6. Commitments, contingencies, and guarantees

a) Derivative instruments

Derivative instruments employed

ACE maintains positions in derivative instruments such as futures, options, swaps, and foreign currency forward contracts for which the primary purposes are to manage duration and foreign currency exposure, yield enhancement, or to obtain an exposure to a particular financial market. Along with convertible bonds and to be announced mortgage-backed securities (TBA), discussed below, these are the most numerous and frequent derivative transactions.

ACE maintains positions in convertible bond investments that contain embedded derivatives. In addition, we purchase TBAs as part of our investing activities. These securities are included within the fixed maturities available for sale (FM AFS) portfolio.

Under reinsurance programs covering GLBs, ACE assumes the risk of GLBs, including GMIB and GMAB, associated with variable annuity contracts. The GMIB risk is triggered if, at the time the contract holder elects to convert the accumulated account value to a periodic payment stream (annuitize), the accumulated account value is not sufficient to provide a guaranteed minimum level of monthly income. The GMAB risk is triggered if, at contract maturity, the contract holder’s account value is less than a guaranteed minimum value. The GLB reinsurance product meets the definition of a derivative instrument. Benefit reserves in respect of GLBs are classified as Future policy benefits (FPB) while the fair value derivative adjustment is classified within Accounts payable, accrued expenses, and other liabilities (AP). ACE also maintains positions in exchange-traded equity futures contracts and options on equity market indices to limit equity exposure in the GMDB and GLB blocks of business.

In relation to certain debt issuances, ACE, from time to time, has entered into interest rate swap transactions for the purpose of either fixing or reducing borrowing costs. Although the use of these interest rate swaps has the economic effect of fixing or reducing borrowing costs on a net basis, gross interest expense on the related debt issuances is included in Interest expense while the settlements related to the interest rate swaps are reflected in Net realized gains (losses) in the consolidated statements of operations. At June 30, 2012, ACE had no in-force interest rate swaps.

ACE buys credit default swaps to mitigate global credit risk exposure, primarily related to reinsurance recoverables.

All derivative instruments are carried at fair value with changes in fair value recorded in Net realized gains (losses) in the consolidated statements of operations. None of the derivative instruments are designated as hedges for accounting purposes.

The following table presents the balance sheet locations, fair values in an asset or (liability) position, and notional values/payment provisions of our derivative instruments:


			June 30, 2012					December 31, 2011
	Consolidated Balance Sheet Location		Fair Value			Notional Value/ Payment Provision		Fair Value			Notional Value/ Payment Provision
			(in millions of U.S. dollars)
Investment and embedded derivative instruments
Foreign currency forward contracts		AP	$	(4	)	$	771	$	7		$	674
Cross-currency swaps		AP		—			50		—			—
Futures contracts on money market instruments		AP		3			2,077		7			10,476
Futures contracts on notes and bonds		AP		(3	)		802		(4	)		1,055
Options on money market instruments		AP		—			3,030		—			292
Convertible bonds		FM AFS		381			364		357			353
TBAs		FM AFS		34			32		60			56

			$	411		$	7,126	$	427		$	12,906

Other derivative instruments
Futures contracts on equities⁽¹⁾		AP	$	(85	)	$	2,125	$	(16	)	$	1,367
Options on equity market indices⁽¹⁾		AP		41			250		54			250
Credit default swaps		AP		1			50		3			350
Other		AP		—			6		—			6

			$	(43	)	$	2,431	$	41		$	1,973

GLB⁽²⁾		AP/FPB	$	(1,560	)	$	1,376	$	(1,505	)	$	1,378

⁽¹⁾	Related to GMDB and GLB blocks of business.

⁽²⁾	Includes both future policy benefits reserves and fair value derivative adjustment. Refer to Note 5 for additional information. Note that the payment provision related to GLB is the net amount at risk. The concept of a notional value does not apply to the GLB reinsurance contracts.

The following table presents net realized gains (losses) related to derivative instrument activity in the consolidated statements of operations:


	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30						June 30
	2012			2011			2012			2011
	(in millions of U.S. dollars)
Investment and embedded derivative instruments
Foreign currency forward contracts	$	8		$	(3	)	$	1		$	(18	)
All other futures contracts and options		(45	)		(24	)		(20	)		(27	)
Convertible bonds		(12	)		(21	)		12			(22	)
TBAs		—			—			—			(1	)

Total investment and embedded derivative instruments	$	(49	)	$	(48	)	$	(7	)	$	(68	)

GLB and other derivative instruments
GLB⁽¹⁾	$	(467	)	$	(70	)	$	(39	)	$	1
Futures contracts on equities⁽²⁾		65			—			(148	)		(63	)
Options on equity market indices⁽²⁾		5			3			(13	)		(5	)
Credit default swaps		1			(2	)		(4	)		(3	)

Total GLB and other derivative instruments	$	(396	)	$	(69	)	$	(204	)	$	(70	)

	$	(445	)	$	(117	)	$	(211	)	$	(138	)

⁽¹⁾	Excludes foreign exchange gains (losses) related to GLB.

⁽²⁾	Related to GMDB and GLB blocks of business.

Derivative instrument objectives

(i) Foreign currency exposure management

A foreign currency forward contract (forward) is an agreement between participants to exchange specific foreign currencies at a future date. ACE uses forwards to minimize the effect of fluctuating foreign currencies.

(ii) Duration management and market exposure

Futures

Futures contracts give the holder the right and obligation to participate in market movements, determined by the index or underlying security on which the futures contract is based. Settlement is made daily in cash by an amount equal to the change in value of the futures contract times a multiplier that scales the size of the contract. Exchange-traded futures contracts on money market instruments, notes and bonds are used in fixed maturity portfolios to more efficiently manage duration, as substitutes for ownership of the money market instruments, bonds and notes without significantly increasing the risk in the portfolio. Investments in futures contracts may be made only to the extent that there are assets under management not otherwise committed.

Exchange-traded equity futures contracts are used to limit exposure to a severe equity market decline, which would cause an increase in expected claims and therefore, reserves for GMDB and GLB reinsurance business.

Options

An option contract conveys to the holder the right, but not the obligation, to purchase or sell a specified amount or value of an underlying security at a fixed price. Option contracts are used in the investment portfolio as protection against unexpected shifts in interest rates, which would affect the duration of the fixed maturity portfolio. By using options in the portfolio, the overall interest rate sensitivity of the portfolio can be reduced. Option contracts may also be used as an alternative to futures contracts in the synthetic strategy as described above.

Another use for option contracts is to limit exposure to a severe equity market decline, which would cause an increase in expected claims and therefore, reserves for GMDB and GLB reinsurance business.

The price of an option is influenced by the underlying security, expected volatility, time to expiration, and supply and demand.

The credit risk associated with the above derivative financial instruments relates to the potential for non-performance by counterparties. Although non-performance is not anticipated, in order to minimize the risk of loss, management monitors the creditworthiness of its counterparties and obtains collateral. The performance of exchange-traded instruments is guaranteed by the exchange on which they trade. For non-exchange-traded instruments, the counterparties are principally banks which must meet certain criteria according to our investment guidelines.

Cross-currency swaps

We use cross-currency swaps to manage specific foreign currency denominated investments. These swaps enable us to reduce the duration gap between assets and liabilities by more closely matching the liabilities with the maturities of the underlying bonds.

Interest rate swaps

We use interest rate swaps related to certain debt issuances for the purpose of either fixing and/or reducing borrowing costs.

Credit default swaps

A credit default swap is a bilateral contract under which two counterparties agree to isolate and separately trade the credit risk of at least one third-party reference entity. Under a credit default swap agreement, a protection buyer pays a periodic fee to a protection seller in exchange for a contingent payment by the seller upon a credit event (such as a default or failure to pay) related to the reference entity. When a credit event is triggered, the protection seller pays the protection buyer the difference between the fair value of assets and the principal amount. We have purchased a credit default swap to mitigate our global credit risk exposure to one of our reinsurers.

(iii) Convertible security investments

A convertible bond is a debt instrument that can be converted into a predetermined amount of the issuer’s equity at certain times prior to the bond’s maturity. The convertible option is an embedded derivative within the fixed maturity host instruments which are classified in the investment portfolio as available for sale. ACE purchases convertible bonds for their total return and not specifically for the conversion feature.

(iv) TBA

By acquiring a TBA, we make a commitment to purchase a future issuance of mortgage-backed securities. For the period between purchase of the TBA and issuance of the underlying security, we account for our position as a derivative in the consolidated financial statements. ACE purchases TBAs both for their total return and for the flexibility they provide related to our mortgage-backed security strategy.

(v) GLB

Under the GLB program, as the assuming entity, ACE is obligated to provide coverage until the expiration or maturity of the underlying annuities. Premiums received under the reinsurance treaties are classified as premium. Expected losses allocated to premiums received are classified as Future policy benefits and valued similar to GMDB reinsurance. Other changes in fair value, principally arising from changes in expected losses allocated to expected future premiums, are classified as Net realized gains (losses). Fair value represents management’s estimate of exit price and thus, includes a risk margin. We may recognize a realized loss for other changes in fair value due to adverse changes in the capital markets (e.g., declining interest rates and/or declining equity markets) and changes in actual or estimated future policyholder behavior (e.g., increased annuitization or decreased lapse rates) although we expect the business to be profitable. We believe this presentation provides the most meaningful disclosure of changes in the underlying risk within the GLB reinsurance programs for a given reporting period.

b) Other investments

At June 30, 2012, included in Other investments in the consolidated balance sheet are investments in limited partnerships and partially-owned investment companies with a carrying value of $1,592 million. In connection with these investments, we have commitments that may require funding of up to $1,184 million over the next several years.

c) Taxation

In April 2012, ACE reached final settlement with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Appeals Division regarding several issues raised by the IRS Examination Division in its federal tax returns for 2005, 2006 and 2007. The settlement of these issues had no net impact on our results of operations. In addition, the IRS completed its field examination of ACE’s federal tax returns for 2008 and 2009 during June 2012. No material adjustments resulted from this examination. It is reasonably possible that over the next twelve months, the amount of unrecognized tax benefits may change resulting from the re-evaluation of unrecognized tax benefits arising from examinations of taxing authorities and the closing of tax statutes of limitations. With few exceptions, ACE is no longer subject to state and local or non-U.S. income tax examinations for years before 2005.

d) Legal proceedings

(i) Claims and other litigation

Our insurance subsidiaries are subject to claims litigation involving disputed interpretations of policy coverages and, in some jurisdictions, direct actions by allegedly-injured persons seeking damages from policyholders. These lawsuits, involving claims on policies issued by our subsidiaries which are typical to the insurance industry in general and in the normal course of business, are considered in our loss and loss expense reserves. In addition to claims litigation, we are subject to lawsuits and regulatory actions in the normal course of business that do not arise from or directly relate to claims on insurance policies. This category of business litigation typically involves, among other things, allegations of underwriting errors or misconduct, employment claims, regulatory activity, or disputes arising from our business ventures. In the opinion of management, our ultimate liability for these matters is not likely to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, although it is possible that the effect could be material to our consolidated results of operations for an individual reporting period.

(ii) Business practices litigation

ACE Limited, ACE INA Holdings Inc., and ACE USA, Inc., along with a number of other insurers and brokers, were named in a series of federal putative nationwide class actions brought by insurance policyholders. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) consolidated these cases in the District of New Jersey. On August 1, 2005, plaintiffs in the New Jersey consolidated proceedings filed two consolidated amended complaints – one concerning commercial insurance and the other concerning employee benefit plans. The employee benefit plans litigation against ACE Limited has been dismissed.

In the commercial insurance complaint, the plaintiffs named ACE Limited, ACE INA Holdings Inc., ACE USA, Inc., ACE American Insurance Co., Illinois Union Insurance Co., and Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America. They allege that certain brokers and insurers, including certain ACE entities, conspired to increase premiums and allocate customers through the use of “B” quotes and contingent commissions. In addition, they allege that the broker defendants received additional income by improperly placing their clients’ business with insurers through related wholesale entities that acted as intermediaries between brokers and insurers. Plaintiffs also allege that broker defendants tied the purchase of primary insurance to the placement of such coverage with reinsurance carriers through the broker defendants’ reinsurance broker subsidiaries. The complaint asserts the following causes of action against the ACE defendants: Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), federal antitrust law, state antitrust law, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

In 2006 and 2007, the Court dismissed plaintiffs’ first two attempts to properly plead a case without prejudice and permitted plaintiffs one final opportunity to re-plead. The amended complaint, filed on May 22, 2007, purported to add several new ACE defendants: ACE Group Holdings, Inc., ACE US Holdings, Inc., Westchester Fire Insurance Company, INA Corporation, INA Financial Corporation, INA Holdings Corporation, ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Company, and Pacific Employers Insurance Company. Plaintiffs also added a new antitrust claim against Marsh, the ACE defendants, and other insurers based on the same allegations as the other claims but limited to excess casualty insurance. In 2007, the Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ antitrust and RICO claims with prejudice. The Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On August 16, 2010, the Third Circuit affirmed, in part, and vacated, in part, the District Court’s previous dismissals with instructions for further briefing at the District Court on remand. Defendants renewed their motions consistent with the Third Circuit’s instructions. On June 28, 2011, the District Court administratively terminated defendants’ motions without prejudice to re-file after adjudication of issues related to a proposed class settlement involving a number of other parties and stayed the case. On October 17, 2011 the Court lifted the stay and indicated that it will issue a new scheduling order in the coming months. On April 30, 2012 the Court entered a discovery scheduling order; discovery is ongoing.

As of July 31, 2012, plaintiffs have not specified an amount of alleged damages and the Court has not decided defendants’ renewed motions to dismiss. The Court has also not determined if this case may proceed as a class action and has, therefore, not determined the size or scope of any class. As a result, ACE is unable to reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation.

There are a number of federal actions brought by policyholders based on allegations similar to the allegations in the consolidated federal actions that were filed in, or transferred to, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for coordination (“tag-along cases”). On October 17, 2011 the Court lifted the stay and indicated that it will issue a new scheduling order. On April 30, 2012 the Court entered a discovery scheduling order; discovery is ongoing.

•

New Cingular Wireless Headquarters LLC et al. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. et al. (Case No. 06-5120; D.N.J.), was originally filed in the Northern District of Georgia on April 4, 2006. ACE Limited, ACE American Ins. Co., ACE USA, Inc., ACE Bermuda Insurance Ltd., Illinois Union Ins. Co., Pacific Employers Ins. Co., and Lloyd’s of London Syndicate 2488 AGM, along with a number of other insurers and brokers, are named.

•

Avery Dennison Corp. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. et al. (Case No. 07-00757; D.N.J.) was filed on February 13, 2007. ACE Limited, ACE INA Holdings Inc., ACE USA, Inc., and ACE American Insurance Co., along with a number of other insurers and brokers, are named.

•

Henley Management Co., Inc. et al. v. Marsh, Inc. et al. (Case No. 07-2389; D.N.J.) was filed on May 27, 2007. ACE USA, Inc., along with a number of other insurers and Marsh, Inc., are named.

•

Sears, Roebuck & Co. et al. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. et al. (Case No. 07-2535; D.N.J.) was originally filed in the Northern District of Georgia on October 12, 2007. ACE American Insurance Co., ACE Bermuda Insurance Ltd., and Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Co., along with a number of other insurers and brokers, are named.

•

Lincoln Adventures LLC et al. v. Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Members of Syndicates 0033 et al. (Case No. 07-60991; D.N.J.) was originally filed in the Southern District of Florida on July 13, 2007. Supreme Auto Transport LLC et al. v. Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s of London, et al. (Case No. 07-6703; D.N.J.) (Supreme Auto) was originally filed in the Southern District of New York on July 25, 2007. Lloyd’s of London Syndicate 2488 AGM, along with a number of other Lloyd’s of London Syndicates and various brokers, are named in both actions. The allegations in these putative class-action lawsuits are similar to the allegations in the consolidated federal actions identified above, although these lawsuits focus on alleged conduct within the London insurance market. On May 29, 2012 the Supreme Auto case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiffs.

As of July 31, 2012, plaintiffs have not specified an amount of alleged damages in any of the remaining tag-along cases. The proceedings in the tag-along cases were stayed at a very early stage, before the ACE defendants could challenge the sufficiency of the claims with, for example, motions to dismiss. Also, the scope of the tag-along cases, in large part, will be affected by the outcome of the Multidistrict Litigation Court’s decision on defendants’ renewed motions to dismiss. As a result, ACE is unable to reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from these litigations.

In addition to the related federal cases, there are two state cases with allegations similar to those in the consolidated federal actions described above:

•

Van Emden Management Corporation v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al. (Case No. 05-0066A; Superior Court of Massachusetts), a class action in Massachusetts, was filed on January 13, 2005. Illinois Union Insurance Company is named. The Van Emden case has been stayed pending resolution of the consolidated proceedings in the District of New Jersey or until further order of the Court.

As of July 31, 2012, plaintiffs have not specified an amount of alleged damages in this case. The proceedings were stayed at a very early stage, before Illinois Union could challenge the sufficiency of the claims with, for example, a motion to dismiss. As a result, ACE is unable to reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation.

•

State of Ohio, ex. rel. Marc E. Dann, Attorney General v. American Int’l Group, Inc. et al. (Case No. 07-633857; Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio) is an Ohio state action filed by the Ohio Attorney General on August 24, 2007. ACE INA Holdings Inc., ACE American Insurance Co., ACE Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Insurance Company of North America, and Westchester Fire Insurance Co., along with a number of other insurance companies and Marsh, are named. In December 2011 the ACE parties agreed to settle the case for $1.97 million. On December 27, 2011 the case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

In all of the lawsuits described above, except where specifically noted, plaintiffs seek compensatory and in some cases special damages without specifying an amount. As a result, ACE cannot at this time estimate its potential costs related to these legal matters and, accordingly, no liability for compensatory damages has been established in the consolidated financial statements.

ACE’s ultimate liability for these matters is not likely to have a material adverse effect on ACE’s consolidated financial condition, although it is possible that the effect could be material to ACE’s consolidated results of operations for an individual reporting period.