CONTINGENCIES, COMMITMENTS AND GUARANTEES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
CONTINGENCIES, COMMITMENTS AND GUARANTEES
CONTINGENCIES, COMMITMENTS AND GUARANTEES	11. 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 operations, litigation arising from claims settlement activities is generally considered in the establishment of our loss reserves. 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 (SDNY) 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. In 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 paid the settlement amount of $960 million. 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 in or transferred to the SDNY, asserting claims substantially similar to those in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation against AIG and certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP. Two of the actions were voluntarily dismissed. On September 10, 2015, the SDNY granted AIG’s motion to dismiss some of the claims in the Individual Securities Litigations in whole or in part. AIG has settled eight of the nine remaining actions. The remaining Individual Securities Litigation pending in the SDNY was brought by a series of institutional investor funds. After the court’s decision granting AIG’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims in part, the claims in the remaining action are limited to a claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act for allegedly materially false and misleading statements in AIG’s public disclosures from February 8, 2008 to September 16, 2008 relating to, among other things, the Subprime Exposure Issues. On January 17, 2017, AIG filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the vast majority of the institutional investor funds’ remaining claims. 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 Individual Securities Litigations. The trial court overruled AIG’s demurrer to dismiss all of the claims asserted in the California Action, which AIG appealed to the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District. In light of a Supreme Court decision addressing the timeliness of claims like those asserted in the California Action, plaintiffs filed a voluntary request for dismissal on June 30, 2017, which has the same effect as a judgment of dismissal. On July 18, 2017, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District dismissed AIG’s appeal as moot. We have accrued our current estimate of probable loss with respect to these litigations. 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 May 9, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: (i) vacated the Court of Federal Claims judgment on the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class and remanded with instructions for dismissal of that class, and (ii) affirmed the finding of no liability with respect to the Reverse Stock Split Class. On October 6, 2017, SICO filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. 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. 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 $3.1 billion at September 30, 2017. 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, 2017 was $139 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. AIG Parent files a consolidated federal income tax return with certain subsidiaries and acts as an agent for the consolidated tax group when making payments to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). AIG Parent and its subsidiaries have adopted, pursuant to a written agreement, a method of allocating consolidated federal income taxes. Under an Amended and Restated Tax Payment Allocation Agreement dated June 6, 2011 between AIG Parent and one of its Bermuda-domiciled insurance subsidiaries, AIG Life of Bermuda, Ltd. (AIGB), AIG Parent has agreed to indemnify AIGB for any tax liability (including interest and penalties) resulting from adjustments made by the IRS or other appropriate authorities to taxable income, special deductions or credits in connection with investments made by AIGB in certain affiliated entities. Asset Dispositions 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 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 9 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements. For additional disclosures about guarantees of outstanding debt see Note 16 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

11. 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 operations, litigation arising from claims settlement activities is generally considered in the establishment of our loss reserves. 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 (SDNY) 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.

In 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 paid the settlement amount of $960 million. 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 in or transferred to the SDNY, asserting claims substantially similar to those in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation against AIG and certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP. Two of the actions were voluntarily dismissed. On September 10, 2015, the SDNY granted AIG’s motion to dismiss some of the claims in the Individual Securities Litigations in whole or in part. AIG has settled eight of the nine remaining actions. The remaining Individual Securities Litigation pending in the SDNY was brought by a series of institutional investor funds. After the court’s decision granting AIG’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims in part, the claims in the remaining action are limited to a claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act for allegedly materially false and misleading statements in AIG’s public disclosures from February 8, 2008 to September 16, 2008 relating to, among other things, the Subprime Exposure Issues. On January 17, 2017, AIG filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the vast majority of the institutional investor funds’ remaining claims.

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 Individual Securities Litigations. The trial court overruled AIG’s demurrer to dismiss all of the claims asserted in the California Action, which AIG appealed to the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District. In light of a Supreme Court decision addressing the timeliness of claims like those asserted in the California Action, plaintiffs filed a voluntary request for dismissal on June 30, 2017, which has the same effect as a judgment of dismissal. On July 18, 2017, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District dismissed AIG’s appeal as moot.

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

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 May 9, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: (i) vacated the Court of Federal Claims judgment on the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class and remanded with instructions for dismissal of that class, and (ii) affirmed the finding of no liability with respect to the Reverse Stock Split Class.

On October 6, 2017, SICO filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

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.

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 $3.1 billion at September 30, 2017.

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, 2017 was $139 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.

AIG Parent files a consolidated federal income tax return with certain subsidiaries and acts as an agent for the consolidated tax group when making payments to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). AIG Parent and its subsidiaries have adopted, pursuant to a written agreement, a method of allocating consolidated federal income taxes. Under an Amended and Restated Tax Payment Allocation Agreement dated June 6, 2011 between AIG Parent and one of its Bermuda-domiciled insurance subsidiaries, AIG Life of Bermuda, Ltd. (AIGB), AIG Parent has agreed to indemnify AIGB for any tax liability (including interest and penalties) resulting from adjustments made by the IRS or other appropriate authorities to taxable income, special deductions or credits in connection with investments made by AIGB in certain affiliated entities.

Asset Dispositions

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

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 9 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.
For additional disclosures about guarantees of outstanding debt see Note 16 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements