CONTINGENCIES, COMMITMENTS AND GUARANTEES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2018

CONTINGENCIES, COMMITMENTS AND GUARANTEES

CONTINGENCIES, COMMITMENTS AND GUARANTEES

10. 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 regulatory and government investigations and actions, and litigation and other forms of dispute resolution in a large number of proceedings pending in various domestic and foreign jurisdictions. Certain of these matters involve potentially significant risk of loss due to potential for significant jury awards and settlements, punitive damages or other penalties. Many of these matters are also highly complex and seek recovery on behalf of a class or similarly large number of plaintiffs. It is therefore inherently difficult to predict the size or scope of potential future losses arising from these matters. In our insurance and reinsurance operations, litigation and arbitration concerning the scope of coverage under insurance and reinsurance contracts, and litigation and arbitration in which our subsidiaries defend or indemnify their insureds under insurance contracts, are generally considered in the establishment of our loss reserves. Separate and apart from the foregoing matters involving insurance and reinsurance coverage, AIG, our subsidiaries and their respective officers and directors are subject to a variety of additional types of legal proceedings brought by holders of AIG securities, customers, employees and others, alleging, among other things, breach of contractual or fiduciary duties, bad faith and violations of federal and state statutes and regulations. With respect to these other categories of matters not arising out of claims for insurance or reinsurance coverage, we establish reserves for loss contingencies when it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In many instances, we are unable to determine whether a loss is probable or to reasonably estimate the amount of such a loss and, therefore, the potential future losses arising from legal proceedings may exceed the amount of liabilities that we have recorded in our financial statements covering these matters. While such potential future charges could be material, based on information currently known to management, management does not believe, other than may be discussed below, that any such charges are likely to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operation.

Additionally, from time to time, various regulatory and governmental agencies review the transactions and practices of AIG and our subsidiaries in connection with industry-wide and other inquiries into, among other matters, the 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 such requests.

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 Claimsjudgment 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. On March 26, 2018, the Supreme Court denied SICO’s petitionand the SICO Treasury Action has now concluded.

Tax Litigation

We are party to pending tax litigation before the Southern District of New York. For additional information see Note 14to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.

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 $2.9 billion at March 31,2018.

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 AIG Financial Products Corp. and related subsidiaries (collectively 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 March 31,2018 was $85 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 seeNote 7 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.
• For additional disclosures about derivatives see Note 8 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.
• For additional disclosures about guarantees of outstanding debt see Note 15 to the Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements