsurer on any new mortgage transactions after the date of the Consent Order for a period of 10 years. Pursuant to the Consent Order, we were discharged from all potential liability that has or might have been asserted by the Minnesota Department of Commerce based on our captive mortgage reinsurance policies or practices, to the extent such practices occurred prior to the date of the Consent Order. Inquiries from other regulatory bodies with respect to the same subject matter have been resolved or dormant for a number of years.

At this time, other than as noted above, 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. Except as disclosed above, we also are not able to provide an estimate or range of reasonably possible losses related to these matters. Therefore, we cannot ensure that the current investigations and proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, it is possible that related investigations and proceedings may be commenced in the future, and we could become subject to additional unrelated investigations and lawsuits. Increased regulatory scrutiny and any resulting investigations or proceedings could result in new legal precedents and industry-wide regulations or practices that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

(b) Commitments

As of December 31, 2015, we were committed to fund $131 million in limited partnership investments, $17 million in U.S. commercial mortgage loan investments and $23 million in private placement investments.

In connection with the issuance of non-recourse funding obligations by Rivermont I, Genworth entered into a liquidity commitment agreement with the third-party trusts in which the floating rate notes have been deposited. The liquidity agreement may require that Genworth issue to the trusts either a loan or a letter of credit (“LOC”), at maturity of the notes (2050), in the amount equal to the then market value of the assets supporting the notes held in the trust. Any loan or LOC issued is an obligation of the trust and shall accrue interest at LIBOR plus a margin. In consideration for entering into this agreement, Genworth received, from Rivermont I, a one-time commitment fee of approximately $2 million. The expected amount of future obligation under this agreement is approximately $15 million based on current projections.