Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

Through the normal course of investment operations, the Company commits to either purchase or sell securities, 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, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company had off-balance sheet commitments to acquire mortgage loans of $142.3 and $602.0, respectively, and purchase limited partnerships and private placement investments of $473.0 and $455.9, 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, 2017		December 31, 2016
Other fixed maturities-state deposits	$	13.4	$	13.4
Securities pledged⁽¹⁾	1,024.4		767.9
Total restricted assets	$	1,037.8	$	781.3

⁽¹⁾ Includes the fair value of loaned securities of $899.8 and $548.2 as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. In addition, as of September 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, the Company delivered securities as collateral of $124.6 and $219.7, respectively. Loaned securities and securities delivered as collateral are included in Securities pledged on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Litigation, Regulatory Matters and Loss Contingencies

Litigation, regulatory and other loss contingencies arise in connection with the Company's activities as a diversified financial services firm. 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 reasonably 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 is difficult to predict and the amount or range of potential losses associated with these or other loss contingencies, 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, litigation, and other loss contingencies. 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 neither the outcome of pending litigation and regulatory matters, nor potential liabilities associated with other loss contingencies, are likely to have such an effect. However, given the large and indeterminate amounts sought in certain litigation and the inherent unpredictability of all such matters, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain of the Company's litigation or regulatory matters, or liabilities arising from other loss contingencies, 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. For matters for which an accrual has been made, but there remains a reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the amounts accrued or for matters where no accrual is required, the Company develops an estimate of the unaccrued amounts of the reasonably possible range of losses. As of September 30, 2017, the Company estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, in excess of any amounts accrued for these matters as of such date, 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 includes Dezelan v. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-1251)(filed July 26, 2016), a putative class action in which plaintiff, a participant in a 403(b) Plan, seeks to represent a class of plans whose assets are invested in VRIAC “Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds.” Plaintiff alleges that VRIAC has violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by charging unreasonable fees and setting its own compensation in connection with stable value products. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, damages and attorney’s fees. The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously. On July 19, 2017, the district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, but permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint, and the Company has moved to dismiss that complaint.

Litigation also includes Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Delaware, No. 1:17-cv-1289) (filed September 8, 2017), a putative class action in which plaintiff, a participant in a 401(k) plan, seeks to represent other participants in the plan as well as a class of similarly situated plans that “contract with [Voya] for recordkeeping and other services.” Plaintiff alleges that “Voya” breached its fiduciary duty to the plan and other plan participants by charging unreasonable and excessive recordkeeping fees, and that “Voya” distributed materially false and misleading 404a-5 administrative and fund fee disclosures to conceal its excessive fees. The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.