Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
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 subsidiaries, 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, including claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 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 October 2016, Genworth Financial, certain members of its executive management team, including its former and present chief executive officer, and current and former members of its board of directors were named as defendants 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 former 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 April 6, 2021, Genworth Financial terminated the proposed China Oceanwide transaction, thereby lifting the stay. On July 22, 2022, a stipulation dismissing the case without prejudice was filed with the Court and on July 25, 2022, the Court granted the dismissal. 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. On June 30, 2021, we filed in the Middle District of Georgia our renewed motion to enforce the class action settlement and release, and renewed our motion for leave to file a counterclaim. The briefing on both motions concluded in October 2021. On March 24, 2022, the Court denied our motions. On April 11, 2022, we filed an appeal of the Court’s denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On June 22, 2022, we filed our opening brief in support of the appeal. Plaintiff filed its respondent’s brief on September 20, 2022, and we filed our reply brief on November 10, 2022. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth North America Corporation, GFIH and Genworth Life Insurance Company (“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 MI Canada Inc. (“Genworth Canada”) from being transferred out of GFIH. On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking the same relief as 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 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. On May 26, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended and supplemental class action complaint adding additional factual allegations and three new causes of action. On July 26, 2021, we moved to dismiss the three new causes of action and answered the balance of the second amended and supplemental class action complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss on September 30, 2021. The Court heard oral arguments on the motion on December 7, 2021 and ordered each party to file supplemental submissions, which were filed on January 28, 2022. On May 10, 2022, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the three new causes of action. On January 27, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin GFIH from transferring any assets to any affiliate, including paying any dividends to Genworth Holdings and to enjoin Genworth Holdings and Genworth Financial from transferring or distributing any value to Genworth Financial’s shareholders. On June 2, 2022, plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. On April 6, 2020, GLAIC 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 unlawful and excessive increases to cost of insurance charges. The consolidated complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million. The parties participated in a mediation on November 18, 2021. On March 25, 2022, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the action for $25 million, subject to Court approval. The Court gave final approval to the settlement on October 17, 2022. We accrued $25 million for this litigation as of March 31, 2022. In the second quarter of 2022, we paid the accrued balance in full, and accordingly, have no remaining amounts outstanding related to the settlement. In January 2021, GLIC and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York (“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. The trial was scheduled to commence on June 1, 2022. On June 18, 2021, following two days of mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter on a nationwide basis and signed the settlement agreement on August 23, 2021. On August 31, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. The final approval hearing occurred on February 9, 2022, and on June 29, 2022, the Court issued its final approval of the settlement, which became final on July 29, 2022, when the appeals period expired and no appeal was filed. We began implementation of this settlement on August 1, 2022, which did not have a material impact on our results of operations during 2022. Because the election mailings occur based on the policyholder’s policy anniversary date, the majority of the impacts are expected to be realized in 2023. We expect an overall net favorable impact to our long-term care insurance business from the settlement of this case. In January 2021, GLAIC 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 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. On February 10, 2023, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the action for an immaterial amount. If the settlement is not finalized, we intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. On August 11, 2021, GLIC and GLICNY received a request for pre-suit mediation related to a potential class action lawsuit that may be brought by five long-term care insurance policyholders, seeking to represent a nationwide class alleging that the defendants made misleading and inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases for long-term care insurance policies. The draft complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million. Genworth participated in pre-suit mediation in November 2021 and January 2022. On January 15, 2022, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the dispute on a nationwide basis, subject to the negotiation and execution of a final settlement agreement, and Court approval thereof. On January 28, 2022, the complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned Fred Haney, Marsha Merrill, Sylvia Swanson, and Alan Wooten, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Company and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York . The parties executed a settlement agreement consistent with the agreement in principle signed on January 15, 2022. On May 2, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. The final approval hearing commenced on November 17, 2022 and the Court entered judgment finally approving the settlement on February 15, 2023. The judgment will become final 30 days after its entry, or upon the final resolution of any timely appeal. We expect an overall net favorable impact to our long-term care insurance business from the settlement of this case. On August 1, 2022, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by two former Genworth employees against Genworth Financial, its Board of Directors and the Fiduciary and Investments Committee of Genworth Financial’s Retirement and Savings Plan (“Savings Plan”). Plaintiffs purport to act on behalf of the Savings Plan and all similarly simulated participants and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan. The complaint asserts that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by imprudently offering and inadequately monitoring a suite of BlackRock Target Date Funds as a retirement investment option for Genworth employees. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, and attorney’s fees. By stipulation entered September 6, 2022, the complaint was dismissed, without prejudice, against the Board of Directors and the Fiduciary and Investments Committee of Genworth Financial’s Savings Plan. On October 17, 2022, we moved to dismiss the complaint against the sole remaining defendant, Genworth Financial. Plaintiffs filed opposition papers on November 10, 2022, and we filed our reply papers on November 16, 2022. By order dated January 20, 2023, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to serve an amended complaint, and as a result, our initial motion to dismiss is now moot. On January 20, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on February 2, 2023, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. On December 16, 2022, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska (“BCBSNE”) served an arbitration demand on GLIC in relation to BCBSNE’s stated intent to recapture a block of long-term care insurance policies for which the risk was partly ceded to GLIC. In its arbitration demand, BCBSNE alleges that GLIC breached the governing reinsurance agreement by refusing to agree to transfer assets equal to the fair value of the liabilities being recaptured. BCBSNE asserts it has satisfied all of its obligations under the reinsurance agreement and is seeking to recapture the ceded block of reinsurance. BCBSNE seeks damages equal to the fair value of the recaptured liabilities, plus interest and other damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties are currently appointing the arbitration panel. We intend to vigorously defend this arbitration proceeding. 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, 2022, we were committed to fund $1,365 million in limited partnership investments, $70 million of bank loan investments which had not yet been drawn, $19 million in private placement investments and $5 million in commercial mortgage loan investments.

(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 subsidiaries, 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, including claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 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 October 2016, Genworth Financial, certain members of its executive management team, including its former and present chief executive officer, and current and former members of its board of directors were named as defendants 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 former 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 April 6, 2021, Genworth Financial terminated the proposed China Oceanwide transaction, thereby lifting the stay. On July 22, 2022, a stipulation dismissing the case without prejudice was filed with the Court and on July 25, 2022, the Court granted the dismissal.

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. On June 30, 2021, we filed in the Middle District of Georgia our renewed motion to enforce the class action settlement and release, and renewed our motion for leave to file a counterclaim. The briefing on both motions concluded in October 2021. On March 24, 2022, the Court denied our motions. On April 11, 2022, we filed an appeal of the Court’s denial to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Eleventh Circuit. On June 22, 2022, we filed our opening brief in support of the appeal. Plaintiff filed its respondent’s brief on September 20, 2022, and we filed our reply brief on November 10, 2022. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth North America Corporation, GFIH and Genworth Life Insurance Company (“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 MI Canada Inc. (“Genworth Canada”) from being transferred out of GFIH. On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking the same relief as 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 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. On May 26, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended and supplemental class action complaint adding additional factual allegations and three new causes of action. On July 26, 2021, we moved to dismiss the three new causes of action and answered the balance of the second amended and supplemental class action complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss on September 30, 2021. The Court heard oral arguments on the motion on December 7, 2021 and ordered each party to file supplemental submissions, which were filed on January 28, 2022. On May 10, 2022, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the three new causes of action. On January 27, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin GFIH from transferring any assets to any affiliate, including paying any dividends to Genworth Holdings and to enjoin Genworth Holdings and Genworth Financial from transferring or distributing any value to Genworth Financial’s shareholders. On June 2, 2022, plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

On April 6, 2020, GLAIC 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 unlawful and excessive increases to cost of insurance charges. The consolidated complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million. The parties participated in a mediation on November 18, 2021. On March 25, 2022, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the action for $25 million, subject to Court approval. The Court gave final approval to the settlement on October 17, 2022. We accrued $25 million for this litigation as of March 31, 2022. In the second quarter of 2022, we paid the accrued balance in full, and accordingly, have no remaining amounts outstanding related to the settlement.

In January 2021, GLIC and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York (“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.

The trial was scheduled to commence on June 1, 2022. On June 18, 2021, following two days of mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter on a nationwide basis and signed the settlement agreement on August 23, 2021. On August 31, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. The final approval hearing occurred on
February 9, 2022, and on June 29,

2022, the Court issued its final approval of the settlement, which became final on July 29, 2022, when the appeals period expired and no appeal was filed. We began implementation of this settlement on August 1, 2022, which did not have a material impact on our results of operations during 2022. Because the election mailings occur based on the policyholder’s policy anniversary date, the majority of the impacts are expected to be realized in 2023. We expect an overall net favorable impact to our long-term care insurance business from the settlement of this case.

In January 2021, GLAIC 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 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.

On February 10, 2023, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the

action for an immaterial amount. If the settlement is not finalized, we intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

On August 11, 2021, GLIC and GLICNY received a request for

pre-suit

mediation related to a potential class action lawsuit that may be brought by five long-term care insurance policyholders, seeking to represent a nationwide class alleging that the defendants made misleading and inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases for long-term care insurance policies. The draft complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5

million. Genworth participated in pre-suit mediation in November 2021 and January 2022. On January 15, 2022, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the dispute on a nationwide basis, subject to the negotiation and execution of a final settlement agreement, and Court approval thereof. On January 28, 2022, the complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned

Fred Haney, Marsha Merrill, Sylvia Swanson, and Alan Wooten, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Company and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York

. The parties executed a settlement agreement consistent with the agreement in principle signed on January 15, 2022.

On May 2, 2022, the Court

preliminarily approved the settlement. The final approval hearing commenced on November 17, 2022 and the Court entered judgment finally approving the settlement on February 15, 2023. The judgment will become final 30 days after its entry, or upon the final resolution of any timely appeal. We expect an overall net favorable impact to our long-term care insurance business from the settlement of this case.

On August 1, 2022, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by two former Genworth employees against Genworth Financial, its Board of Directors and the Fiduciary and Investments Committee of Genworth Financial’s Retirement and Savings Plan (“Savings Plan”). Plaintiffs purport to act on behalf of the Savings Plan and all similarly simulated participants and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan. The complaint asserts that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by imprudently offering and inadequately monitoring a suite of BlackRock Target Date Funds as a retirement investment option for Genworth employees. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, and attorney’s fees. By stipulation entered September 6, 2022, the complaint was dismissed, without prejudice, against the Board of Directors and the Fiduciary and Investments Committee of Genworth Financial’s Savings Plan. On October 17, 2022, we moved to dismiss the complaint against the sole remaining defendant, Genworth Financial. Plaintiffs filed opposition papers on November 10, 2022, and we filed our reply papers on November 16, 2022. By order dated January 20, 2023, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to serve an amended complaint, and as a result, our initial motion to dismiss is now moot. On January 20, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and on February 2, 2023, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

On December 16, 2022, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska (“BCBSNE”) served an arbitration demand on GLIC in relation to BCBSNE’s stated intent to recapture a block of long-term care insurance policies for which the risk was partly ceded to GLIC. In its arbitration demand, BCBSNE alleges that GLIC breached the governing reinsurance agreement by refusing to agree to transfer assets equal to the fair value of the liabilities being recaptured. BCBSNE asserts it has satisfied all of its obligations under the reinsurance agreement and is seeking to recapture the ceded block of reinsurance. BCBSNE seeks damages equal to the fair value of the recaptured liabilities, plus interest and other damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs. The parties are currently appointing the arbitration panel. We intend to vigorously defend this arbitration proceeding.

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, 2022, we were committed to fund $1,365 million in limited partnership investments, $70 million of bank loan investments which had not yet been drawn, $19 million in private placement investments and $5 million in commercial mortgage loan investments.