Guarantees and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Guarantees and Contingencies

Guarantees and Contingencies

13.  Guarantees and Contingencies

Guarantees

Owing to conditions then-prevailing in the credit markets and the isolated defaults of unaffiliated structured investment vehicles held in the portfolios of money market funds advised by its Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC subsidiary (the “2a-7 Funds”), the Company closely monitored the net asset value of the 2a-7 Funds during 2008 and through the date of this report and, as circumstances warranted from time to time, injected capital into one or more of the 2a-7 Funds. The Company has not provided a formal capital support agreement or net asset value guarantee to any of the 2a-7 Funds.

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 (“FINRA”), the Federal Reserve Bank, the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, 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. During recent periods, the Company has received information requests, exams or inquiries regarding certain matters, including: sales of, or disclosures pertaining to, mutual funds, annuities, equity and fixed income securities, low priced securities, insurance products, brokerage services, financial advice offerings; trading practices within the Company’s asset management business; supervision of the Company’s financial advisors; information security; and abandoned property and escheatment practices, and claims handling for certain insurance products. 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, the Company is unable to predict the ultimate resolution or range of loss that may result. An adverse outcome in one or more of these proceedings could result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties or other relief, in addition to further claims, examinations or adverse publicity that could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

Certain legal and regulatory proceedings are described below.

In June 2004, an action captioned John E. Gallus et al. v. American Express Financial Corp. and American Express Financial Advisors Inc., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and was later transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs alleged that they were investors in several of the Company’s mutual funds and they purported to bring the action derivatively on behalf of those funds under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ‘40 Act). The plaintiffs alleged that fees allegedly paid to the defendants by the funds for investment advisory and administrative services were excessive. Plaintiffs seek an order declaring that defendants have violated the ‘40 Act and awarding unspecified damages including excessive fees allegedly paid plus interest and other costs. On July 6, 2007, the district court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed the district court’s decision, and on April 8, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Company filed with the United States Supreme Court a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case in light of the Supreme Court’s anticipated review of a similar excessive fee case captioned Jones v. Harris Associates. On March 30, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Jones v. Harris Associates, and on April 5, 2010, the Supreme Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s decision in this case and remanded it to the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Harris Associates. Without any further briefing or argument, on June 4, 2010, the Eighth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Harris Associates. The district court ordered briefing and heard oral argument on September 22, 2010 on the impact of the Jones v. Harris Associates decision. On December 8, 2010, the district court re-entered its July 2007 order granting summary judgment in favor of the Company. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Eighth Circuit on January 10, 2011. The briefing on the appeal is complete and the 8th Circuit has set oral argument for November 17, 2011.

In July 2009, two issuers of private placement interests (Medical Capital Holdings, Inc./Medical Capital Corporation and affiliated corporations and Provident Shale Royalties, LLC and affiliated corporations) sold by the Company’s subsidiary Securities America, Inc. (“SAI”) were the subject of SEC actions (brought against those entities and individuals associated with them), which resulted in the filing of several putative class action lawsuits naming both SAI and Ameriprise Financial, as well as related arbitrations and regulatory inquiries. As previously reported, on April 15, 2011, SAI and its holding company, Securities America Financial Corporation entered into settlement agreements which, in exchange for release of pending arbitration and litigation claims (including certain class action claims pending against the Company and the claims brought by the Liquidating Trustee), provided for the payment of a total of $150 million. The Court issued an order finally approving the class action settlement on August 4, 2011, and since there was no appeal filed, all payments due under the settlements have been fully paid.

In November 2010, the Company’s J.& W. Seligman & Co. Incorporated subsidiary (“Seligman”) received a governmental inquiry regarding an industry insider trading investigation, as previously stated by the Company in general media reporting. The Company continues to cooperate fully with that inquiry. Neither the Company nor Seligman has been accused of any wrongdoing, and the government has confirmed that neither the Company nor any of its affiliated entities is a target of its investigation into potential insider trading.

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 poor performance histories, higher expenses relative to other investment options, and improper fees paid to Ameriprise Financial, Inc. or its subsidiaries. The action also alleges that the Company breached fiduciary duties under ERISA because it 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. The Company plans to vigorously defend itself in this action.