Guarantees and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Guarantees and Contingencies
Guarantees and Contingencies	15. Guarantees and Contingencies Guarantees 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. Uncertainty and volatility in the U.S. economy and financial markets in recent years have weakened the financial condition of numerous insurers, including insurers currently in receiverships, increasing the risk of triggering guaranty fund assessments. 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. Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (“ELNY”) was placed into rehabilitation by a New York state court in 1991. On April 16, 2012, the court issued an order converting the rehabilitation into a liquidation proceeding under a plan submitted by the New York insurance regulator with support from NOLHGA and the industry. During the second quarter of 2012, the Company established a liability for estimated guaranty fund assessments and a related premium tax asset, primarily associated with ELNY. At March 31, 2013, the estimated liability was $26 million and the related premium tax asset was $19 million. The expected period over which the 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. 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 and financial advice offerings; front office systems and controls; supervision of the Company’s financial advisors; company procedures and information security. The Company is also responding to regulatory audits, market conduct examinations and other inquiries (including inquiries from the states of Minnesota and New York and a multistate examination) 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 such proceedings will be 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 of these proceedings could eventually 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. 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 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, responding to requests for information from both the SEC and U.S. Attorney’s office. 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. 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 difficulty in predicting the direction of the government’s inquiry and the government’s indication of the Company’s status relative to the investigation. 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 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. The Court denied the motion to dismiss on November 20, 2012, and now the parties are engaged in discovery. 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 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. At this time, Plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss is due on May 24, 2013. The Company’s reply in support of its motion to dismiss is due on June 28, 2013. At this time, oral argument on the Company’s motion to dismiss has not been scheduled. 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.

15. Guarantees and Contingencies

Guarantees

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. Uncertainty and volatility in the U.S. economy and financial markets in recent years have weakened the financial condition of numerous insurers, including insurers currently in receiverships, increasing the risk of triggering guaranty fund assessments.

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.

Executive Life Insurance Company of New York (“ELNY”) was placed into rehabilitation by a New York state court in 1991. On April 16, 2012, the court issued an order converting the rehabilitation into a liquidation proceeding under a plan submitted by the New York insurance regulator with support from NOLHGA and the industry.

During the second quarter of 2012, the Company established a liability for estimated guaranty fund assessments and a related premium tax asset, primarily associated with ELNY. At March 31, 2013, the estimated liability was $26 million and the related premium tax asset was $19 million. The expected period over which the 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. 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 and financial advice offerings; front office systems and controls; supervision of the Company’s financial advisors; company procedures and information security. The Company is also responding to regulatory audits, market conduct examinations and other inquiries (including inquiries from the states of Minnesota and New York and a multistate examination) 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 such proceedings will be 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 of these proceedings could eventually 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.

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 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, responding to requests for information from both the SEC and U.S. Attorney’s office. 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. 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 difficulty in predicting the direction of the government’s inquiry and the government’s indication of the Company’s status relative to the investigation.

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 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. The Court denied the motion to dismiss on November 20, 2012, and now the parties are engaged in discovery. 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 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. At this time, Plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss is due on May 24, 2013. The Company’s reply in support of its motion to dismiss is due on June 28, 2013. At this time, oral argument on the Company’s motion to dismiss has not been scheduled. 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.