Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

Through the normal course of investment operations, the Company commits to either purchase or sell securities, commercial mortgage loans, or money market instruments, at a specified future date and at a specified price or yield. The inability of counterparties to honor these commitments may result in either a higher or lower replacement cost. Also, there is likely to be a change in the value of the securities underlying the commitments.

As of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Company had off-balance sheet commitments to purchase investments equal to their fair value of $472.1 and $466.8, respectively.

Restricted Assets

The Company is required to maintain assets on deposit with various regulatory authorities to support its insurance operations. The Company may also post collateral in connection with certain securities lending, repurchase agreements, funding agreements, letter of credit ("LOC") and derivative transactions as described further in this note. The components of the fair value of the restricted assets were as follows as of the dates indicated:



	September 30, 2014		December 31, 2013
Other fixed maturities-state deposits	$	13.3	$	13.1
Securities pledged⁽¹⁾	148.0		140.1
Total restricted assets	$	161.3	$	153.2

⁽¹⁾ Includes the fair value of loaned securities of $100.1 and $97.6 as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, which is included in Securities pledged on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. In addition, as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the Company delivered securities as collateral of $47.9 and $42.5, respectively, which is included in Securities pledged on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Litigation and Regulatory Matters

The Company is a defendant in a number of litigation matters arising from the conduct of its business, both in the ordinary course and otherwise. In some of these matters, claimants seek to recover very large or indeterminate amounts, including compensatory, punitive, treble and exemplary damages. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages and other relief. Claimants are not always required to specify the monetary damages they seek or they may be required only to state an amount sufficient to meet a court's jurisdictional requirements. Moreover, some jurisdictions allow claimants to allege monetary damages that far exceed any reasonable possible verdict. The variability in pleading requirements and past experience demonstrates that the monetary and other relief that may be requested in a lawsuit or claim often bears little relevance to the merits or potential value of a claim. Litigation against the Company includes a variety of claims including negligence, breach of contract, fraud, violation of regulation or statute, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, failure to supervise, elder abuse and other torts.

As with other financial services companies, the Company periodically receives informal and formal requests for information from various state and federal governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations in connection with inquiries and investigations of the products and practices of the Company or the financial services industry. It is the practice of the Company to cooperate fully in these matters. Regulatory investigations, exams, inquiries and audits could result in regulatory action against the Company. The potential outcome of such action is difficult to predict but could subject the Company to adverse consequences, including, but not limited to, settlement payments, additional payments to beneficiaries, and additional escheatment of funds deemed abandoned under state laws. They may also result in fines and penalties and changes to the Company's procedures for the identification and escheatment of abandoned property or the correction of processing errors and other financial liability.

The outcome of a litigation or regulatory matter and the amount or range of potential loss is difficult to forecast and estimating potential losses requires significant management judgment. It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome or to provide reasonably possible losses or ranges of losses for all pending regulatory matters and litigation. While it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain cases could have a material adverse effect upon the Company's financial position, based on information currently known, management believes that the outcome of pending litigation and regulatory matters is not likely to have such an effect. However, given the large and indeterminate amounts sought and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain of the Company's litigation or regulatory matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect upon the Company's results of operations or cash flows in a particular quarterly or annual period.

For some matters, the Company is able to estimate a possible range of loss. For such matters in which a loss is probable, an accrual has been made. For matters where the Company, however, believes a loss is reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual is required. This paragraph contains an estimate of reasonably possible losses above any amounts accrued. For matters for which an accrual has been made, but there remains a reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the amounts accrued, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the accrued amounts. For matters for which a reasonably possible (but not probable) range of loss exists, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible and unaccrued loss or range of loss. As of September 30, 2014, the Company estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of any amounts accrued for these matters is not material to the Company.

For other matters, the Company is currently not able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The Company is often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from plaintiffs and other parties, investigation of factual allegations, rulings by a court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts and the progress of settlement discussions. On a quarterly and annual basis, the Company reviews relevant information with respect to litigation and regulatory contingencies and updates the Company's accruals, disclosures and reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews.

Litigation against the Company includes a case styled Healthcare Strategies, Inc., Plan Administrator of the Healthcare Strategies Inc. 401(k) Plan v. ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (U.S.D.C. D. CT, filed February 22, 2011), in which sponsors of 401(k) Plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") claim that ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (now known as Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, "VRIAC") has entered into revenue sharing agreements with mutual funds and others in violation of the prohibited transaction rules of ERISA. Among other things, the plaintiffs seek disgorgement of all revenue sharing payments and profits earned in connection with such payments, an injunction barring the practice of revenue sharing and attorney fees. On September 26, 2012, the district court certified the case as a class action in which the named plaintiffs represent approximately 15,000 similarly situated plan sponsors. On April 11, 2014, the parties submitted to the court a motion for preliminary approval of a class-wide settlement agreement under which VRIAC, without admitting liability, would make a payment to the class of approximately $15.0 and adopt certain changes in its disclosure practices. Final court approval will be required before the settlement becomes effective. On September 25, 2014, the court approved the settlement.