Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies	(20) 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 January 2016, Genworth Financial, its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, its then 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, its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, its then 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 added Genworth’s then current chief financial officer as a defendant, based on 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. The action was stayed pending the outcome of the proposed China Oceanwide transaction. On January 14, 2021, the parties submitted a joint letter to the Court requesting that the action remain stayed until April 15, 2021, or until the closing or termination of the merger in the event the merger closes or is terminated prior to April 15, 2021. In October 2016, Genworth Financial, its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, its then current chief financial officer, its then 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. The action was stayed pending the outcome of the proposed China Oceanwide transaction. On January 14, 2021, the parties submitted a joint letter to the Court requesting that the action remain stayed until April 15, 2021, or until the closing or termination of the merger in the event the merger closes or is terminated prior to April 15, 2021. In December 2017, Genworth Financial International Holdings, LLC (“GFIH”) and Genworth Financial were named as defendants in an action captioned AXA S.A. v. Genworth Financial International Holdings, LLC et al ., in the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales. In the action, AXA initially sought 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 (“PPI”). The hearing on liability and subrogation matters commenced on November 4, 2019 and concluded on November 12, 2019. On December 6, 2019, the Court issued its judgment, ruling in AXA’s favor with respect to its claim against Genworth for 90% of AXA’s payment of PPI mis-selling losses. The Court further ruled, among other matters, that Genworth is not entitled to be subrogated to the rights of FICL/FACL against Santander Cards UK Limited or require AXA to assert reasonable defenses with respect to PPI mis-selling claims. In January 2020, we made an interim payment to AXA for £100 million ($134 million), which was previously accrued in December 2019 in connection with the aforementioned Court ruling. On June 8, 2020, AXA amended its claim and updated its demand to £499 million, excluding an alleged claim for a tax gross up for a possible additional amount of £117 million or more. The damages hearing took place from June 15, 2020 through June 23, 2020. On July 20, 2020, Genworth and GFIH entered into a settlement agreement with AXA pursuant to which the parties have agreed, pending satisfaction of certain conditions, not to enforce, appeal or set aside the liability judgment of December 6, 2019 and the subsequently issued damages judgment of July 27, 2020. See note 23 for additional details on the terms of the settlement with AXA, the sale of our former lifestyle protection insurance business and amounts recorded related to loss from discontinued operations. In September 2018, GLAIC, our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned TVPX ARX INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company . Plaintiff alleges unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges were imposed on policyholders. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, alleging that Genworth improperly considered non-mortality factors when calculating cost of insurance rates and failed to decrease cost of insurance charges in light of improved expectations of future mortality, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and equitable relief. On October 29, 2018, we filed a motion to enjoin the case in the Middle District of Georgia, and a motion to dismiss and motion to stay in the Eastern District of Virginia. We moved to enjoin the prosecution of the Eastern District of Virginia action on the basis that it involves claims released in a prior nationwide class action settlement (the “McBride settlement”) that was approved by the Middle District of Georgia. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2018. On December 6, 2018, we moved the Middle District of Georgia for leave to file our counterclaim, which alleges that plaintiff breached the covenant not to sue contained in the prior settlement agreement by filing its current action. On March 15, 2019, the Middle District of Georgia granted our motion to enjoin and denied our motion for leave to file our counterclaim. As such, plaintiff is enjoined from pursuing its class action in the Eastern District of Virginia. On March 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the order granting our motion to enjoin. On March 29, 2019, we filed our notice of cross-appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of our cross-appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from the portion of the order denying our motion for leave to file our counterclaim. On April 8, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case without prejudice, with leave for plaintiff to refile an amended complaint only if a final appellate Court decision vacates the injunction and reverses the Middle District of Georgia’s opinion. On May 21, 2019, plaintiff filed its appeal and memorandum in support in the Eleventh Circuit. We filed our response to plaintiff’s appeal memorandum on July 3, 2019. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on plaintiff’s appeal and our cross-appeal on April 21, 2020. On May 26, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Middle District of Georgia’s order enjoining Plaintiff’s class action and remanded the case back to the Middle District of Georgia for further factual development as to whether Genworth has altered how it calculates or charges cost of insurance since the McBride settlement. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did not reach a decision on Genworth’s counterclaim. We intend to continue to vigorously defend the dismissal of this action. In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth North America Corporation, GFIH and GLIC were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Richard F. Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth et al . Plaintiffs allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and engaged in certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain inadequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC policyholders and agents. The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer, and seeks injunctive relief. We moved to dismiss this action in December 2018. On January 29, 2019, plaintiffs exercised their right to amend their complaint. On March 12, 2019, we moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to our motion to dismiss, which we replied to on June 14, 2019. On August 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to prevent proceeds that GFIH expected to receive from the then planned sale of its shares in Genworth Canada from being transferred out of GFIH. On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking the same relief from their August 7, 2019 motion with an exception that allowed GFIH to transfer $450 million of expected proceeds from the sale of Genworth Canada through a dividend to Genworth Holdings to allow the pay-off of a senior secured term loan facility (“Term Loan”) dated March 7, 2018 among Genworth Holdings as the borrower, GFIH as the limited guarantor and the lending parties thereto. Oral arguments on our motion to dismiss and plaintiffs’ motion occurred on October 21, 2019, and plaintiffs’ motion was denied. On January 31, 2020, the Court granted in part our motion to dismiss, dismissing claims relating to $395 million in dividends GLIC paid to its parent from 2012 to 2014 (out of the $410 million in total dividends subject to plaintiffs’ claims). The Court denied the balance of the motion to dismiss leaving a claim relating to $15 million in dividends and unquantified claims relating to the 2016 termination of a reinsurance transaction. On March 27, 2020, we filed our answer to plaintiffs’ amended complaint. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. In January 2019, Genworth Financial and GLIC were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned Jerome Skochin, Susan Skochin, and Larry Huber, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth Financial, Inc. and Genworth Life Insurance Company . Plaintiffs seek to represent long-term care insurance policyholders, alleging that Genworth made misleading and inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases for long-term care insurance policies. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent inducement and violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (on behalf of the two named plaintiffs who are Pennsylvania residents), and seeks damages (including statutory treble damages under Pennsylvania law) in excess of $5 million. On March 12, 2019, we moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. On March 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to our motion to dismiss, which we replied to on April 1, 2019. In July 2019, the Court heard oral arguments on our motion to dismiss. On August 29, 2019, the Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss the claim with regard to breach of contract, but denied our motion with regard to fraudulent omission, fraudulent inducement and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law. On September 20, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, dropping Genworth Financial as a defendant and reducing their causes of action from four counts to two: fraudulent inducement by omission and violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (on behalf of the two named plaintiffs who are Pennsylvania residents). The parties engaged in a mediation process and, on October 22, 2019, reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter on a nationwide basis. On November 22, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding GLICNY as a defendant and expanding the class to all fifty states and the District of Columbia. On January 15, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and set the final approval hearing for July 10, 2020. On March 26, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Leave to Amend certain aspects of the settlement, which was approved by the Court on March 31, 2020. On April 10, 2020, the Indiana Department of Insurance filed a Motion to Intervene and Motion to Stay, seeking to stay the current schedule for class settlement and delay the date of the final approval hearing in light of disruptions caused by COVID-19. On April 14, 2020, the class administrator sent out class notices to potential settlement class members. On April 17, 2020, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Indiana Department of Insurance’s motion to stay. The Court conducted final approval hearings on July 10, 2020, July 14, 2020 and September 11, 2020. In November 2020, the Court issued various opinions and orders, including denying various individual objections to the settlement agreement, approving the plaintiffs’ motion for class counsel attorney’s fees, with certain modifications and granting final approval of the settlement. The settlement became final on December 14, 2020, when the appeals period expired and no appeal was filed. We began implementation of the special election letters in accordance with the approved settlement terms on January 4, 2021. Based on the Court’s final approval of the settlement, we do not anticipate the outcome of this matter to have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position. On April 6, 2020, GLAIC, our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned Brighton Trustees, LLC, on behalf of and as trustee for Diamond LS Trust; and Bank of Utah, solely as securities intermediary for Diamond LS Trust; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company . On May 13, 2020, GLAIC was also named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned Ronald L. Daubenmier, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company . On June 26, 2020, plaintiffs filed a consent motion to consolidate the two cases. On June 30, 2020, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an order consolidating the Brighton Trustees and Daubenmier cases. On July 17, 2020, the Brighton Trustees and Daubenmier plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, alleging that GLAIC subjected policyholders to an unlawful and excessive cost of insurance increase. The consolidated complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million. On August 31, 2020, we filed an answer to plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint. The trial is scheduled to commence on April 1, 2022. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. In January 2021, GLIC and GLICNY were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned Judy Halcom, Hugh Penson, Harold Cherry, and Richard Landino, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Company and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York . Plaintiffs seek to represent long-term care insurance policyholders, alleging that the defendants made misleading and inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases for long-term care insurance policies. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million. Our responsive pleading is due on March 15, 2021. We intend to vigorously defend this action. In January 2021, GLAIC, our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon captioned Patsy H. McMillan, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company . Plaintiff seeks to represent life insurance policyholders, alleging that GLAIC impermissibly calculated cost of insurance rates to be higher than that permitted by her policy. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million. We intend to vigorously defend this action. 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. Except as disclosed above, we 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, 2020, we were committed to fund $1,090 million in limited partnership investments, $32 million in U.S. commercial mortgage loan investments and $85 million in private placement investments. As of December 31, 2020, we were also committed to fund $32 million of bank loan investments which had not yet been drawn. Amounts disclosed are net of an allowance for credit losses, see note 2 for additional information related to credit losses on off-balance sheet credit exposures.

Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

(20) 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 January 2016, Genworth Financial, its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, its then 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, its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, its then 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 added Genworth’s then current chief financial officer as a defendant, based on 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. The action was stayed pending the outcome of the proposed China Oceanwide transaction. On January 14, 2021, the parties submitted a joint letter to the Court requesting that the action remain stayed until April 15, 2021, or until the closing or termination of the merger in the event the merger closes or is terminated prior to April 15, 2021.

In October 2016, Genworth Financial, its current chief executive officer, its former chief executive officer, its then current chief financial officer, its then 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. The action was stayed pending the outcome of the proposed China Oceanwide transaction. On January 14, 2021, the parties submitted a joint letter to the Court requesting that the action remain stayed until April 15, 2021, or until the closing or termination of the merger in the event the merger closes or is terminated prior to April 15, 2021.

In December 2017, Genworth Financial International Holdings, LLC (“GFIH”) and

Genworth Financial were named as defendants in an action captioned

AXA S.A. v. Genworth Financial International Holdings, LLC et al

., in the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales. In the action, AXA initially sought 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 (“PPI”). The hearing on liability and subrogation matters commenced on November 4, 2019 and concluded on November 12, 2019. On December 6, 2019, the Court issued its judgment, ruling in AXA’s favor with respect to its claim against Genworth for 90% of AXA’s payment of PPI

mis-selling

losses. The Court further ruled, among other matters, that Genworth is not entitled to be subrogated to the rights of FICL/FACL against Santander Cards UK Limited or require AXA to assert reasonable defenses with respect to PPI

mis-selling

claims. In January 2020, we made an interim payment to AXA for £100 million ($134 million), which was previously accrued in December 2019 in connection with the aforementioned Court ruling. On June 8, 2020, AXA amended its claim

and updated its demand to £499 million, excluding an alleged claim for a tax gross up for a possible additional amount of £117 million or more. The

damages hearing took place

from June 15, 2020 through June 23, 2020. On July 20, 2020, Genworth and GFIH entered into a settlement agreement with AXA pursuant to which the parties have agreed, pending satisfaction of certain conditions, not to enforce, appeal or set aside the liability judgment of December 6, 2019 and the subsequently issued damages judgment of July 27, 2020. See note 23 for additional details on the terms of the settlement with AXA, the sale of our former lifestyle protection insurance business and amounts recorded related to loss from discontinued operations.

In September 2018, GLAIC, our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned

TVPX ARX INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company

. Plaintiff alleges unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges were imposed on policyholders. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, alleging that Genworth improperly considered

non-mortality

factors when calculating cost of insurance rates and failed to decrease cost of insurance charges in light of improved expectations of future mortality, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and equitable relief. On October 29, 2018, we filed a motion to enjoin the case in the Middle District of Georgia, and a motion to dismiss and motion to stay in the Eastern District of Virginia. We moved to enjoin the prosecution of the Eastern District of Virginia action on the basis that it involves claims released in a prior nationwide class action settlement (the “McBride settlement”) that was approved by the Middle District of Georgia. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2018. On December 6, 2018, we moved the Middle District of Georgia for leave to file our counterclaim, which alleges that plaintiff breached the covenant not to sue contained in the prior settlement agreement by filing its current action. On March 15, 2019, the Middle District of Georgia granted our motion to enjoin and denied our motion for leave to file our counterclaim. As such, plaintiff is enjoined from pursuing its class action in the Eastern District of Virginia. On March 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the order granting our motion to enjoin. On March 29, 2019, we filed our notice of cross-appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of our cross-appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from the portion of the order denying our motion for leave to file our counterclaim. On April 8, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case without prejudice, with leave for plaintiff to refile an amended complaint only if a final appellate Court decision vacates the injunction and reverses the Middle District of Georgia’s opinion. On May 21, 2019, plaintiff filed its appeal and memorandum in support in the Eleventh Circuit. We filed our response to plaintiff’s appeal memorandum on July 3, 2019. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on plaintiff’s appeal and our cross-appeal on April 21, 2020. On May 26, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Middle District of Georgia’s order enjoining Plaintiff’s class action and remanded the case back to the Middle District of Georgia for further factual development as to whether Genworth has altered how it calculates or charges cost of insurance since the McBride settlement. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did not reach a decision on Genworth’s counterclaim. We intend to continue to vigorously defend the dismissal of this action.

In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth North America Corporation, GFIH and GLIC were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned

Richard F. Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth et al

. Plaintiffs allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and engaged in certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain inadequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC policyholders and agents. The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer, and seeks injunctive relief. We moved to dismiss this action in December 2018. On January 29, 2019, plaintiffs exercised their right to

amend their complaint. On March 12, 2019, we moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On April 26,

2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to our motion to dismiss, which we replied to on June 14, 2019. On August 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to prevent proceeds that GFIH expected to receive from the then planned sale of its shares in Genworth Canada from being transferred out of GFIH. On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking the same relief from their August 7, 2019 motion with an exception that allowed GFIH to transfer $450 million of expected proceeds from the sale of Genworth Canada through a dividend to Genworth Holdings to allow the

pay-off

of a senior secured term loan facility (“Term Loan”) dated March 7, 2018 among Genworth Holdings as the borrower, GFIH as the limited guarantor and the lending parties thereto. Oral arguments on our motion to dismiss and plaintiffs’ motion occurred on October 21, 2019, and plaintiffs’ motion was denied. On January 31, 2020, the Court granted in part our motion to dismiss, dismissing claims relating to $395 million in dividends GLIC paid to its parent from 2012 to 2014 (out of the $410 million in total dividends subject to plaintiffs’ claims). The Court denied the balance of the motion to dismiss leaving a claim relating to $15 million in dividends and unquantified claims relating to the 2016 termination of a reinsurance transaction. On March 27, 2020, we filed our answer to plaintiffs’ amended complaint. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

In January 2019, Genworth Financial and GLIC were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned

Jerome Skochin, Susan Skochin, and Larry Huber, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth

Financial, Inc. and Genworth Life Insurance Company

. Plaintiffs seek to represent long-term care insurance policyholders, alleging that Genworth made misleading and inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases for long-term care insurance policies. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent inducement and violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (on behalf of the two named plaintiffs who are Pennsylvania residents), and seeks damages (including statutory treble damages under Pennsylvania law) in excess of $5 million. On March 12, 2019, we moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. On March 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to our motion to dismiss, which we replied to on April 1, 2019. In July 2019, the Court heard oral arguments on our motion to dismiss. On August 29, 2019, the Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss the claim with regard to breach of contract, but denied our motion with regard to fraudulent omission, fraudulent inducement and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law. On September 20, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, dropping Genworth Financial as a defendant and reducing their causes of action from four counts to two: fraudulent inducement by omission and violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (on behalf of the two named plaintiffs who are Pennsylvania residents). The parties engaged in a mediation process and, on October 22, 2019, reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter on a nationwide basis. On November 22, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding

GLICNY

as a defendant and expanding the class to all fifty states and the District of Columbia. On January 15, 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and set the final approval hearing for July 10, 2020. On March 26, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Leave to Amend certain aspects of the settlement, which was approved by the Court on March 31, 2020. On April 10, 2020, the Indiana Department of Insurance filed a Motion to Intervene and Motion to Stay, seeking to stay the current schedule for class settlement and delay the date of the final approval hearing in light of disruptions caused by

COVID-19.

On April 14, 2020, the class administrator sent out class notices to potential settlement class members. On April 17, 2020, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the Indiana Department of Insurance’s motion to stay. The Court conducted final approval hearings on July 10, 2020, July 14, 2020 and September 11, 2020. In November 2020, the Court issued various opinions and orders, including denying various individual objections to the settlement agreement, approving the plaintiffs’ motion for class counsel attorney’s fees, with certain modifications and granting final approval of the settlement. The settlement became final on December 14, 2020,

when the appeals period expired and no appeal was filed. We began implementation of the special election letters in accordance with the approved settlement terms on

January 4, 2021. Based on the Court’s final approval of the settlement, we do not anticipate the outcome of this matter to have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or financial position.

On April 6, 2020, GLAIC, our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned

Brighton Trustees, LLC, on behalf of and as trustee for Diamond LS Trust; and Bank of Utah, solely as securities intermediary for Diamond LS Trust; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company

. On May 13, 2020, GLAIC was also named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned

Ronald L. Daubenmier, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company

. On June 26, 2020, plaintiffs filed a consent motion to consolidate the two cases. On June 30, 2020, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an order consolidating the Brighton Trustees and Daubenmier cases. On July 17, 2020, the Brighton Trustees and Daubenmier plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, alleging that GLAIC subjected policyholders to an unlawful and excessive cost of insurance increase. The consolidated complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million. On August 31, 2020, we filed an answer to plaintiffs’ consolidated complaint. The trial is scheduled to commence on April 1, 2022. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

In January 2021, GLIC and GLICNY were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned

Judy Halcom, Hugh Penson, Harold Cherry, and Richard Landino, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genworth

Life Insurance Company and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York

. Plaintiffs seek to represent long-term care insurance policyholders, alleging that the defendants made misleading and inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases for long-term care insurance policies. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million. Our responsive pleading is due on March 15, 2021. We intend to vigorously defend this action.

In January 2021, GLAIC, our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon captioned

Patsy H. McMillan, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company

. Plaintiff seeks to represent life insurance policyholders, alleging that GLAIC impermissibly calculated cost of insurance rates to be higher than that permitted by her policy. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million. We intend to vigorously defend this action.

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. Except as disclosed above, we 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, 2020, we were committed to fund $1,090 million in limited partnership investments, $32 million in U.S. commercial mortgage loan investments and $85 million in private placement investments. As of December 31, 2020, we were also committed to fund $32 million of bank loan investments which had not yet been drawn. Amounts disclosed are net of an allowance for credit losses, see note 2 for additional information related to credit losses on

off-balance

sheet credit exposures.