Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies

Commitments

The Company is committed to pay aggregate minimum rentals under noncancelable operating leases for office facilities and equipment in future years as follows:



	(in millions)
2015	$	83
2016	70
2017	66
2018	58
2019	47
Thereafter	99
Total ⁽¹⁾	$	423

⁽¹⁾ Minimum payments have not been reduced by minimum sublease rentals due in the future under noncancelable subleases.

For the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, operating lease expense was $85 million, $85 million and $84 million, respectively.

The following table presents the Company’s funding commitments as of December 31:



	2014		2013
	(in millions)
Commercial mortgage loans	$	55	$	71
Consumer mortgage loans	491		542
Consumer lines of credit	3		4
Affordable housing partnerships	124		137
Total funding commitments	$	673	$	754

Since the Company expects many of the commitments related to consumer mortgage loans to expire without being drawn, total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent the Company’s future liquidity requirements. In addition, the commitments include consumer credit lines that are cancelable upon notification to the consumer.

Guarantees

The Company’s life and annuity products all have minimum interest rate guarantees in their fixed accounts. As of December 31, 2014, these guarantees range up to 5%.

The Company is required by law to be a member of the guaranty fund association in every state where it is licensed to do business. In the event of insolvency of one or more unaffiliated insurance companies, the Company could be adversely affected by the requirement to pay assessments to the guaranty fund associations.

The Company projects its cost of future guaranty fund assessments based on estimates of insurance company insolvencies provided by the National Organization of Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Associations (“NOLHGA”) and the amount of its premiums written relative to the industry-wide premium in each state. The Company accrues the estimated cost of future guaranty fund assessments when it is considered probable that an assessment will be imposed, the event obligating the Company to pay the assessment has occurred and the amount of the assessment can be reasonably estimated.

The Company has a liability for estimated guaranty fund assessments and a related premium tax asset. At both December 31, 2014 and 2013, the estimated liability was $14 million and the related premium tax asset was $12 million and $11 million, respectively. The expected period over which guaranty fund assessments will be made and the related tax credits recovered is not known.

Contingencies

The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in the normal course of business in legal, regulatory and arbitration proceedings, including class actions, concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of its activities as a diversified financial services firm. These include proceedings specific to the Company as well as proceedings generally applicable to business practices in the industries in which it operates. The Company can also be subject to litigation arising out of its general business activities, such as its investments, contracts, leases and employment relationships. Uncertain economic conditions, heightened and sustained volatility in the financial markets and significant financial reform legislation may increase the likelihood that clients and other persons or regulators may present or threaten legal claims or that regulators increase the scope or frequency of examinations of the Company or the financial services industry generally.

As with other financial services firms, the level of regulatory activity and inquiry concerning the Company’s businesses remains elevated. From time to time, the Company receives requests for information from, and/or has been subject to examination or claims by, the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the UK Financial Conduct Authority, state insurance and securities regulators, state attorneys general and various other domestic or foreign governmental and quasi-governmental authorities on behalf of themselves or clients concerning the Company’s business activities and practices, and the practices of the Company’s financial advisors. The Company has numerous pending matters which include information requests, exams or inquiries that the Company has received during recent periods regarding certain matters, including: sales and distribution of mutual funds, annuities, equity and fixed income securities, investment personnel’s potential access and use of material non-public information, real estate investment trusts, insurance products, and financial advice offerings; supervision of the Company’s financial advisors; administration of insurance claims; security of client information; and front office systems and controls at the Company’s UK subsidiary. The Company is also responding to regulatory audits, market conduct examinations and other state inquiries relating to an industry-wide investigation of unclaimed property and escheatment practices and procedures. The number of reviews and investigations has increased in recent years with regard to many firms in the financial services industry, including Ameriprise Financial. The Company has cooperated and will continue to cooperate with the applicable regulators regarding their inquiries.

These legal and regulatory proceedings and disputes are subject to uncertainties and, as such, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible, or to reasonably estimate the amount of any loss. The Company cannot predict with certainty if, how or when any such proceedings will be initiated or resolved or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, may be, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development or where plaintiffs seek indeterminate damages. Numerous issues may need to be resolved, including through potentially lengthy discovery and determination of important factual matters, and by addressing unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings in question, before a loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated for any proceeding. An adverse outcome in one or more proceeding could eventually result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties or other sanctions, in addition to further claims, examinations or adverse publicity that could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

In accordance with applicable accounting standards, the Company establishes an accrued liability for contingent litigation and regulatory matters when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and can be reasonably estimated. In such cases, there still may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts reasonably estimated and accrued. When a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability, but continues to monitor, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling a matter, further developments that would make such loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. Once the Company establishes an accrued liability with respect to a loss contingency, the Company continues to monitor the matter for further developments that could affect the amount of the accrued liability that has been previously established, and any appropriate adjustments are made each quarter.

Certain legal and regulatory proceedings are described below.

In October 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Roger Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise Financial, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against the Company, certain of its present or former employees and directors, as well as certain fiduciary committees on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Ameriprise Financial 401(k) Plan. The alleged class period is from October 1, 2005 to the present. The action alleges that Ameriprise breached fiduciary duties under ERISA, by selecting and retaining primarily proprietary mutual funds with allegedly poor performance histories, higher expenses relative to other investment options and improper fees paid to Ameriprise Financial or its subsidiaries. The action also alleges that the Company breached fiduciary duties under ERISA because it paid excessive record-keeping fees, used its affiliate Ameriprise Trust Company as the Plan trustee and record-keeper and improperly reaped profits from the sale of the record-keeping business to Wachovia Bank, N.A. Plaintiffs allege over $20 million in damages. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 7, 2012. On April 11, 2012, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which was denied on November 20, 2012. On July 3, 2013, the Company moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. On March 20, 2014, the Court filed its decision, granting in part and denying in part the motion. On October 1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Certify Class Action, and by order dated May 23, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion. The case is scheduled to begin trial on April 13, 2015. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter due to the procedural status of the case, the difficulty of predicting the likelihood of success on the merits of any of plaintiffs’ claims, and plaintiffs’ failure to allege any specific, evidence-based damages.

In October 2012, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Jeffers vs. Ameriprise Financial Services, et al. was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois relating to its sales of the Inland Western (now known as Retail Properties of America, Inc. (“RPAI”)) REIT. The action also names as defendants RPAI, several of RPAI’s executives, and several members of RPAI’s board. The action alleges that the Company failed to perform required due diligence and misrepresented various aspects of the REIT including fees charged to clients, risks associated with the product, and valuation of the shares on client account statements. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. The Company was served in December 2012, and, on April 19, 2013, moved to dismiss the complaint. On June 10, 2014, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss. On July 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, naming only Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. as a defendant. On August 11, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing is complete. The Company is awaiting the Court’s ruling. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter due to the early procedural status of the case, the absence of class certification, the lack of a formal demand on the Company by the plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ failure to allege any specific, evidence-based damages.

In September 2011, the California Department of Insurance (“CA DOI”) issued an Order to Show Cause administrative action against the Company’s life insurance subsidiary alleging that certain claims handling practices reviewed in connection with a 2007-2008 market conduct exam did not comply with applicable law. In August 2014, the Company’s life insurance subsidiary and the CA DOI reached an agreement in principle to settle all pending allegations for $800,000, with the exception of a single allegation related to certain coverage determinations made under long term care insurance policies issued between 1989-1992. An administrative hearing on this remaining allegation concluded in November 2014. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter given the procedural status of the matter, the lack of evidence supporting the CA DOI's penalty allegations, and the difficulty of predicting outcomes in these administrative proceedings which involve multiple phases and appellate procedures.

In November 2014, a lawsuit was filed against the Company’s London-based asset management affiliate in England’s High Court of Justice Commercial Court, entitled Otkritie Capital International Ltd and JSC Otkritie Holding v. Threadneedle Asset Management Ltd. and Threadneedle Management Services Ltd. (“Threadneedle Defendants”). Claimants allege that the Threadneedle Defendants should be held liable for the wrongful acts of one of its former employees, who in February 2014 was held jointly and severally liable with several other parties for conspiracy and dishonest assistance in connection with a fraud perpetrated against Claimants in 2011. Claimants allege they were harmed by that fraud in the amount of $120 million. The Threadneedle Defendants have applied to the Court for an Order dismissing the proceedings as an abuse of process of the court. The Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter due to the early procedural status of the case and the failure to allege any specific, evidence based damages.