The Company and its subsidiaries are parties to a number of non-ordinary course lawsuits. These lawsuits frequently are similar in nature to other lawsuits pending against the Company’s competitors.

For those non-ordinary course lawsuits where the Company has determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, a liability representing the best estimate of the Company’s financial exposure based on known facts has been recorded. Actual losses may materially differ from the amounts recorded.

It is, however, often not possible to assess the probability of loss. Lawsuits that are putative class actions require a plaintiff to satisfy a number of procedural requirements before proceeding to trial. These requirements include, among others, demonstration to a court that the law proscribes in some manner the Company’s activities, the making of factual allegations sufficient to suggest that the Company’s activities exceeded the limits of the law and a determination by the court—known as class certification—that the law permits a group of individuals to pursue the case together as a class. In certain instances, the Company may also be able to compel the plaintiff to arbitrate its claim on an individual basis. If these procedural requirements are not met, either the lawsuit cannot proceed or, as is the case with class certification or compelled arbitration, the plaintiffs lose the financial incentive to proceed with the case (or the amount at issue effectively becomes de minimis). Frequently, a court’s determination as to these procedural requirements is subject to appeal to a higher court. As a result of, among other factors, ambiguities and inconsistencies in the laws applicable to the Company’s business and the uniqueness of the factual issues presented in any given lawsuit, the Company often cannot determine the probability of loss until a court has finally determined that a plaintiff has satisfied applicable procedural requirements.

Furthermore, for putative class actions, it is often impossible to estimate the possible loss or a range of loss amounts, even where the Company has determined that a loss is reasonably possible. Generally class actions involve a large number of people and the effort to determine which people satisfy the requirements to become plaintiffs—or class members—is often time consuming and burdensome. Moreover, these lawsuits raise complex factual issues which result in uncertainty as to their outcome and, ultimately, make it difficult for the Company to estimate the amount of damages which a plaintiff might successfully prove. In addition, many of the Company’s businesses are regulated by various federal, state, local and foreign governmental agencies and are subject to numerous statutory guidelines. These regulations and statutory guidelines often are complex, inconsistent or ambiguous, which results in additional uncertainty as to the outcome of a given lawsuit—including the amount of damages a plaintiff might be afforded—or makes it difficult to analogize experience in one case or jurisdiction to another case or jurisdiction.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company’s title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also pertain to the Company’s other businesses. These lawsuits include, among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the Company or one of its subsidiaries improperly charged fees for products and services and improperly handled property and casualty claims in violation of certain laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain obligations, including:

•

Tenefufu vs. First American Specialty Insurance Company, filed on June 1, 2017 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento, and

•

Wilmot vs. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Tenefufu is a putative class actions for which a class has not been certified. A class has been certified in Wilmot. For the reasons described above, the Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.

The Company and/or its subsidiaries are also parties to consumer class actions and a securities class action in connection with the information security incident that occurred during the second quarter of 2019. All of these lawsuits are putative class actions for which a class has not been certified. For the reasons described above, the Company has not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or the range of loss.

While some of the lawsuits described above may be material to the Company’s financial results in any particular period if an unfavorable outcome results, the Company does not believe that any of these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s overall financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

In addition, the Company and its board of directors and certain executives are parties to a shareholder derivative action, Hollett vs. Gilmore, et al., filed on November 25, 2020 and pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The allegations arise out of the information security incident that occurred during the second quarter of 2019 and the resulting legal proceedings and disclosures made at the time of the incident. While the ultimate disposition is not yet determinable, the Company does not believe it will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company also is a party to non-ordinary course lawsuits other than those described above. With respect to these lawsuits, the Company has determined either that a loss is not reasonably possible or that the estimated loss or range of loss, if any, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company’s title insurance, property and casualty insurance, home warranty, banking, thrift, trust and wealth management businesses are regulated by various federal, state and local governmental agencies. Many of the Company’s other businesses operate within statutory guidelines. Consequently, the Company may from time to time be subject to examination or investigation by such governmental agencies. Currently, governmental agencies are examining or investigating certain of the Company’s operations. These exams and investigations include an inquiry by the New York Attorney General and the Massachusetts Attorney General into competitive practices in the title insurance industry. With respect to matters where the Company has determined that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, the Company records a liability representing its best estimate of the financial exposure based on known facts. While the ultimate disposition of each such exam or investigation is not yet determinable, the Company does not believe that individually or in the aggregate they will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Some of these exams or investigations could, however, result in changes to the Company’s business practices which could ultimately have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Furthermore, these exams and investigations include an investigation initiated in connection with the information security incident that occurred during the second quarter of 2019 by the New York Department of Financial Services. The New York Department of Financial Services has alleged violations of its cyber security requirements for financial services companies and filed a statement of charges on July 22, 2020, as amended on March 10, 2021, and scheduled an administrative hearing in connection therewith. While the ultimate disposition of the New York Department of Financial Services matter is not yet determinable, the Company does not believe that it will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The Company’s Canadian operations provide certain services to lenders which it believes to be exempt from excise tax under applicable Canadian tax laws. However, in October 2014, the Canadian taxing authority provided internal guidance that the services in question should be subject to the excise tax. During July 2019, the Company received an assessment from the Canadian taxing authority. The amount of the assessment is $16.2 million, which is based on the exchange rate as of, and includes interest charges through September 30, 2021. As the Company does not believe that the services in question are subject to excise tax, it intends to avail itself of avenues of appeal, and it believes it is reasonably likely that the Company will prevail on the merits. Accordingly, the Company filed a notice of appeal with the Canadian taxing authority in March 2020. Based on the current facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe a loss is probable, therefore no liability has been recorded.

The Company and its subsidiaries also are involved in numerous ongoing routine legal and regulatory proceedings related to their operations. With respect to each of these proceedings, the Company has determined either that a loss is not reasonably possible or that the estimated loss or range of loss, if any, is not material to the condensed consolidated financial statements as a whole.