CONTINGENCIES, COMMITMENTS AND GUARANTEES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
CONTINGENCIES, COMMITMENTS AND GUARANTEES
CONTINGENCIES, COMMITMENTS AND GUARANTEES	9. CONTINGENCIES, COMMITMENTS AND GUARANTEES In the normal course of business, various contingent liabilities and commitments are entered into by AIG and our subsidiaries. In addition, AIG Parent guarantees various obligations of certain subsidiaries. Although AIG cannot currently quantify its ultimate liability for unresolved litigation and investigation matters, including those referred to below, it is possible that such liability could have a material adverse effect on AIG’s consolidated financial condition or its consolidated results of operations or consolidated cash flows for an individual reporting period. Legal Contingencies Overview. In the normal course of business, AIG and our subsidiaries are, like others in the insurance and financial services industries in general, subject to litigation, including claims for punitive damages. In our insurance and mortgage guaranty operations, litigation arising from claims settlement activities is generally considered in the establishment of our liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses. However, the potential for increasing jury awards and settlements makes it difficult to assess the ultimate outcome of such litigation. AIG is also subject to derivative, class action and other claims asserted by its shareholders and others alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties by its directors and officers and violations of insurance laws and regulations, as well as federal and state securities laws. In the case of any derivative action brought on behalf of AIG, any recovery would accrue to the benefit of AIG. Various regulatory and governmental agencies have been reviewing certain transactions and practices of AIG and our subsidiaries in connection with industry-wide and other inquiries into, among other matters, certain business practices of current and former operating insurance subsidiaries. We have cooperated, and will continue to cooperate, in producing documents and other information in response to subpoenas and other requests. AIG’s Subprime Exposure, AIGFP Credit Default Swap Portfolio and Related Matters AIG, AIG Financial Products Corp. and related subsidiaries (collectively AIGFP), and certain directors and officers of AIG, AIGFP and other AIG subsidiaries have been named in various actions relating to our exposure to the U.S. residential subprime mortgage market, unrealized market valuation losses on AIGFP’s super senior credit default swap portfolio, losses and liquidity constraints relating to our securities lending program and related disclosure and other matters (Subprime Exposure Issues). Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation. On May 19, 2009, a consolidated class action complaint, resulting from the consolidation of eight purported securities class actions filed between May 2008 and January 2009, was filed against AIG and certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP, AIG’s outside auditors, and the underwriters of various securities offerings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Southern District of New York) in In re American International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation (the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation), asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act) for allegedly materially false and misleading statements in AIG’s public disclosures from March 16, 2006 to September 16, 2008 relating to, among other things, the Subprime Exposure Issues. On July 15, 2014 and August 1, 2014, lead plaintiff, AIG and AIG’s outside auditor accepted mediators’ proposals to settle the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation against all defendants. On October 22, 2014, AIG made a cash payment of $960 million, which is being held in escrow until all funds are distributed. On March 20, 2015, the Court issued an Order and Final Judgment approving the class settlement and dismissing the action with prejudice, and the AIG settlement became final on June 29, 2015. Individual Securities Litigations. Between November 18, 2011 and February 9, 2015, eleven separate, though similar, securities actions (Individual Securities Litigations) were filed asserting claims substantially similar to those in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation against AIG and certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP (one such action also names as a defendant AIG’s outside auditor and two such actions also name as defendants the underwriters of various securities offerings). Two of the actions were voluntarily dismissed. On September 10, 2015, the Southern District of New York granted AIG’s motion to dismiss some of the claims in the Individual Securities Litigations in whole or in part. AIG has settled seven of the nine remaining actions. On March 27, 2015, an additional securities action was filed in state court in Orange County, California asserting a claim against AIG pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act (the California Action) that is substantially similar to those in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation and the two remaining Individual Securities Litigations pending in the Southern District of New York. On July 10, 2015, AIG filed a motion to stay the California Action. On September 18, 2015, the court denied AIG’s motion to stay the California Action. On September 23, 2015, AIG filed an appeal of the court’s denial. On April 29, 2015, AIG filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the Southern District of New York seeking a declaration that the Section 11 claims filed in the California Action are time-barred (the SDNY Action). On July 10, 2015, AIG filed a motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff in the California Action cross moved to dismiss the SDNY Action. We have accrued our current estimate of probable loss with respect to these litigations. ERISA Actions – Southern District of New York. On December 19, 2014, a third consolidated amended complaint, resulting from the consolidation of purported class actions filed between June 25, 2008 and November 25, 2008, was filed against AIG, certain directors and officers of AIG, and members of AIG’s Retirement Board and Investment Committee in In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA Litigation II (the Consolidated 2008 ERISA Litigation), asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), purportedly on behalf of a class of all participants in or beneficiaries of certain benefit plans of AIG and its subsidiaries that offered shares of AIG Common Stock. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary responsibilities to plan participants and their beneficiaries under ERISA, by continuing to offer the AIG Stock Fund as an investment option in the plans after it allegedly became imprudent to do so. The alleged ERISA violations relate to, among other things, the defendants’ purported failure to monitor and/or disclose certain matters, including the Subprime Exposure Issues. On January 6, 2015, the parties informed the Court that they had accepted a mediator’s proposal to settle the action for $40 million. On September 18, 2015, the Court issued an Order and Final Judgment approving the class settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice. The entirety of the $40 million settlement will be paid by AIG’s fiduciary liability insurance carriers. Canadian Securities Class Action – Ontario Superior Court of Justice. On November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class action against AIG, AIGFP, certain directors and officers of AIG and Joseph Cassano, the former Chief Executive Officer of AIGFP, pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act. The proposed statement of claim would assert a class period of March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008 and would allege that during this period defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in quarterly and annual reports and during oral presentations in violation of the Ontario Securities Act. The proposed statement of claim further alleges general and special damages of $500 million and punitive damages of $50 million plus prejudgment interest or such other sums as the Court finds appropriate. On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. Thereafter, the Court stayed the action pending further developments in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation. On June 29, 2015, counsel for AIG and AIGFP provided notice to counsel for plaintiff in the action that a final order approving the settlement in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation was entered and can no longer be appealed. Plaintiff did not move to lift the stay in the time allotted by the Ontario Superior Court’s stay order and, as a result, the action is now permanently stayed. Starr International Litigation On November 21, 2011, Starr International Company, Inc. (SICO) filed a complaint against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims (the Court of Federal Claims), bringing claims, both individually and on behalf of the classes defined below and derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO Treasury Action). The complaint challenges the government’s assistance of AIG, pursuant to which AIG entered into a credit facility with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the FRBNY, and such credit facility, the FRBNY Credit Facility) and the United States received an approximately 80 percent ownership in AIG. The complaint alleges that the interest rate imposed on AIG and the appropriation of approximately 80 percent of AIG’s equity was discriminatory, unprecedented, and inconsistent with liquidity assistance offered by the government to other comparable firms at the time and violated the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. In the SICO Treasury Action, the only claims naming AIG as a party (as a nominal defendant) are derivative claims on behalf of AIG. On September 21, 2012, SICO made a pre-litigation demand on our Board demanding that we pursue the derivative claims or allow SICO to pursue the claims on our behalf. On January 9, 2013, our Board unanimously refused SICO’s demand in its entirety and on January 23, 2013, counsel for the Board sent a letter to counsel for SICO describing the process by which our Board considered and refused SICO’s demand and stating the reasons for our Board’s determination. On March 11, 2013, SICO filed a second amended complaint in the SICO Treasury Action alleging that its demand was wrongfully refused. On June 26, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims granted AIG’s and the United States’ motions to dismiss SICO’s derivative claims in the SICO Treasury Action due to our Board’s refusal of SICO’s demand and denied the United States’ motion to dismiss SICO’s direct, non-derivative claims. On March 11, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims in the SICO Treasury Action granted SICO’s motion for class certification of two classes with respect to SICO’s non-derivative claims: (1) persons and entities who held shares of AIG Common Stock on or before September 16, 2008 and who owned those shares on September 22, 2008 (the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class); and (2) persons and entities who owned shares of AIG Common Stock on June 30, 2009 and were eligible to vote those shares at AIG’s June 30, 2009 annual meeting of shareholders (the Reverse Stock Split Shareholder Class). SICO has provided notice of class certification to potential members of the classes, who, pursuant to a court order issued on April 25, 2013, had to return opt-in consent forms by September 16, 2013 to participate in either class. 286,908 holders of AIG Common Stock during the two class periods have opted into the classes. On June 15, 2015, the Court of Federal Claims issued its opinion and order in the SICO Treasury Action. The Court found that the United States exceeded its statutory authority by exacting approximately 80 percent of AIG’s equity in exchange for the FRBNY Credit Facility, but that AIG shareholders suffered no damages as a result. SICO argued during trial that the two classes are entitled to a total of approximately $40 billion in damages, plus interest. The Court also found that the United States was not liable to the Reverse Stock Split Class in connection with the reverse stock split vote at the June 30, 2009 annual meeting of shareholders. On June 17, 2015, the Court of Federal Claims entered judgment stating that “the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class shall prevail on liability due to the Government's illegal exaction, but shall recover zero damages, and that the Reverse Stock Split Shareholder Class shall not prevail on liability or damages.” SICO filed a notice of appeal of the July 2, 2012 dismissal of SICO’s unconstitutional conditions claim, the June 26, 2013 dismissal of SICO’s derivative claims, the Court’s June 15, 2015 opinion and order, and the Court’s June 17, 2015 judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The United States filed a notice of cross appeal of the Court’s July 2, 2012 opinion and order denying in part its motion to dismiss, the Court’s June 26, 2013 opinion and order denying its motion to dismiss SICO’s direct claims, the Court’s June 15, 2015 opinion and order, and the Court’s June 17, 2015 judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On August 25, 2015, SICO filed its appellate brief, in which it stated SICO does not appeal the dismissal of the derivative claims it asserted on behalf of AIG. In the Court of Federal Claims, the United States has alleged, as an affirmative defense in its answer, that AIG is obligated to indemnify the FRBNY and its representatives, including the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the United States (as the FRBNY’s principal), for any recovery in the SICO Treasury Action. AIG believes that any indemnification obligation would arise only if: (a) SICO prevails on its appeal and ultimately receives an award of damages; (b) the United States then commences an action against AIG seeking indemnification; and (c) the United States is successful in such an action through any appellate process. If SICO prevails on its claims and the United States seeks indemnification from AIG, AIG intends to assert defenses thereto. A reversal of the Court of Federal Claim’s June 17, 2015 decision and judgment and a final determination that the United States is liable for damages, together with a final determination that AIG is obligated to indemnify the United States for any such damages, could have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial condition and results of operations. False Claims Act Complaint On February 25, 2010, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California by two individuals (Relators) seeking to assert claims on behalf of the United States against AIG and certain other defendants, including Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, under the False Claims Act. Relators filed a first amended complaint on September 30, 2010, adding certain additional defendants, including Bank of America and Société Générale. The first amended complaint alleged that defendants engaged in fraudulent business practices in respect of their activities in the over-the-counter market for collateralized debt obligations, and submitted false claims to the United States in connection with the FRBNY Credit Facility and Maiden Lane II LLC and Maiden Lane III LLC entities (the Maiden Lane Interests) through, among other things, misrepresenting AIG’s ability and intent to repay amounts drawn on the FRBNY Credit Facility, and misrepresenting the value of the securities that the Maiden Lane Interests acquired from AIG and certain of its counterparties. The first amended complaint sought unspecified damages pursuant to the False Claims Act in the amount of three times the damages allegedly sustained by the United States as well as interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses. The complaint and the first amended complaint were initially filed and maintained under seal while the United States considered whether to intervene in the action. On or about April 28, 2011, after the United States declined to intervene, the District Court lifted the seal, and Relators served the first amended complaint on AIG on July 11, 2011. On April 19, 2013, the Court granted AIG’s motion to dismiss, dismissing the first amended complaint in its entirety, without prejudice, giving the Relators the opportunity to file a second amended complaint. On May 24, 2013, the Relators filed a second amended complaint, which attempted to plead the same claims as the prior complaints and did not specify an amount of alleged damages. AIG and its co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 9, 2013. On March 29, 2014, the Court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice. On April 30, 2014, the Relators filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. We are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation. Litigation Matters Relating to AIG’s Insurance Operations Caremark. AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark). The plaintiffs in the second-filed action intervened in the first-filed action, and the second-filed action was dismissed. An excess policy issued by a subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was expressly stated to be without limit of liability. In the current actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999 settlement was misled as to the extent of available insurance coverage and would not have approved the settlement had he known of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy. They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or concealing the nature and extent of coverage. The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2 billion, plus punitive damages. AIG and its subsidiaries deny the allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage. The plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the coverage and did not start the running of the statute of limitations. On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and on September 12, 2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that order. AIG and the other defendants’ petition for rehearing of that decision was denied on February 27, 2015. The matter has been remanded to the trial court for general discovery and adjudication of the merits. Trial is expected to commence on February 22, 2016. We have accrued our current estimate of loss with respect to this litigation. Regulatory and Related Matters In April 2007, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) formed a Settlement Review Working Group, directed by the State of Indiana, to review the Workers’ Compensation Residual Market Assessment portion of the settlement between AIG, the Office of the New York Attorney General, and the New York State Department of Insurance. In late 2007, the Settlement Review Working Group, under the direction of Indiana, Minnesota and Rhode Island, recommended that a multi-state targeted market conduct examination focusing on workers’ compensation insurance be commenced under the direction of the NAIC’s Market Analysis Working Group. AIG was informed of the multi-state targeted market conduct examination in January 2008. The lead states in the multi-state examination were Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. All other states (and the District of Columbia) agreed to participate in the multi-state examination. The examination focused on legacy issues related to certain AIG entities’ writing and reporting of workers compensation insurance between 1985 and 1996. On December 17, 2010, AIG and the lead states reached an agreement to settle all regulatory liabilities arising out of the subjects of the multistate examination. This regulatory settlement agreement, which was agreed to by all 50 states and the District of Columbia, included, among other terms, (i) AIG’s payment of $100 million in regulatory fines and penalties; (ii) AIG’s payment of $46.5 million in outstanding premium taxes and assessments; (iii) AIG’s agreement to enter into a compliance plan describing agreed-upon specific steps and standards for evaluating AIG’s ongoing compliance with state regulations governing the setting of workers’ compensation insurance premium rates and the reporting of workers’ compensation premiums; and (iv) AIG’s agreement to pay up to $150 million in contingent fines in the event that AIG fails to comply substantially with the compliance plan requirements. In furtherance of the compliance plan, the agreement provided for a monitoring period from May 29, 2012 to May 29, 2014 leading up to a compliance plan examination. After the close of the monitoring period, as part of preparation for the actual conduct of the compliance plan examination, on or about October 1, 2014, AIG and the lead states agreed upon corrective action plans to address particular issues identified during the monitoring period. The compliance plan examination is ongoing. There can be no assurance that the result of the compliance plan examination will not result in a fine, have a material adverse effect on AIG’s ongoing operations or lead to civil litigation. In connection with a multi-state examination of certain accident and health products, including travel products, issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. (National Union), AIG Property Casualty Inc. (formerly Chartis Inc.), on behalf of itself, National Union, and certain of AIG Property Casualty Inc.’s insurance and non-insurance companies (collectively, the AIG PC parties) entered into a Regulatory Settlement Agreement with regulators from 50 U.S. jurisdictions effective November 29, 2012. Under the agreement, and without admitting any liability for the issues raised in the examination, the AIG PC parties (i) paid a civil penalty of $50 million, (ii) entered into a corrective action plan describing agreed-upon specific steps and standards for evaluating the AIG PC parties’ ongoing compliance with laws and regulations governing the issues identified in the examination, and (iii) agreed to pay a contingent fine in the event that the AIG PC parties fail to satisfy certain terms of the corrective action plan. National Union and other AIG companies are also currently subject to civil litigation relating to the conduct of their accident and health business, and may be subject to additional litigation relating to the conduct of such business from time to time in the ordinary course. There can be no assurance that any regulatory action resulting from the issues identified will not have a material adverse effect on our ongoing operations of the business subject to the agreement, or on similar business written by other AIG carriers. Other Commitments In the normal course of business, we enter into commitments to invest in limited partnerships, private equity funds and hedge funds and to purchase and develop real estate in the U.S. and abroad. These commitments totaled $2.6 billion at September 30, 2015. Guarantees Subsidiaries We have issued unconditional guarantees with respect to the prompt payment, when due, of all present and future payment obligations and liabilities of AIGFP and of AIG Markets arising from transactions entered into by AIG Markets. In connection with AIGFP’s business activities, AIGFP has issued, in a limited number of transactions, standby letters of credit or similar facilities to equity investors of structured leasing transactions in an amount equal to the termination value owing to the equity investor by the lessee in the event of a lessee default (the equity termination value). The total amount outstanding at September 30, 2015 was $214 million. In those transactions, AIGFP has agreed to pay such amount if the lessee fails to pay. The amount payable by AIGFP is, in certain cases, partially offset by amounts payable under other instruments typically equal to the present value of scheduled payments to be made by AIGFP. In the event that AIGFP is required to make a payment to the equity investor, the lessee is unconditionally obligated to reimburse AIGFP. To the extent that the equity investor is paid the equity termination value from the standby letter of credit and/or other sources, including payments by the lessee, AIGFP takes an assignment of the equity investor’s rights under the lease of the underlying property. Because the obligations of the lessee under the lease transactions are generally economically defeased, lessee bankruptcy is the most likely circumstance in which AIGFP would be required to pay without reimbursement. Asset Dispositions General We are subject to financial guarantees and indemnity arrangements in connection with the completed sales of businesses pursuant to our asset disposition plan. The various arrangements may be triggered by, among other things, declines in asset values, the occurrence of specified business contingencies, the realization of contingent liabilities, developments in litigation or breaches of representations, warranties or covenants provided by us. These arrangements are typically subject to various time limitations, defined by the contract or by operation of law, such as statutes of limitation. In some cases, the maximum potential obligation is subject to contractual limitations, while in other cases such limitations are not specified or are not applicable. We are unable to develop a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential payout under certain of these arrangements. Overall, we believe that it is unlikely we will have to make any material payments related to completed sales under these arrangements, and no material liabilities related to these arrangements have been recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Other See Note 7 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for additional discussion on commitments and guarantees associated with VIEs. See Note 8 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for additional disclosures about derivatives. See Note 14 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for additional disclosures about guarantees of outstanding debt.

9. CONTINGENCIES, COMMITMENTS AND GUARANTEES

In the normal course of business, various contingent liabilities and commitments are entered into by AIG and our subsidiaries. In addition, AIG Parent guarantees various obligations of certain subsidiaries.

Although AIG cannot currently quantify its ultimate liability for unresolved litigation and investigation matters, including those referred to below, it is possible that such liability could have a material adverse effect on AIG’s consolidated financial condition or its consolidated results of operations or consolidated cash flows for an individual reporting period.

Legal Contingencies

Overview. In the normal course of business, AIG and our subsidiaries are, like others in the insurance and financial services industries in general, subject to litigation, including claims for punitive damages. In our insurance and mortgage guaranty operations, litigation arising from claims settlement activities is generally considered in the establishment of our liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses. However, the potential for increasing jury awards and settlements makes it difficult to assess the ultimate outcome of such litigation. AIG is also subject to derivative, class action and other claims asserted by its shareholders and others alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties by its directors and officers and violations of insurance laws and regulations, as well as federal and state securities laws. In the case of any derivative action brought on behalf of AIG, any recovery would accrue to the benefit of AIG.

Various regulatory and governmental agencies have been reviewing certain transactions and practices of AIG and our subsidiaries in connection with industry-wide and other inquiries into, among other matters, certain business practices of current and former operating insurance subsidiaries. We have cooperated, and will continue to cooperate, in producing documents and other information in response to subpoenas and other requests.

AIG’s Subprime Exposure, AIGFP Credit Default Swap Portfolio and Related Matters

AIG, AIG Financial Products Corp. and related subsidiaries (collectively AIGFP), and certain directors and officers of AIG, AIGFP and other AIG subsidiaries have been named in various actions relating to our exposure to the U.S. residential subprime mortgage market, unrealized market valuation losses on AIGFP’s super senior credit default swap portfolio, losses and liquidity constraints relating to our securities lending program and related disclosure and other matters (Subprime Exposure Issues).

Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation. On May 19, 2009, a consolidated class action complaint, resulting from the consolidation of eight purported securities class actions filed between May 2008 and January 2009, was filed against AIG and certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP, AIG’s outside auditors, and the underwriters of various securities offerings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Southern District of New York) in In re American International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation (the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation), asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act) for allegedly materially false and misleading statements in AIG’s public disclosures from March 16, 2006 to September 16, 2008 relating to, among other things, the Subprime Exposure Issues.

On July 15, 2014 and August 1, 2014, lead plaintiff, AIG and AIG’s outside auditor accepted mediators’ proposals to settle the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation against all defendants. On October 22, 2014, AIG made a cash payment of $960 million, which is being held in escrow until all funds are distributed. On March 20, 2015, the Court issued an Order and Final Judgment approving the class settlement and dismissing the action with prejudice, and the AIG settlement became final on June 29, 2015.

Individual Securities Litigations. Between November 18, 2011 and February 9, 2015, eleven separate, though similar, securities actions (Individual Securities Litigations) were filed asserting claims substantially similar to those in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation against AIG and certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP (one such action also names as a defendant AIG’s outside auditor and two such actions also name as defendants the underwriters of various securities offerings). Two of the actions were voluntarily dismissed. On September 10, 2015, the Southern District of New York granted AIG’s motion to dismiss some of the claims in the Individual Securities Litigations in whole or in part. AIG has settled seven of the nine remaining actions.

On March 27, 2015, an additional securities action was filed in state court in Orange County, California asserting a claim against AIG pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act (the California Action) that is substantially similar to those in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation and the two remaining Individual Securities Litigations pending in the Southern District of New York. On July 10, 2015, AIG filed a motion to stay the California Action. On September 18, 2015, the court denied AIG’s motion to stay the California Action. On September 23, 2015, AIG filed an appeal of the court’s denial.

On April 29, 2015, AIG filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the Southern District of New York seeking a declaration that the Section 11 claims filed in the California Action are time-barred (the SDNY Action). On July 10, 2015, AIG filed a motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff in the California Action cross moved to dismiss the SDNY Action.

We have accrued our current estimate of probable loss with respect to these litigations.

ERISA Actions – Southern District of New York. On December 19, 2014, a third consolidated amended complaint, resulting from the consolidation of purported class actions filed between June 25, 2008 and November 25, 2008, was filed against AIG, certain directors and officers of AIG, and members of AIG’s Retirement Board and Investment Committee in In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA Litigation II (the Consolidated 2008 ERISA Litigation), asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), purportedly on behalf of a class of all participants in or beneficiaries of certain benefit plans of AIG and its subsidiaries that offered shares of AIG Common Stock. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary responsibilities to plan participants and their beneficiaries under ERISA, by continuing to offer the AIG Stock Fund as an investment option in the plans after it allegedly became imprudent to do so. The alleged ERISA violations relate to, among other things, the defendants’ purported failure to monitor and/or disclose certain matters, including the Subprime Exposure Issues.

On January 6, 2015, the parties informed the Court that they had accepted a mediator’s proposal to settle the action for $40 million. On September 18, 2015, the Court issued an Order and Final Judgment approving the class settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice. The entirety of the $40 million settlement will be paid by AIG’s fiduciary liability insurance carriers.

Canadian Securities Class Action – Ontario Superior Court of Justice. On November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class action against AIG, AIGFP, certain directors and officers of AIG and Joseph Cassano, the former Chief Executive Officer of AIGFP, pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act. The proposed statement of claim would assert a class period of March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008 and would allege that during this period defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in quarterly and annual reports and during oral presentations in violation of the Ontario Securities Act. The proposed statement of claim further alleges general and special damages of $500 million and punitive damages of $50 million plus prejudgment interest or such other sums as the Court finds appropriate.

On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. Thereafter, the Court stayed the action pending further developments in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation. On June 29, 2015, counsel for AIG and AIGFP provided notice to counsel for plaintiff in the action that a final order approving the settlement in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation was entered and can no longer be appealed. Plaintiff did not move to lift the stay in the time allotted by the Ontario Superior Court’s stay order and, as a result, the action is now permanently stayed.

Starr International Litigation

On November 21, 2011, Starr International Company, Inc. (SICO) filed a complaint against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims (the Court of Federal Claims), bringing claims, both individually and on behalf of the classes defined below and derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO Treasury Action). The complaint challenges the government’s assistance of AIG, pursuant to which AIG entered into a credit facility with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the FRBNY, and such credit facility, the FRBNY Credit Facility) and the United States received an approximately 80 percent ownership in AIG. The complaint alleges that the interest rate imposed on AIG and the appropriation of approximately 80 percent of AIG’s equity was discriminatory, unprecedented, and inconsistent with liquidity assistance offered by the government to other comparable firms at the time and violated the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

In the SICO Treasury Action, the only claims naming AIG as a party (as a nominal defendant) are derivative claims on behalf of AIG. On September 21, 2012, SICO made a pre-litigation demand on our Board demanding that we pursue the derivative claims or allow SICO to pursue the claims on our behalf. On January 9, 2013, our Board unanimously refused SICO’s demand in its entirety and on January 23, 2013, counsel for the Board sent a letter to counsel for SICO describing the process by which our Board considered and refused SICO’s demand and stating the reasons for our Board’s determination.

On March 11, 2013, SICO filed a second amended complaint in the SICO Treasury Action alleging that its demand was wrongfully refused. On June 26, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims granted AIG’s and the United States’ motions to dismiss SICO’s derivative claims in the SICO Treasury Action due to our Board’s refusal of SICO’s demand and denied the United States’ motion to dismiss SICO’s direct, non-derivative claims.

On March 11, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims in the SICO Treasury Action granted SICO’s motion for class certification of two classes with respect to SICO’s non-derivative claims: (1) persons and entities who held shares of AIG Common Stock on or before September 16, 2008 and who owned those shares on September 22, 2008 (the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class); and (2) persons and entities who owned shares of AIG Common Stock on June 30, 2009 and were eligible to vote those shares at AIG’s June 30, 2009 annual meeting of shareholders (the Reverse Stock Split Shareholder Class). SICO has provided notice of class certification to potential members of the classes, who, pursuant to a court order issued on April 25, 2013, had to return opt-in consent forms by September 16, 2013 to participate in either class. 286,908 holders of AIG Common Stock during the two class periods have opted into the classes.

On June 15, 2015, the Court of Federal Claims issued its opinion and order in the SICO Treasury Action. The Court found that the United States exceeded its statutory authority by exacting approximately 80 percent of AIG’s equity in exchange for the FRBNY Credit Facility, but that AIG shareholders suffered no damages as a result. SICO argued during trial that the two classes are entitled to a total of approximately $40 billion in damages, plus interest. The Court also found that the United States was not liable to the Reverse Stock Split Class in connection with the reverse stock split vote at the June 30, 2009 annual meeting of shareholders.

On June 17, 2015, the Court of Federal Claims entered judgment stating that “the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class shall prevail on liability due to the Government's illegal exaction, but shall recover zero damages, and that the Reverse Stock Split Shareholder Class shall not prevail on liability or damages.” SICO filed a notice of appeal of the July 2, 2012 dismissal of SICO’s unconstitutional conditions claim, the June 26, 2013 dismissal of SICO’s derivative claims, the Court’s June 15, 2015 opinion and order, and the Court’s June 17, 2015 judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The United States filed a notice of cross appeal of the Court’s July 2, 2012 opinion and order denying in part its motion to dismiss, the Court’s June 26, 2013 opinion and order denying its motion to dismiss SICO’s direct claims, the Court’s June 15, 2015 opinion and order, and the Court’s June 17, 2015 judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On August 25, 2015, SICO filed its appellate brief, in which it stated SICO does not appeal the dismissal of the derivative claims it asserted on behalf of AIG.

In the Court of Federal Claims, the United States has alleged, as an affirmative defense in its answer, that AIG is obligated to indemnify the FRBNY and its representatives, including the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the United States (as the FRBNY’s principal), for any recovery in the SICO Treasury Action.

AIG believes that any indemnification obligation would arise only if: (a) SICO prevails on its appeal and ultimately receives an award of damages; (b) the United States then commences an action against AIG seeking indemnification; and (c) the United States is successful in such an action through any appellate process. If SICO prevails on its claims and the United States seeks indemnification from AIG, AIG intends to assert defenses thereto. A reversal of the Court of Federal Claim’s June 17, 2015 decision and judgment and a final determination that the United States is liable for damages, together with a final determination that AIG is obligated to indemnify the United States for any such damages, could have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial condition and results of operations.

False Claims Act Complaint

On February 25, 2010, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California by two individuals (Relators) seeking to assert claims on behalf of the United States against AIG and certain other defendants, including Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, under the False Claims Act. Relators filed a first amended complaint on September 30, 2010, adding certain additional defendants, including Bank of America and Société Générale. The first amended complaint alleged that defendants engaged in fraudulent business practices in respect of their activities in the over-the-counter market for collateralized debt obligations, and submitted false claims to the United States in connection with the FRBNY Credit Facility and Maiden Lane II LLC and Maiden Lane III LLC entities (the Maiden Lane Interests) through, among other things, misrepresenting AIG’s ability and intent to repay amounts drawn on the FRBNY Credit Facility, and misrepresenting the value of the securities that the Maiden Lane Interests acquired from AIG and certain of its counterparties. The first amended complaint sought unspecified damages pursuant to the False Claims Act in the amount of three times the damages allegedly sustained by the United States as well as interest, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses. The complaint and the first amended complaint were initially filed and maintained under seal while the United States considered whether to intervene in the action. On or about April 28, 2011, after the United States declined to intervene, the District Court lifted the seal, and Relators served the first amended complaint on AIG on July 11, 2011. On April 19, 2013, the Court granted AIG’s motion to dismiss, dismissing the first amended complaint in its entirety, without prejudice, giving the Relators the opportunity to file a second amended complaint. On May 24, 2013, the Relators filed a second amended complaint, which attempted to plead the same claims as the prior complaints and did not specify an amount of alleged damages. AIG and its co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 9, 2013. On March 29, 2014, the Court dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice. On April 30, 2014, the Relators filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit. We are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation.

Litigation Matters Relating to AIG’s Insurance Operations

Caremark. AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark). The plaintiffs in the second-filed action intervened in the first-filed action, and the second-filed action was dismissed. An excess policy issued by a subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was expressly stated to be without limit of liability. In the current actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999 settlement was misled as to the extent of available insurance coverage and would not have approved the settlement had he known of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy. They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or concealing the nature and extent of coverage.

The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2 billion, plus punitive damages. AIG and its subsidiaries deny the allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage. The plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the coverage and did not start the running of the statute of limitations.

On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and on September 12, 2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that order. AIG and the other defendants’ petition for rehearing of that decision was denied on February 27, 2015. The matter has been remanded to the trial court for general discovery and adjudication of the merits. Trial is expected to commence on February 22, 2016. We have accrued our current estimate of loss with respect to this litigation.

Regulatory and Related Matters

In April 2007, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) formed a Settlement Review Working Group, directed by the State of Indiana, to review the Workers’ Compensation Residual Market Assessment portion of the settlement between AIG, the Office of the New York Attorney General, and the New York State Department of Insurance. In late 2007, the Settlement Review Working Group, under the direction of Indiana, Minnesota and Rhode Island, recommended that a multi-state targeted market conduct examination focusing on workers’ compensation insurance be commenced under the direction of the NAIC’s Market Analysis Working Group. AIG was informed of the multi-state targeted market conduct examination in January 2008. The lead states in the multi-state examination were Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. All other states (and the District of Columbia) agreed to participate in the multi-state examination. The examination focused on legacy issues related to certain AIG entities’ writing and reporting of workers compensation insurance between 1985 and 1996.

On December 17, 2010, AIG and the lead states reached an agreement to settle all regulatory liabilities arising out of the subjects of the multistate examination. This regulatory settlement agreement, which was agreed to by all 50 states and the District of Columbia, included, among other terms, (i) AIG’s payment of $100 million in regulatory fines and penalties; (ii) AIG’s payment of $46.5 million in outstanding premium taxes and assessments; (iii) AIG’s agreement to enter into a compliance plan describing agreed-upon specific steps and standards for evaluating AIG’s ongoing compliance with state regulations governing the setting of workers’ compensation insurance premium rates and the reporting of workers’ compensation premiums; and (iv) AIG’s agreement to pay up to $150 million in contingent fines in the event that AIG fails to comply substantially with the compliance plan requirements. In furtherance of the compliance plan, the agreement provided for a monitoring period from May 29, 2012 to May 29, 2014 leading up to a compliance plan examination. After the close of the monitoring period, as part of preparation for the actual conduct of the compliance plan examination, on or about October 1, 2014, AIG and the lead states agreed upon corrective action plans to address particular issues identified during the monitoring period. The compliance plan examination is ongoing. There can be no assurance that the result of the compliance plan examination will not result in a fine, have a material adverse effect on AIG’s ongoing operations or lead to civil litigation.

In connection with a multi-state examination of certain accident and health products, including travel products, issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. (National Union), AIG Property Casualty Inc. (formerly Chartis Inc.), on behalf of itself, National Union, and certain of AIG Property Casualty Inc.’s insurance and non-insurance companies (collectively, the AIG PC parties) entered into a Regulatory Settlement Agreement with regulators from 50 U.S. jurisdictions effective November 29, 2012. Under the agreement, and without admitting any liability for the issues raised in the examination, the AIG PC parties (i) paid a civil penalty of $50 million, (ii) entered into a corrective action plan describing agreed-upon specific steps and standards for evaluating the AIG PC parties’ ongoing compliance with laws and regulations governing the issues identified in the examination, and (iii) agreed to pay a contingent fine in the event that the AIG PC parties fail to satisfy certain terms of the corrective action plan. National Union and other AIG companies are also currently subject to civil litigation relating to the conduct of their accident and health business, and may be subject to additional litigation relating to the conduct of such business from time to time in the ordinary course. There can be no assurance that any regulatory action resulting from the issues identified will not have a material adverse effect on our ongoing operations of the business subject to the agreement, or on similar business written by other AIG carriers.