497 1 supplement.htm BOA LAST SURVIVOR supplement.htm
Nationwide Life Insurance Company:
· Nationwide VLI Separate Account - 2
  
 

 
Prospectus supplement dated May 1, 2011
 
to Prospectus dated May 1, 2002
 

This supplement updates certain information contained in your prospectus.  Please read it and keep it with your prospectus for future reference.

 
1.
Your prospectus offers the following sub-accounts as investment options under your policy.  Effective May 1, 2011, these sub-accounts changed names as indicated below:
 
Old Name
New Name
Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust – Gartmore NVIT International Equity Fund: Class I
Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust – NVIT International Equity Fund: Class I
Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust – NVIT Growth Fund: Class I
Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust – American Century NVIT Growth Fund: Class I
Wells Fargo Advantage VT Opportunity Fund
Wells Fargo Advantage VT Opportunity Fund – Class 2

2.
On April 21, 2011, the assets in the fund listed below were moved to the money market fund indicated here:

Old Fund
Liquidating Into
Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust – AllianceBernstein NVIT Global Fixed Income Fund: Class VI
Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust - NVIT Money Market Fund: Class I


3.           The “Legal Proceedings” section of your prospectus is replaced with the following:
 
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. (NFS, or collectively with its subsidiaries, "the Company") was formed in November 1996.  NFS is the holding company for Nationwide Life Insurance Company (NLIC), Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company (NLAIC) and other companies that comprise the life insurance and retirement savings operations of the Nationwide group of companies (Nationwide). This group includes Nationwide Financial Network (NFN), an affiliated distribution network that markets directly to its customer base.  NFS is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal executive offices in Columbus, Ohio.
 
The Company is a subject to legal and regulatory proceedings in the ordinary course of its business. The Company's legal and regulatory matters include proceedings specific to the Company and other proceedings generally applicable to business practices in the industries in which the Company operates. The Company's litigation and regulatory matters are subject to many uncertainties, and given their complexity and scope, their outcomes cannot be predicted. Regulatory proceedings also could affect the outcome of one or more of the Company's litigations matters. Furthermore, it is often not possible to determine the ultimate outcomes of the pending regulatory investigations and legal proceedings or to provide reasonable ranges of potential losses with any degree of certainty. Some matters, including certain of those referred to below, are in very preliminary stages, and the Company does not have sufficient information to make an assessment of the plaintiffs' claims for liability or damages. In some of the cases seeking to be certified as class actions, the court has not yet decided whether a class will be certified or (in the event of certification) the size of the class and class period. In many of the cases, the plaintiffs are seeking undefined amounts of damages or other relief, including punitive damages and equitable remedies, which are difficult to quantify and cannot be defined based on the information currently available. Management believes, however, that based on their currently known information, the ultimate outcome of all pending legal and regulatory matters is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position. Nonetheless, given the large or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters and the inherent

 
 
 

 
unpredictability of litigation, it is possible that such outcomes could materially affect the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations in a particular quarter or annual period.
 
The financial services industry has been the subject of increasing scrutiny on a broad range of issues by regulators and legislators. The Company and/or its affiliates have been contacted by, self reported or received subpoenas from state and federal regulatory agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other governmental bodies, state securities law regulators and state attorneys general for information relating to, among other things, compensation, the allocation of compensation, revenue sharing and bidding arrangements, market-timing, anticompetitive activities, unsuitable sales or replacement practices, fee arrangements in retirement plans, and the use of side agreements and finite reinsurance agreements. The Company is cooperating with regulators in connection with these inquiries and will cooperate with Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (NMIC) in responding to these inquiries to the extent that any inquiries encompass NMIC's operations.
 
A promotional and marketing arrangement associated with the Company's offering of a retirement plan product and related services in Alabama was investigated by the Alabama Attorney General, which assumed the investigation from the Alabama Securities Commission. On October 27, 2010, the State Attorney General announced a settlement agreement, subject to court approval, between the Company and the State of Alabama, the Alabama Department of Insurance, the Alabama Securities Commission, and the Alabama State Personnel Board. If the court approves the settlement agreement, the Company currently expects that the settlement will not have a material adverse impact on its consolidated financial position. It is not possible to predict what effect, if any, the settlement may have on the Company's retirement plan operations with respect to promotional and marketing arrangements in general in the future.
 
On September 10, 2009, Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc. (NRS) was named in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Alabama entitled Twanna Brown, Individually and on behalf of all other persons in Alabama who are similarly situated, v Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc., Alabama State Employees Association, PEBCO, Inc., Edwin "Mac" McArthur, Steve Walkley, Glenn Parker, Ulysses Lavender, Diana McLain, Randy Hebson, and Robert Wagstaff; and Unknown Defendants A-Z. On February 17, 2010, Brown filed an Amended Complaint alleging in Count One, that all the defendants were involved in a civil conspiracy and seeks to recover actual damages, forfeiture of all other payments and/or salaries to be the fruit of such other payments, punitive damages and costs and attorneys fees. In Count Two, although NRS is not named, it is alleged that the remaining defendants breached their fiduciary duties and seeks actual damages, forfeiture of all other payments and/or salaries to be the fruit of such other payments, punitive damages and costs and attorneys fees. In Count Three, although NRS is not named, the plaintiff seeks declaratory relief that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties, seeks injunctive relief permanently removing said defendants from their respective offices in the Alabama State Employees Association (ASEA) and PEBCO and costs and attorneys fees. In Count Four, it alleges that any money Nationwide paid belonged exclusively to ASEA for the use and benefit of its membership at large and not for the personal benefit of the individual defendants. Plaintiff seeks to recover actual damages from the individual defendants, forfeiture of all other payments and/or salaries to be the fruit of such other payments, punitive damages and costs and attorneys fees. On March 10, 2011, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal. The Company continues to defend this case vigorously.
 
On November 20, 2007, NRS and NLIC were named in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama entitled Ruth A. Gwin and Sandra H. Turner, and a class of similarly situated individuals v Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc., Alabama State Employees Association, PEBCO, Inc. and Fictitious Defendants A to Z. On March 12, 2010, NRS and NLIC were named in a Second Amended Class Action Complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama entitled Steven E. Coker, Sandra H. Turner, David N. Lichtenstein and a class of similarly situated individuals v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc, Alabama State Employees Association, Inc., PEBCO, Inc. and Fictitious Defendants A to Z claiming to represent a class of all participants in the ASEA Plan, excluding members of the Deferred Compensation Committee, ASEA's directors, officers and board members, and PEBCO's directors, officers and board members. The class period is from November 20, 2001 to the date of trial. In the second amended class action complaint, the plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty, wantonness and breach of contract. The second amended class action complaint seeks a disgorgement of amounts paid, compensatory damages and punitive damages, plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs and such other equitable and legal relief to which plaintiffs and class members may be entitled. On April 2, 2010, NRS and NLIC filed an answer. On June 4, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On July 8, 2010, the defendants filed their briefs in opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On October 17, 2010, Twanna Brown filed a motion to intervene in this case. On October 22, 2010, the parties to this action executed a stipulation of settlement that agrees to certify a class for settlement purposes only, that provides for payments to the settlement class, and that provides for releases, certain bar

 
 
 

 
orders, and dismissal of the case, subject to the Circuit Courts' approval. After a hearing on November 5, 2010, on November 9, 2010, the Court denied Brown's motion to intervene. On November 13, 2010, the Court issued a Preliminary Approval Order and held a Settlement Fairness Hearing on January 26, 2011. On November 22, 2010, Brown filed a Notice of Appeal with the Supreme Court of Alabama, appealing the Preliminary Approval Order. On January 25, 2011, the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Class notices were sent out on November 24, 2010. On December 3, 2010, Brown filed a motion with the trial court to stay this case. On December 22, 2010, Brown filed with the Alabama Supreme Court, a motion to stay all further Gwin trial court proceedings until Ms. Brown's appeal of the certification order is decided. On January 25, 2011, the Alabama Supreme Court denied Brown's motion to stay. On February 28, 2011, the Court entered its Order permitting ASEA/PEBCO to assert indemnification claims for attorneys' fees and costs, but barring them from asserting any other claims for indemnification. On March 3, 2011, ASEA and PEBCO filed a cross claim against NLIC and NRS seeking indemnification. On March 9, 2011, the Court severed the cross claim. NRS and NLIC continue to defend this case vigorously.
 
On July 11, 2007, NLIC was named in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Tacoma entitled Jerre Daniels-Hall and David Hamblen, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. National Education Association, NEA Member Benefits Corporation, Nationwide Life Insurance Company, Security Benefit Life Insurance Company, Security Benefit Group, Inc., Security Distributors, Inc., et al. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all current or former NEA members who participated in the NEA Valuebuilder 403(b) program at any time between January 1, 1991 and the present (and their heirs and/or beneficiaries). The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated ERISA by failing to prudently and loyally manage plan assets, by failing to provide complete and accurate information, by engaging in prohibited transactions, and by breaching their fiduciary duties when they failed to prevent other fiduciaries from breaching their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks to have the defendants restore all losses to the plan, restoration of plan assets and profits to participants, disgorgement of endorsement fees, disgorgement of service fee payments, disgorgement of excessive fees charged to plan participants, other unspecified relief for restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. On May 23, 2008, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 19, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On December 20, 2010, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of this case and entered judgment. The plaintiffs did not file a writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court. NLIC intends to continue to defend this case vigorously.
 
On August 15, 2001, NFS and NLIC were named in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut entitled Lou Haddock, as trustee of the Flyte Tool & Die, Incorporated Deferred Compensation Plan, et al v. Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life Insurance Company. In the plaintiffs' sixth amended complaint, filed November 18, 2009, they amended the list of named plaintiffs and claim to represent a class of qualified retirement plan trustees under ERISA that purchased variable annuities from NLIC. The plaintiffs allege that they invested ERISA plan assets in their variable annuity contracts and that NLIC and NFS breached ERISA fiduciary duties by allegedly accepting service payments from certain mutual funds. The complaint seeks disgorgement of some or all of the payments allegedly received by NFS and NLIC, other unspecified relief for restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. On November 6, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification and certified a class of "All trustees of all employee pension benefit plans covered by ERISA which had variable annuity contracts with NFS and NLIC or whose participants had individual variable annuity contracts with NFS and NLIC at any time from January 1, 1996, or the first date NFS and NLIC began receiving payments from mutual funds based on a percentage of assets invested in the funds by NFS and NLIC, whichever came first, to the date of November 6, 2009". On October 20, 2010, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted NLIC's 23(f) petition agreeing to hear an appeal of the District Court's order granting class certification. On October 21, 2010, the District Court dismissed NFS from the lawsuit. On October 27, 2010, the District Court stayed the underlying action pending a decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 2, 2011, the Company filed its brief in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. NLIC continues to defend this lawsuit vigorously.
 
On May 14, 2010, NLIC was named in a lawsuit filed in the Western District of New York entitled Sandra L. Meidenbauer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company. The plaintiff claims to represent a class of all individuals who purchased a variable life insurance policy from NLIC during an unspecified period. The complaint claims breach of contract, alleging that NLIC charged excessive monthly deductions and costs of insurance resulting in reduced policy values and, in some cases, premature lapsing of policies. The complaint seeks reimbursement of excessive charges, costs, interest, attorney's fees, and other relief. NLIC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 23, 2010. NLIC filed a motion to disqualify the proposed class representative on August 27, 2010.

 
 
 

 
Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint on September 17, 2010, and NLIC filed an opposition to the motion to amend on November 2, 2010. Those motions have been fully briefed. NLIC continues to vigorously defend this case.
 
On October 22, 2010, NRS was named in a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division entitled Camille McCullough, and Melanie Monroe, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Association of Counties, NACo Research Foundation, NACo Financial Services Corp., NACo Financial Center, and Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc. The Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial was filed on February 18, 2011. If the Court determines that the Plan is governed by ERISA, then Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of "All natural persons in the United States who are currently employed or previously were employed at any point during the six years preceding the date Plaintiffs filed their Original Class Action Complaint, by a government entity that is or was a member of the National Association of Counties, and who participate or participated in the Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plan for Public Employees endorsed by the National Association of Counties and administered by Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc." If the Court determines that the Plan is not governed by ERISA, then the Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of "All natural persons in the United States who are currently employed or previously were employed at any point during the four years preceding the date Plaintiffs filed their Original Class Action Complaint, by a government entity that is or was a member of the National Association of Counties, and who participate or participated in a Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plan for Public Employees endorsed by the National Association of Counties and administered by Nationwide Retirement Solutions, Inc." The First Amended Complaint alleges ERISA Violation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty - NACo, Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty - Nationwide, Breach of Fiduciary Duty - Nationwide, and Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary Duty - NACo. The First Amended Complaint asks for actual damages, lost profits, lost opportunity costs, restitution, and/or other injunctive or other relief, including without limitation (a) ordering Nationwide and NACo to restore all plan losses, (b) ordering Nationwide to refund all fees associated with Nationwide's Plan to Plaintiffs and Class members, (c) ordering NACo and Nationwide to pay the expenses and losses incurred by Plaintiffs and/or any Class member as a proximate result of Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty, (d) forcing NACo to forfeit the fees that NACo received from Nationwide for promoting and endorsing its Plan and disgorging all profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained by NACo from its wrongful conduct, and (e) awarding Plaintiff and Class members their reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and cost incurred in connection with this suit, punitive damages, and pre-judgment and post judgment interest, at the highest rates allowed by law, on the damages awarded. On March 21, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' first amended complaint. The Company intends to defend this case vigorously.
 
On December 27, 2006, NLIC and NRS were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in Circuit Court, Cole County Missouri entitled State of Missouri, Office of Administration, and Missouri State Employees Deferred Comp Plan v NLIC and NRS. The complaint seeks recovery for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against NLIC and NRS as well as a breach of fiduciary duty against NRS. The complaint seeks to recover the amount of the market value adjustment withheld by NLIC ($18,586,380), prejudgment interest, loss of investment income from ING due to Nationwide's assessment of the market value adjustment, and an accounting. On March 8, 2007 the Company filed a motion to remove this case from state court to federal court in Missouri. On March 20, 2007 the State filed a motion to remand to state court and to stay court order. On April 3, 2007 the case was remanded to state court. On June 25, 2007 the Companies filed an Answer. On October 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed a partial motion for summary judgment. On November 20, 2009, the Companies filed a response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and also filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the Companies. On February 26, 2010, the court denied Missouri's partial motion for summary judgment and granted Nationwide's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. On March 8, 2011, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the granting of Nationwide's motion for summary judgment and directed the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the State and against Nationwide in the amount of $18,586,380, plus statutory interest at the rate of 9% per annum from June 2, 2006. On March 22, 2011, the Companies filed with the Missouri Court of Appeals, a motion for rehearing and an application for transfer to the Supreme Court of Missouri. The Companies intend to defend this case vigorously.
 
The general distributor, NISC, is not engaged in any litigation of any material nature.