Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2017
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, product 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 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, post-closing obligations associated with previous dispositions 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 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 IPO 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. 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 which the court denied on March 3, 2016. On January 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which we opposed. On March 7, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. We have exhausted all coverage under our 2014 executive and organizational liability insurance program applicable to this case; therefore, there is no insurance coverage for Genworth with respect to any settlement or judgment amount related to this litigation. The parties engaged in settlement discussions. On March 21, 2017 in connection with those discussions, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the action, subject to the execution of a stipulation and agreement of settlement that provides a full release of all defendants in connection with the allegations made in the lawsuit, and for a settlement payment to the class of $20 million, inclusive of all plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and expenses and settlement costs, and subject further to the approval of the court. Subsequently, the parties executed a stipulation and agreement of settlement. We believe that the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit, but we are settling the lawsuit to avoid the burden, risk and expense of further litigation. On June 21, 2017, plaintiffs filed the stipulation and agreement of settlement and motion for preliminary approval with the court. On July 28, 2017, the court held a preliminary approval hearing, preliminarily approved the settlement, and set November 15, 2017 for a final approval hearing. Following the final approval hearing, pursuant to an order dated November 15, 2017, the court issued a final order approving the settlement and dismissing the case with prejudice. In January 2016, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, its former chief financial officer and current and former 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 was captioned Int’l Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 478 Pension Fund, et al v. McInerney, et al. In February 2016, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, its former chief financial officer and current and former members of its board of directors were named in a second shareholder derivative suit filed by Martin Cohen in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case was captioned Cohen v. McInerney, et al. 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. On March 28, 2016, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint 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 IPO of the business and seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and such equitable relief as the court may deem proper. The amended consolidated complaint also adds Genworth’s current chief financial officer as a defendant, based on the current chief financial officer’s alleged conduct in her former capacity as Genworth’s controller and principal accounting officer. We moved to dismiss the consolidated action on May 27, 2016. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a substantially similar second amended complaint which we moved to dismiss on September 16, 2016. The motion is fully briefed and awaiting disposition by the court. In October 2016, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, its current chief financial officer, its former chief financial officer and current and former members of its board of directors were named in a shareholder derivative suit filed by Esther Chopp in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case is captioned Chopp v. McInerney, et al. The complaint alleges that Genworth’s board of directors wrongfully refused plaintiff’s demand to commence litigation on behalf of Genworth and asserts claims for breaches of fiduciary duties, waste, contribution and indemnification, and unjust enrichment concerning Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves and concerning Genworth’s Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an IPO of the business, and seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and such equitable relief as the court may deem proper. We filed a motion to dismiss on November 14, 2016. In December 2016, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, two former chief financial officers, and two of its insurance subsidiaries were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Leifer, et al v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ financial disclosures and alleged misrepresentations concerning Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves caused harm to current and former long-term care insurance policyholders and seek unspecified damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. We filed a motion to dismiss on March 27, 2017. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2017. We filed a motion to dismiss on May 22, 2017. On June 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. On June 26, 2017, the court so ordered the notice of withdrawal of first amended complaint and of voluntary dismissal without prejudice against all defendants. In January 2017, two putative stockholder class action lawsuits, captioned Rice v. Genworth Financial Incorporated, et al, and James v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al, were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, against Genworth and its board of directors. A third putative stockholder class action lawsuit captioned Rosenfeld Family Trust v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Genworth and its board of directors. In February 2017, a fourth putative class action lawsuit captioned Chopp v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Genworth and its board of directors and a fifth putative class action lawsuit captioned Ratliff v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, against Genworth and its board of directors. The complaints in all five actions allege, among other things, that the preliminary proxy statement filed by Genworth with the SEC on December 21, 2016 contains false and/or materially misleading statements and/or omits material information. The complaints assert claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seek equitable relief, including declaratory and injunctive relief, and an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. On February 2, 2017, the plaintiff in Rice filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the transaction described in the preliminary proxy. On February 10, 2017, defendants filed an opposition to the preliminary injunction motion in the Rice action. Also on February 10, 2017, the plaintiff in Rosenfeld Family Trust filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the transaction described in the preliminary proxy. On February 14, 2017, defendants filed a motion to transfer the Rosenfeld Family Trust action to the Eastern District of Virginia. On February 15, 2017, defendants filed a motion to transfer the Chopp action to the Eastern District of Virginia. On February 21, 2017, the parties to the Eastern District of Virginia actions (Rice, James and Ratliff) reached an agreement in principle to resolve the pending preliminary injunction motion in the Eastern District of Virginia through additional disclosure prior to the March 7, 2017 stockholder vote on the proposed merger transaction. On February 22, 2017, the plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Virginia withdrew their preliminary injunction motion in consideration of the agreed disclosures to be filed in a Form 8-K by February 24, 2017. Also on February 22, 2017, the court in the District of Delaware suspended briefing on the motion for preliminary injunction in the Rosenfeld Family Trust action and entered an order transferring the Rosenfeld Family Trust and Chopp actions to the Eastern District of Virginia. On February 23, 2017, the court in the Eastern District of Virginia set the Rosenfeld Family Trust preliminary injunction motion for a hearing on March 1, 2017. On February 26, 2017, defendants filed an opposition to the preliminary injunction motion in the Rosenfeld Family Trust action. On February 27, 2017, the parties in the Rosenfeld Family Trust action reached an agreement in principle to resolve the pending preliminary injunction motion in the Rosenfeld Family Trust action through additional disclosure prior to the March 7, 2017 stockholder vote on the proposed merger transaction, and the plaintiff in the Rosenfeld Family Trust action withdrew its preliminary injunction motion in consideration of the agreed disclosures as filed in a Form 8-K on February 28, 2017. On March 6, 2017, the court in the Eastern District of Virginia entered an order setting a schedule for proceedings to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the purported class action. On March 7, 2017, the court in the Eastern District of Virginia consolidated the Rice, James, Ratliff, Rosenfeld Family Trust, and Chopp actions. On July 5, 2017, the court in the Eastern District of Virginia heard oral argument on the motion to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On August 25, 2017, the court in the Eastern District of Virginia entered an order appointing the plaintiffs Alexander Rice and Brian James as lead plaintiffs and their counsel as lead counsel. In November, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the balance of the remaining claims based upon the previously provided additional disclosures, subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval. In April 2017, one of our insurance subsidiaries, GLAIC was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Avazian, et al v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company, et al, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing based upon GLAIC’s termination of plaintiff’s life insurance policy for nonpayment of premium. Plaintiff alleges that the termination for nonpayment of premium failed to comply with certain notice requirements of the California Insurance Code and seeks certification as a California class action on behalf of all insureds and beneficiaries of life insurance policies issued or delivered by GLAIC in California before January 1, 2013 who lost either their coverage or their ability to make a claim because of the termination of their policies by GLAIC for nonpayment of premium, and further seeks unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, punitive damages, fees, costs and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. On June 23, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 10, 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. On July 12, 2017, the court ordered that this action and all claims therein, are dismissed in their entirety without prejudice. In August 2017, plaintiff re-filed a similar putative class action lawsuit, along with another plaintiff, Michael Torres, captioned Avazian, et al v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company, et al, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, naming GLAIC as a defendant. Plaintiffs allege similar causes of action as the previously dismissed lawsuit, and have added a claim for alleged violation of California Business and Professions Code. On August 31, 2017, we filed notice of the removal of this matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and on October 6, 2017, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 4, 2017, the court granted our motion to dismiss the complaint. In January 2018, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the case for a de minimis amount. In December 2017, Genworth Holdings and Genworth Financial were named as defendants in an action captioned AXA S.A. v. Genworth Financial Holdings, Inc., et al., in the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales. In the action, AXA seeks in excess of £28 million on an indemnity provided for in the 2015 agreement pursuant to which Genworth sold to AXA two insurance companies, Financial Insurance Company Limited (“FICL”) and Financial Assurance Company Limited (“FACL”), relating to alleged remediation it has paid to customers who purchased payment protection insurance. In February 2018, Genworth served a Particulars of Defence and counterclaim against AXA, and also served other counterclaims against various parties, including Santander Cards UK Limited, alleging that Santander is responsible for any remediation paid to payment protection insurance customers. We intend to vigorously defend this action. 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, 2017, we were committed to fund $317 million in limited partnership investments, $16 million in U.S. commercial mortgage loan investments and $152 million in private placement investments. As of December 31, 2017, we were committed to fund $18 million of bank loan investments which had not yet been drawn. In connection with the issuance of non-recourse funding obligations by Rivermont I, Genworth entered into a liquidity commitment agreement with Rivermont I and a third-party trust which issued the floating rate notes. The liquidity agreement requires Genworth to establish a line of credit facility in 2040 for the benefit of the trust in the amount of the estimated liquidity commitment amount which is the market value of the assets held in the trust supporting the outstanding notes as of the note maturity date in 2050. In addition, it also requires at the note maturity date, that Genworth loan the trust any liquidity commitment amounts. Any loan or drawn line of credit amount is an obligation of the trust and Rivermont I and shall accrue interest at LIBOR plus a margin of 1.2%. 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 before repayment is approximately $14 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, product 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 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, post-closing obligations associated with previous dispositions 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 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 IPO 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. 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 which the court denied on March 3, 2016. On January 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which we opposed. On March 7, 2016, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. We have exhausted all coverage under our 2014 executive and organizational liability insurance program applicable to this case; therefore, there is no insurance coverage for Genworth with respect to any settlement or judgment amount related to this litigation. The parties engaged in settlement discussions. On March 21, 2017 in connection with those discussions, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the action, subject to the execution of a stipulation and agreement of settlement that provides a full release of all defendants in connection with the allegations made in the lawsuit, and for a settlement payment to the class of $20 million, inclusive of all plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and expenses and settlement costs, and subject further to the approval of the court. Subsequently, the parties executed a stipulation and agreement of settlement. We believe that the plaintiffs’ claims are without merit, but we are settling the lawsuit to avoid the burden, risk and expense of further litigation. On June 21, 2017, plaintiffs filed the stipulation and agreement of settlement and motion for preliminary approval with the court. On July 28, 2017, the court held a preliminary approval hearing, preliminarily approved the settlement, and set November 15, 2017 for a final approval hearing. Following the final approval hearing, pursuant to an order dated November 15, 2017, the court issued a final order approving the settlement and dismissing the case with prejudice.

In January 2016, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, its former chief financial officer and current and former 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 was captioned Int’l Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 478 Pension Fund, et al v. McInerney, et al. In February 2016, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, its former chief financial officer and current and former members of its board of directors were named in a second shareholder derivative suit filed by Martin Cohen in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case was captioned Cohen v. McInerney, et al. 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. On March 28, 2016, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint 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 IPO of the business and seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and such equitable relief as the court may deem proper. The amended consolidated complaint also adds Genworth’s current chief financial officer as a defendant, based on the current chief financial officer’s alleged conduct in her former capacity as Genworth’s controller and principal accounting officer. We moved to dismiss the consolidated action on May 27, 2016. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a substantially similar second amended complaint which we moved to dismiss on September 16, 2016. The motion is fully briefed and awaiting disposition by the court.

In October 2016, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, its current chief financial officer, its former chief financial officer and current and former members of its board of directors were named in a shareholder derivative suit filed by Esther Chopp in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case is captioned Chopp v. McInerney, et al. The complaint alleges that Genworth’s board of directors wrongfully refused plaintiff’s demand to commence litigation on behalf of Genworth and asserts claims for breaches of fiduciary duties, waste, contribution and indemnification, and unjust enrichment concerning Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves and concerning Genworth’s Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an IPO of the business, and seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and such equitable relief as the court may deem proper. We filed a motion to dismiss on November 14, 2016.

In December 2016, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, two former chief financial officers, and two of its insurance subsidiaries were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Leifer, et al v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ financial disclosures and alleged misrepresentations concerning Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves caused harm to current and former long-term care insurance policyholders and seek unspecified damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. We filed a motion to dismiss on March 27, 2017. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2017. We filed a motion to dismiss on May 22, 2017. On June 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. On June 26, 2017, the court so ordered the notice of withdrawal of first amended complaint and of voluntary dismissal without prejudice against all defendants.

In January 2017, two putative stockholder class action lawsuits, captioned Rice v. Genworth Financial Incorporated, et al, and James v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al, were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, against Genworth and its board of directors. A third putative stockholder class action lawsuit captioned Rosenfeld Family Trust v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Genworth and its board of directors. In February 2017, a fourth putative class action lawsuit captioned Chopp v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Genworth and its board of directors and a fifth putative class action lawsuit captioned Ratliff v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, against Genworth and its board of directors. The complaints in all five actions allege, among other things, that the preliminary proxy statement filed by Genworth with the SEC on December 21, 2016 contains false and/or materially misleading statements and/or omits material information. The complaints assert claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seek equitable relief, including declaratory and injunctive relief, and an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. On February 2, 2017, the plaintiff in Rice filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the transaction described in the preliminary proxy. On February 10, 2017, defendants filed an opposition to the preliminary injunction motion in the Rice action. Also on February 10, 2017, the plaintiff in Rosenfeld Family Trust filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the transaction described in the preliminary proxy. On February 14, 2017, defendants filed a motion to transfer the Rosenfeld Family Trust action to the Eastern District of Virginia. On February 15, 2017, defendants filed a motion to transfer the Chopp action to the Eastern District of Virginia. On February 21, 2017, the parties to the Eastern District of Virginia actions (Rice, James and Ratliff) reached an agreement in principle to resolve the pending preliminary injunction motion in the Eastern District of Virginia through additional disclosure prior to the March 7, 2017 stockholder vote on the proposed merger transaction. On February 22, 2017, the plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Virginia withdrew their preliminary injunction motion in consideration of the agreed disclosures to be filed in a Form 8-K by February 24, 2017. Also on February 22, 2017, the court in the District of Delaware suspended briefing on the motion for preliminary injunction in the Rosenfeld Family Trust action and entered an order transferring the Rosenfeld Family Trust and Chopp actions to the Eastern District of Virginia. On February 23, 2017, the court in the Eastern District of Virginia set the Rosenfeld Family Trust preliminary injunction motion for a hearing on March 1, 2017. On February 26, 2017, defendants filed an opposition to the preliminary injunction motion in the Rosenfeld Family Trust action. On February 27, 2017, the parties in the Rosenfeld Family Trust action reached an agreement in principle to resolve the pending preliminary injunction motion in the Rosenfeld Family Trust action through additional disclosure prior to the March 7, 2017 stockholder vote on the proposed merger transaction, and the plaintiff in the Rosenfeld Family Trust action withdrew its preliminary injunction motion in consideration of the agreed disclosures as filed in a Form 8-K on February 28, 2017. On March 6, 2017, the court in the Eastern District of Virginia entered an order setting a schedule for proceedings to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the purported class action. On March 7, 2017, the court in the Eastern District of Virginia consolidated the Rice, James, Ratliff, Rosenfeld Family Trust, and Chopp actions. On July 5, 2017, the court in the Eastern District of Virginia heard oral argument on the motion to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On August 25, 2017, the court in the Eastern District of Virginia entered an order appointing the plaintiffs Alexander Rice and Brian James as lead plaintiffs and their counsel as lead counsel. In November, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the balance of the remaining claims based upon the previously provided additional disclosures, subject to confirmatory discovery and court approval.

In April 2017, one of our insurance subsidiaries, GLAIC was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Avazian, et al v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company, et al, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing based upon GLAIC’s termination of plaintiff’s life insurance policy for nonpayment of premium. Plaintiff alleges that the termination for nonpayment of premium failed to comply with certain notice requirements of the California Insurance Code and seeks certification as a California class action on behalf of all insureds and beneficiaries of life insurance policies issued or delivered by GLAIC in California before January 1, 2013 who lost either their coverage or their ability to make a claim because of the termination of their policies by GLAIC for nonpayment of premium, and further seeks unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, punitive damages, fees, costs and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. On June 23, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 10, 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. On July 12, 2017, the court ordered that this action and all claims therein, are dismissed in their entirety without prejudice. In August 2017, plaintiff re-filed a similar putative class action lawsuit, along with another plaintiff, Michael Torres, captioned Avazian, et al v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company, et al, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, naming GLAIC as a defendant. Plaintiffs allege similar causes of action as the previously dismissed lawsuit, and have added a claim for alleged violation of California Business and Professions Code. On August 31, 2017, we filed notice of the removal of this matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and on October 6, 2017, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 4, 2017, the court granted our motion to dismiss the complaint. In January 2018, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the case for a de minimis amount.

In December 2017, Genworth Holdings and Genworth Financial were named as defendants in an action captioned AXA S.A. v. Genworth Financial Holdings, Inc., et al., in the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales. In the action, AXA seeks in excess of £28 million on an indemnity provided for in the 2015 agreement pursuant to which Genworth sold to AXA two insurance companies, Financial Insurance Company Limited (“FICL”) and Financial Assurance Company Limited (“FACL”), relating to alleged remediation it has paid to customers who purchased payment protection insurance. In February 2018, Genworth served a Particulars of Defence and counterclaim against AXA, and also served other counterclaims against various parties, including Santander Cards UK Limited, alleging that Santander is responsible for any remediation paid to payment protection insurance customers. We intend to vigorously defend this action.

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, 2017, we were committed to fund $317 million in limited partnership investments, $16 million in U.S. commercial mortgage loan investments and $152 million in private placement investments. As of December 31, 2017, we were committed to fund $18 million of bank loan investments which had not yet been drawn.

In connection with the issuance of non-recourse funding obligations by Rivermont I, Genworth entered into a liquidity commitment agreement with Rivermont I and a third-party trust which issued the floating rate notes. The liquidity agreement requires Genworth to establish a line of credit facility in 2040 for the benefit of the trust in the amount of the estimated liquidity commitment amount which is the market value of the assets held in the trust supporting the outstanding notes as of the note maturity date in 2050. In addition, it also requires at the note maturity date, that Genworth loan the trust any liquidity commitment amounts. Any loan or drawn line of credit amount is an obligation of the trust and Rivermont I and shall accrue interest at LIBOR plus a margin of 1.2%. 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 before repayment is approximately $14 million based on current projections.