Litigation and Regulatory Matters

The Company is subject to legal and regulatory actions in the ordinary course of its businesses. Pending legal and regulatory actions include proceedings relating to aspects of the Company’s businesses and operations that are specific to it and proceedings that are typical of the businesses in which it operates, including in both cases businesses that have been either divested or placed in wind down status. Some of these proceedings have been brought on behalf of various alleged classes of complainants. In certain of these matters, the plaintiffs are seeking large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive or exemplary damages. The outcome of litigation or a regulatory matter, and the amount or range of potential loss at any particular time, is often inherently uncertain.

The Company establishes accruals for litigation and regulatory matters when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of that loss can be reasonably estimated. For litigation and regulatory matters where a loss may be reasonably possible, but not probable, or is probable but not reasonably estimable, no accrual is established but the matter, if potentially material, is disclosed, including matters discussed below. The Company estimates that as of December 31, 2017, the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of accruals established for those litigation and regulatory matters for which such an estimate currently can be made is less than $250 million. Any estimate is not an indication of expected loss, if any, or the Company’s maximum possible loss exposure on such matters. The Company reviews relevant information with respect to its litigation and regulatory matters on a quarterly and annual basis and updates its accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible loss based on such reviews.

Labor and Employment Matters

Prudential of Brazil Labor and Employment Matters

Prudential of Brazil (“POB”) sells insurance products to consumers through life planner franchisees (“Life Planners”), who are engaged as independent life insurance brokers and not as employees. When a Life Planner’s contractual relationship with POB is terminated, in many cases the Life Planner commences a labor suit against POB alleging entitlement to employment related benefits. POB is a defendant in numerous such lawsuits in Brazil brought by former Life Planners, and has been subject to regulatory actions challenging the validity of POB's franchise model. POB has recently modified its franchise model to, among other things, mitigate the labor risk involving Life Planners. POB may continue to become subject to additional Life Planner labor suits and regulatory actions in the future notwithstanding the steps that POB has taken to attempt to mitigate the labor risk.

Individual Annuities, Individual Life and Group Insurance

Wells Fargo MyTerm Sales

In December 2016, the Company announced that it suspended sales of its MyTerm life insurance product through Wells Fargo pending completion of a Company-initiated review of how the product was being sold through Wells Fargo. The Company has offered to reimburse the full amount of premium with interest, to any Wells Fargo customers with concerns about the way in which the product was purchased. Wells Fargo distributed the product from June 2014 until sales were suspended, and Prudential Financial’s total annualized new business premiums associated with sales through Wells Fargo were approximately $4 million. Annualized new business premiums include 100% of scheduled first year premiums for policies sold during this period.

The Company has received inquiries, requests for information, subpoenas and a civil investigative demand related to this matter from state and federal regulators, including its lead state insurance regulator, NJDOBI, state attorneys general and federal legislators, and is responding to these requests. The Company has also received shareholder demands for certain books and records under New Jersey law. Litigation related to this matter is described below. The Company may become subject to additional regulatory inquiries and other investigations and actions, shareholder demands and litigation related to this matter. The Company has provided notice to Wells Fargo that it may seek indemnification under the MyTerm distribution agreement between the parties. In December 2017, NJDOBI ended its investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of improper activity by Prudential regarding the sale and marketing of MyTerm policies to Wells Fargo customers.

Broderick v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al.

In December 2016, a complaint entitled Julie Han Broderick, Darron Smith and Thomas Schreck v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al., was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division - Essex County. The complaint: (i) alleges that defendants terminated plaintiffs’ employment for engaging in whistleblowing conduct involving the sale of MyTerm policies through Wells Fargo and violated New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act; and (ii) seeks back and front pay, compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. In January 2017, defendants filed an answer to the complaint.

Alex Perea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al.

In December 2016, a putative class action complaint entitled Alex Perea, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Pruco Life Insurance Company, Pruco Life Insurance Company of New Jersey, and Pruco Life Insurance Company, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint: (i) alleges that defendants conspired with Wells Fargo to sell a life insurance product to Wells Fargo customers without their knowledge or consent and violated federal law (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)) and New Jersey law (Consumer Fraud Act); and (ii) seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, exemplary and statutory penalties, treble damages, interest and attorneys’ fees and costs. In January 2017, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging the same claims contained in the complaint. In February 2017, the amended complaint was withdrawn with prejudice. This case is now closed.

Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America

In September 2010, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”)-governed employee welfare benefit plans was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, challenging the use of retained asset accounts in employee welfare benefit plans to settle death benefit claims as a violation of ERISA and seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits. In July 2011, Prudential Insurance’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. In April 2012, the court stayed the case pending the outcome of a case involving another insurer that is before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In August 2014, the court lifted the stay, and in September 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to amend the complaint. In July 2015, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint added two new class representatives, a new common law breach of fiduciary duty claim, and a prohibited transactions claim under Section 406(a)(1)(C) of ERISA. In August 2015, Prudential Insurance filed its answer to the first amended complaint. In February 2016, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion. In September 2016, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was denied, and in October 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. In December 2016, the motion for reconsideration was denied. In February 2017, all parties filed motions for summary judgment. In December 2017, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to their breach of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA, dismissed plaintiffs’ state law claim, and denied the motions for summary judgment on the prohibited transaction claim. In December 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the prior orders denying class certification. In January 2018, the court denied in part, and granted in part, plaintiffs’ class certification motion and certified a class limited to participants in the two employer plans involving the named plaintiffs. In February 2018, Prudential Insurance filed a petition with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the class certification decision.

Behfarin v. Pruco Life

In July 2017, a putative class action complaint entitled Richard Behfarin v. Pruco Life Insurance Company was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the Company imposes charges on owners of universal life policies to cure defaults and/or reinstate lapses, that are inconsistent with the applicable universal life policy. The complaint includes claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of California law, and seeks unspecified damages along with declaratory and injunctive relief. In September 2017, the Company filed its answer to the complaint.

Escheatment Litigation

State of West Virginia ex. Rel. John D. Perdue v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America

In September 2012, the State of West Virginia, through its State Treasurer, filed a lawsuit against Prudential Insurance in the Circuit court of Putnam County, West Virginia. The complaint alleges violations of the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Fund Act by failing to properly identify and report all unclaimed insurance policy proceeds which should either be paid to beneficiaries or escheated to West Virginia. The complaint seeks to examine the records of Prudential Insurance to determine compliance with the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Fund Act, and to assess penalties and costs in an undetermined amount. In June 2015, the West Virginia Supreme court issued a decision: (i) reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the West Virginia Treasurer’s complaint alleging violations of West Virginia’s unclaimed property law; and (ii) remanding the case to the Circuit court of Putnam County for proceedings consistent with its decision. In July 2015, a petition for rehearing was filed with the West Virginia Supreme court. In September 2015, the West Virginia Supreme court of Appeals denied Prudential Insurance’s rehearing petition. In November 2015, Prudential Insurance filed its answer.

State of West Virginia ex. Rel. John D. Perdue v. Pruco Life

In October 2012, the State of West Virginia commenced a second action against Pruco Life making the same allegations stated in the action against Prudential Insurance. In April 2013, Pruco Life filed motions to dismiss the complaints in both of the West Virginia actions. In December 2013, the court granted Pruco Life’s motions and dismissed the complaints with prejudice. In January 2014, the State of West Virginia appealed the decisions. In June 2015, the West Virginia Supreme court issued a decision: (i) reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the West Virginia Treasurer’s complaint alleging violations of West Virginia’s unclaimed property law; and (ii) remanding the case to the Circuit court of Putnam County for proceedings consistent with its decision. In July 2015, a petition for rehearing was filed with the West Virginia Supreme court. In September 2015, the West Virginia Supreme court of Appeals denied Pruco Life’s rehearing petition. In November 2015, Pruco Life filed its answer.

Total Asset Recovery Services, LLC v. MetLife, Inc., et al., Prudential Financial, Inc., The Prudential Insurance Company of America, and Prudential Insurance Agency, LLC

On December 27, 2017, Total Asset Recovery Services, LLC, on behalf of the State of New York, filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against, among other 19 defendants, Prudential Financial, Inc., The Prudential Insurance Company of America and Prudential Insurance Agency, LLC, alleging that the Company failed to escheat life insurance proceeds in violation of the New York False Claims Act. The second amended complaint seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, civil penalties, treble damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Other Matters

Wood II, et al. v. PRIAC

In December 2015, a putative class action complaint entitled, Leonard D. Wood II on behalf of the KeHe Distributors, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Saving Non-Union Plan and Maya Shaw on behalf of the Exco Resources, Inc. 401(k) Plan and all other similarly situated ERISA-covered employee pension benefit plans v. PRIAC was filed in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut. The complaint: (i) seeks certification of a class of all ERISA-covered employee pension benefit plans whose plan assets were invested in group annuity contract stable value funds within six years prior to, on, or after December 3, 2015; and (ii) alleges that PRIAC breached its fiduciary obligations and accepted excessive compensation by crediting rates on the stable value accounts that are less than PRIAC's internal rate of return on those plan assets without disclosing this spread to the plans. In February 2016, PRIAC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In September 2016, the court issued a decision: (i) denying PRIAC’s motion to dismiss the claim alleging that it is a fiduciary under ERISA; and (ii) granting PRIAC’s motion to dismiss the claim alleging non-fiduciary liability. In October 2016, PRIAC filed its Answer. In January 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. In February 2017, the court granted the unopposed motion of plaintiff Wood on behalf of the KeHe plan to dismiss the case as to the KeHe plan without prejudice. In August 2017, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification. In October 2017, the court issued an order confirming the parties’ stipulation dismissing the claims of the sole remaining plaintiff with prejudice. This case is now closed.

Rosen v. PRIAC, et al.

In December 2015, a putative class action complaint entitled Richard A. Rosen, on behalf of the Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and On behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Employee Benefit Plans v. PRIAC, Prudential Bank & Trust, FSB and Prudential Investment Management Services, LLC was filed in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut. The complaint: (i) seeks certification of a class of all ERISA-covered employee pension benefit plans with which Prudential has maintained a contractual relationship based on a group annuity contract or group funding agreement; and (ii) alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary obligations by accepting revenue sharing payments from investment vehicles in its separate accounts and/or by accepting excessive compensation by crediting rates on stable value accounts that are less than PRIAC’s internal rate of return. In April 2016, plaintiff filed an amended complaint: (i) removing Prudential Investment Management Services, LLC, as a defendant; (ii) withdrawing all claims concerning Stable Value Accounts; and (iii) adding as defendants the employer/sponsor of plaintiff’s retirement plan (Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.), and the investment advisor for plaintiff’s retirement plan (Capital Partners, LLC d/b/a Captrust Financial Advisors). In May 2016, the Muir v. PRIAC complaint was consolidated with this lawsuit. In June 2016, PRIAC, along with the other named defendants, filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In December 2016, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss with prejudice. In January 2017, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the Second Circuit. In March 2017, plaintiff filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice as to Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. and Capital Partners, LLC d/b/a Captrust Financial Advisors. In October 2017, a three judge panel from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, and plaintiff subsequently filed a petition for rehearing before the entire Court of Appeals. In December 2017, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff’s request for a rehearing.

Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc.

In October 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America, was filed in the United States district court for the district of New Jersey, claiming that Prudential failed to pay overtime to insurance agents in violation of federal and Pennsylvania law, and that improper deductions were made from these agents’ wages in violation of state law. The complaint sought back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys’ fees. In March 2008, the court conditionally certified a nationwide class on the federal overtime claim. Separately, in March 2008, a purported nationwide class action lawsuit was filed in the United States district court for the Southern district of California, Wang v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance, claiming that the Company failed to pay its agents overtime and provide other benefits in violation of California and federal law and seeking compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts. In September 2008, Wang was transferred to the United States district court for the district of New Jersey and consolidated with the Bouder matter. Subsequent amendments to the complaint resulted in additional allegations involving purported violations of an additional nine states’ overtime and wage payment laws. In February 2010, Prudential moved to decertify the federal overtime class that had been conditionally certified in March 2008 and moved for summary judgment on the federal overtime claims of the named plaintiffs. In July 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of the state law claims. In August 2010, the district court granted Prudential’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the federal overtime claims. In January 2013, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in its entirety. In July 2013, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, permitting plaintiffs to file a motion to certify a class of employee insurance agents seeking recovery under state wage and hour laws. In September 2013, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. In February 2015, the federal district court for New Jersey granted in part, and denied in part, plaintiffs’ renewed class certification motion. It certified for class treatment plaintiffs’ wage payment claims which include allegations that the Company made improper deductions from the wages of its former common law agents in California, New York, and Pennsylvania, and its financial services associates in California and New York. The court denied plaintiffs’ attempt to certify a class based on the Company’s alleged failure to pay overtime to its former common law agents and its financial services associates in California, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania. In March 2015, the Company filed a motion requesting that the court reconsider its decision to partially grant plaintiffs’ renewed class certification motion with regard to its former common law agents. In June 2017, the parties filed a consent motion for preliminary settlement approval. In August 2017, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the parties’ class action settlement. In December 2017, the court issued a Judgment and Order of Dismissal granting the unopposed motion for Certification of Settlement Classes and Final Approval of Settlement and granted the Motion for Attorney Fees. This case is now closed.

Financial Disclosures Concerning Death Benefits and Unclaimed Property

Stephen Silverman, Derivatively on Behalf of Prudential Financial, Inc. v. John R. Strangfeld, et al.

In October 2012, a shareholder derivative lawsuit, was filed in the United States district court for the district of New Jersey, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment by certain senior officers and directors. The complaint names as defendants the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Financial Officer, the Principal Accounting Officer, certain members of the Company’s Board of Directors and a former Director. The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s current and future financial condition based on, among other things, the alleged failure to disclose: (i) potential liability for benefits that should either have been paid to policyholders or their beneficiaries, or escheated to applicable states; and (ii) the extent of the Company’s exposure for alleged state and federal law violations concerning the settlement of claims and the escheatment of unclaimed property. The complaint seeks an undetermined amount of damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and equitable relief including a direction for the Company to reform and to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws. In September 2017, the court issued a stipulated consent order dismissing the complaint without prejudice. This case is now closed.

Paul Memo, Derivatively on Behalf of Prudential Financial, Inc. v. John R. Strangfeld, et al.

In October 2012, the Board of Directors received a shareholder demand letter (the “Demand”), containing allegations of wrongdoing similar to those alleged in the Silverman complaint. The Demand alleges that the Company’s Senior Management: (i) breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith in connection with the management, operation and oversight of the Company’s business; (ii) breached their fiduciary duty of good faith to establish and maintain adequate internal controls; and (iii) breached their fiduciary duties by disseminating false, misleading and/or incomplete information, all in connection with the Company’s alleged failure to use the Social Security Master Death File (“SSMDF”) and to pay beneficiaries and escheat funds to states. The Demand requests that the Board of Directors: (a) undertake an independent internal investigation into Senior Management’s violations of New Jersey and/or federal law; and (b) commence a civil action against each member of Senior Management to recover for the benefit of the Company the amount of damages sustained by the Company as a result of the alleged breaches described above. In response to the Demand, the Board of Directors formed a Special Litigation Committee that retained an outside law firm to investigate the Demand’s allegations. In September 2013, before the conclusion of the Special Litigation Committee’s investigation, the shareholder who submitted the Demand filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit, Paul Memo, Derivatively on Behalf of Prudential Financial, Inc. v. John R. Strangfeld et. al., in New Jersey Superior court, Essex County. The complaint (the “Memo complaint”) names as defendants the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, the Vice Chairman, a former Chief Financial Officer, the Principal Accounting Officer, certain members of the Company’s Board of Directors and a former Director. The complaint repeats the allegations in the Demand and seeks an undetermined amount of damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and equitable relief including a direction for the Company to reform and to improve its corporate governance and internal procedures to comply with applicable laws. In March 2014, the Special Litigation Committee completed its investigation into the Demand’s allegations and concluded that it is neither appropriate nor in the best interests of the Company’s shareholders to pursue any litigation arising from allegations contained in the Demand or in the Memo complaint, and that the Company should seek dismissal of the Memo complaint. In July 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In October 2015, the court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. In November 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the New Jersey Superior court - Appellate Division. In August 2017, the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the trial court decision dismissing the complaint. In September 2017, the plaintiff’s time to appeal the New Jersey Appellate Division’s decision expired. This case is now closed.

Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (“RMBS”) Trustee Litigation

In June 2014, the Company, together with nine other institutional investors, filed six actions in New York state court against certain RMBS trustees. The actions, which are brought derivatively on behalf of more than 2,200 RMBS trusts, seek unspecified damages attributable to the trustees’ alleged failure to: (i) enforce the trusts’ respective repurchase rights against sellers of defective mortgage loans; and (ii) properly monitor the respective mortgage loan servicers. The complaints assert claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939. In July 2014, the Company amended its complaint against each of the six defendants. In November 2014, the Company filed amended complaints against each of the trustee bank defendants in federal court in the Southern District of New York. In December 2014, the New York State court actions were dismissed without prejudice upon the Company’s request. The six actions described above are captioned:

PICA et al. v. Bank of New York Mellon (“BONYM”)

In March 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In March 2016, the court issued a decision involving BONYM’s motion to dismiss: (i) denying the motion to dismiss the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) trust claims for lack of jurisdiction; (ii) denying the motion regarding claims for violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 and breach of contract; and (iii) granting the motion regarding claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.

PICA et al. v. Citibank N.A.

In February 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In September 2015, the court issued a decision involving Citibank's motion to dismiss: (i) with respect to the PSA trusts, granting the motion and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; (ii) with respect to the Indenture trusts, denying the motion regarding claims for breach of contract, violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty concerning the duty to avoid conflicts of interest; and (iii) with respect to the Indenture trusts, granting the motion to dismiss claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty concerning the duty of care. In November 2015, the Company, together with other institutional investors, filed a complaint in New York State Supreme court, captioned Fixed Income Shares: Series M, et al. v. Citibank N.A., asserting claims relating to the PSA trusts. In February 2016, Citibank filed a motion to dismiss the state court complaint. In August 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in state court, and in September 2016, Citibank filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and plaintiffs filed in federal court a motion for class certification. In April 2017, Citibank filed a motion for summary judgment in the federal court action. In June 2017, the state court issued a decision regarding defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint: (i) sustaining plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims concerning Citibank’s pre-Event of Default obligations; (ii) dismissing plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims concerning Citibank’s post-Event of Default obligations; (iii) sustaining plaintiffs’ implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim; (iv) dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty; and (v) dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. In July 2017, Citibank filed an appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, from the June 2017 decision denying, in part, its motion to dismiss. In January 2018, the First Department: (i) affirmed the trial court’s ruling upholding the breach of contract claim based on the trustee’s failure to give written notice of breaches of representations and warranties; and (ii) reversed the trial court’s order that sustained plaintiffs’ breach of contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims concerning servicing violations.

PICA et al. v. Deutsche Bank, et al.

In April 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In January 2016, the court issued a decision involving Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss: (i) with respect to the PSA trusts, granting the motion and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; and (ii) with respect to the Indenture trusts, granting leave for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. In February 2016, the Company, together with other institutional investor plaintiffs, filed an amended complaint in federal court. In March 2016, the Company, together with other institutional investors, filed a complaint in California State Superior court, captioned BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI), et al. v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, asserting claims relating to the PSA trusts. In May 2016, the Company, together with other institutional investors, filed an amended class action complaint in California State Superior court. In July 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended federal court complaint. In August 2016, defendant filed a demurrer and motion to strike the amended state court class action complaint. In October 2016, the court issued a decision regarding defendants motion to dismiss: (i) sustaining plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims concerning the trust at issue; (ii) dismissing plaintiffs’ tort claims for breach of fiduciary duty; and (iii) dismissing plaintiffs’ claims of breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. The court granted plaintiffs’ leave to file an amended complaint. In January 2017, the federal court issued a decision involving Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss: (i) granting the motion with respect to plaintiff’s conflicts of interest claims; and (ii) denying the motion with respect to plaintiffs’ representations-and-warranties claims, servicer-notification claims, event-of-default claims and Trust Indenture Act claims. In February 2017, the court issued a decision regarding defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint: (i) sustaining plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims concerning the failure to remedy known servicing violations as to all sixty-two trusts at issue; (ii) sustaining plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims concerning the failure to enforce seller representation and warranty claims as to forty-one trusts, and dismissing such claims as to the remaining twenty-one trusts; (iii) dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty; and (iv) dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. In January 2018, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification in the state and federal court actions.

PICA et al. v. HSBC, et al.

In January 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In June 2015, the court granted in part, and denied in part, defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and granted leave to file an amended complaint. In July 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In January 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification and appointing class representatives and class counsel. In February 2018, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

PICA et al. v. U.S. Bank N.A.

In February 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In May 2015, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss: (i) declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction regarding claims involving the PSA trusts; and (ii) granting leave for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint asserting direct claims involving the Indenture trusts. In June 2015, the Company, together with other institutional investors, filed a complaint in New York State Supreme court, captioned BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI), et al. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, asserting claims relating to the PSA trusts. In July 2015, plaintiffs filed with the court an amended complaint asserting direct claims relating to the Indenture trusts. In August 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint in the federal court action. In September 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint in the state court action. In February 2016, the federal district court issued a decision involving U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss: (i) upholding the breach of contract and Trust Indenture Act claims; and (ii) dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty and extra-contractual claims. In September 2016, the Company together with other institutional investor plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in state court. In October 2016, U.S. Bank filed a motion to dismiss the amended state court complaint. In November 2016, plaintiffs filed in federal court motions seeking class certification and appointing class representatives and class counsel. In January 2018, the state court issued a decision on U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint: (i) upholding the representation and warranty breach of contract claims for all 770 trusts; (ii) upholding the breach of contract claims related to servicer violations for 77 trusts; and (iii) dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. In January 2018, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in the federal court action.

PICA et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, et al.

In April 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In January 2016, the court issued a decision involving Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss: (i) with respect to the PSA trusts, granting the motion and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; and (ii) with respect to the Indenture trusts, granting leave for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. In February 2016, the Company, together with other institutional investor plaintiffs, filed an amended complaint in federal court. In March 2016, the Company, together with other institutional investors, filed a complaint in California State Superior court, captioned BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI), et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n., asserting claims relating to the PSA trusts. In May 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or to stay the state court action. In July 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed previously in federal court. In October 2016, the court dismissed the state court complaint. In December 2016, the Company, together with other institutional investors, filed a complaint in New York State Court, captioned BlackRock Core Bond Portfolio, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n., asserting claims related to the PSA trusts. In March 2017, the federal court issued an order concerning defendant’s motion to dismiss as to the Indenture trusts: (i) sustaining plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims; plaintiffs’ claims for violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939; and plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest; and (ii) dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty as duplicative of the sustained contract claims. In May 2017, Wells Fargo filed a third-party complaint for contribution against PGIM, Inc., alleging that, in the event the Prudential plaintiff Funds prevail on their claims for damages against Wells Fargo, PGIM must contribute to the award due to PGIM’s alleged breach of fiduciary duties owed to the Funds in managing the Funds’ RMBS investments. In June 2017, Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in New York State Court. In October 2017, PGIM filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint filed by Wells Fargo seeking contribution. In January 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the federal court action.

LIBOR Litigation

Prudential Investment Portfolios 2, f/k/a Dryden Core Investment Fund, o/b/o Prudential Core Short-Term Bond Fund and Prudential Core Taxable Money Market Fund v. Bank of America Corporation, et al.

In May 2014, Prudential Investment Portfolios 2, on behalf of the Prudential Core Short-Term Bond Fund and the Prudential Core Taxable Money Market Fund (the “Funds”), filed an action against ten banks in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting that the banks participated in the setting of LIBOR, a major benchmark interest rate. The complaint alleges that the defendant banks manipulated LIBOR, and asserts, among other things, claims for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, intentional interference with contract and with prospective economic relations, unjust enrichment, breaches of the New Jersey Civil RICO statute, and violations of the Sherman Act. In June 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the action to the United States district court for the Southern District of New York, where it has been consolidated for pre-trial purposes with other pending LIBOR-related actions. In October 2014, the Funds filed an amended complaint. In November 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In August 2015, the court issued a decision granting in part, and denying in part, defendants' motions to dismiss. The court dismissed certain of the Funds' claims, including those alleging fraud based on offering material statements; New Jersey RICO; and express breach of contract. The court upheld certain of the Funds' claims, including those alleging fraud based on false LIBOR submissions to the British Bankers’ Association; negligent misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Following the August 2015 decision, granting in part defendants' motions to dismiss, in September 2015, Prudential filed the following LIBOR complaints: (i) in the Southern District of New York, captioned Prudential Investment Portfolios 2 et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, et al. (the “New York Complaint”), naming as defendants Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Barclays PLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Funding Inc., Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse (USA) Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Holdings PLC, JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Royal Bank of Canada, and The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC. These defendants were dismissed from the original LIBOR action on jurisdictional grounds. The New York complaint reasserts the causes of action brought in the original LIBOR action; and (ii) in the Western district of North Carolina, captioned Prudential Investment Portfolios 2 et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al. (the “North Carolina Complaint”), naming as defendants Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A. These defendants were dismissed from the original LIBOR action on jurisdictional grounds. The North Carolina Complaint reasserts the causes of action brought in the original LIBOR action. Both the New York Complaint and the North Carolina Complaint have been transferred for pre-trial purposes to the LIBOR multi-district litigation presided over by Judge Buchwald in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In May 2016, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s dismissal of the Libor plaintiffs’ antitrust claims and remanded to the district court the question of whether plaintiffs possess standing as "efficient enforcers" of applicable antitrust laws. In July 2016, defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss all antitrust claims based on lack of standing and lack of personal jurisdiction. In December 2016, the motion was granted in part and denied in part. In January 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied defendants’ petition for certiorari. In February 2017, the court clarified its December 2016 order, holding that antitrust claims only exist against panel banks, not their affiliates. This clarification resulted in the Funds’ New Jersey antitrust claims being dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Funds antitrust claims in the New York and North Carolina actions remain pending. In July 2017, the Funds obtained an entry of judgment on the New Jersey antitrust claims dismissed on personal jurisdiction grounds. In July 2017, the Funds filed with the Second Circuit Court an appeal from the dismissal of their New Jersey anti-trust claims.

Regulatory Matters

Escheatment Audit and Claims Settlement Practices Market Conduct Exam

In January 2012, a Global Resolution Agreement entered into by the Company and a third-party auditor became effective upon its acceptance by the unclaimed property departments of 20 states and jurisdictions. Under the terms of the Global Resolution Agreement, the third-party auditor acting on behalf of the signatory states will compare expanded matching criteria to the SSMDF to identify deceased insureds and contractholders where a valid claim has not been made. In February 2012, a Regulatory Settlement Agreement entered into by the Company to resolve a multi-state market conduct examination regarding its adherence to state claim settlement practices became effective upon its acceptance by the insurance departments of 20 states and jurisdictions. The Regulatory Settlement Agreement applies prospectively and requires the Company to adopt and implement additional procedures comparing its records to the SSMDF to identify unclaimed death benefits and prescribes procedures for identifying and locating beneficiaries once deaths are identified. Substantially all other jurisdictions that are not signatories to the Global Resolution Agreement or the Regulatory Settlement Agreement have entered into similar agreements with the Company. During 2017, audits were satisfactorily completed by the third party auditor of the Global Resolution Agreement and by the regulators for the Regulatory Settlement Agreement to assure that the Company had complied with the terms of both agreements.

The New York Attorney General has subpoenaed the Company, along with other companies, regarding its unclaimed property procedures and may ultimately seek remediation and other relief, including damages. Additionally, the New York Office of Unclaimed Funds is conducting an audit of the Company’s compliance with New York’s unclaimed property laws.

Securities Lending Matter

In 2016, the Company self-reported to the SEC and the DOL, and notified other regulators, that in some cases it failed to maximize securities lending income for the benefit of certain separate account investments due to a long-standing restriction benefiting the Company that limited the availability of loanable securities. The Company has removed the restriction and substantially implemented a remediation plan for the benefit of customers. The Company is cooperating with regulators in their review of this matter (which includes a review of the remediation plan) and has entered into discussions with the SEC staff regarding a possible settlement that would potentially involve charges under the Investment Advisers Act and financial remedies. We cannot predict the outcome of these discussions.

Summary

The Company’s litigation and regulatory matters are subject to many uncertainties, and given their complexity and scope, their outcome cannot be predicted. It is possible that the Company’s results of operations or cash flow in a particular quarterly or annual period could be materially affected by an ultimate unfavorable resolution of pending litigation and regulatory matters depending, in part, upon the results of operations or cash flow for such period. In light of the unpredictability of the Company’s litigation and regulatory matters, it is also possible that in certain cases an ultimate unfavorable resolution of one or more pending litigation or regulatory matters could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position. Management believes, however, that, based on information currently known to it, the ultimate outcome of all pending litigation and regulatory matters, after consideration of applicable reserves and rights to indemnification, is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position.