XML 38 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.24.2.u1

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies | (17) Commitments and Contingencies (a) Litigation and Regulatory Matters We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including the risk of class action lawsuits. Our pending legal and regulatory actions include proceedings specific to us and others generally applicable to business practices in the industries in which we operate. In our insurance operations, we are, have been, or may become subject to class actions and individual suits alleging, among other things, issues relating to sales or underwriting practices, increases to in-force long-term care insurance premiums, payment of contingent or other sales commissions, claims payments and procedures, product design, product disclosure, product administration, additional premium charges for premiums paid on a periodic basis, denial or delay of benefits, charging excessive or impermissible fees on products, recommending unsuitable products to customers, our pricing structures and business practices in our mortgage insurance subsidiaries, such as captive reinsurance arrangements with lenders and contract underwriting services, violations of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act of 1974 or related state anti-inducement laws, and mortgage insurance policy rescissions and curtailments, and breaching fiduciary or other duties to customers, including but not limited to cybersecurity breaches of customer information. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us have sought and/or may seek very large or indeterminate amounts which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. In our investment-related operations, we are subject to litigation involving commercial disputes with counterparties. We are also subject to litigation arising out of our general business activities such as our contractual and employment relationships, including claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, post-closing obligations associated with previous dispositions and securities lawsuits. In addition, we are also subject to various regulatory inquiries, such as information requests, subpoenas, books and record examinations and market conduct and financial examinations from state, federal and international regulators and other authorities. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, we could suffer significant reputational harm, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. TVPX ARX INC. v. GLAIC In September 2018, Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company (“GLAIC”), our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned TVPX ARX INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company . Plaintiff alleges unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges were imposed on policyholders. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, alleging that Genworth improperly considered non-mortality factors when calculating cost of insurance rates and failed to decrease cost of insurance charges in light of improved expectations of future mortality, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and equitable relief. On October 29, 2018, we filed a motion to enjoin the case in the Middle District of Georgia, and a motion to dismiss and motion to stay in the Eastern District of Virginia. We moved to enjoin the prosecution of the Eastern District of Virginia action on the basis that it involves claims released in a prior nationwide class action settlement (the “McBride settlement”) that was approved by the Middle District of Georgia. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2018. On December 6, 2018, we moved the Middle District of Georgia for leave to file our counterclaim, which alleges that plaintiff breached the covenant not to sue contained in the prior settlement agreement by filing its current action. On March 15, 2019, the Middle District of Georgia granted our motion to enjoin and denied our motion for leave to file our counterclaim. As such, plaintiff is enjoined from pursuing its class action in the Eastern District of Virginia. On March 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the order granting our motion to enjoin. On March 29, 2019, we filed our notice of cross-appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of our cross-appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from the portion of the order denying our motion for leave to file our counterclaim. On April 8, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case without prejudice, with leave for plaintiff to refile an amended complaint only if a final appellate Court decision vacates the injunction and reverses the Middle District of Georgia’s opinion . On May 21, 2019, plaintiff filed its appeal and memorandum in support in the Eleventh Circuit. We filed our response to plaintiff’s appeal memorandum on July 3, 2019. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on plaintiff’s appeal and our cross-appeal on April 21, 2020. On May 26, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Middle District of Georgia’s order enjoining plaintiff’s class action and remanded the case back to the Middle District of Georgia for further factual development as to whether Genworth has altered how it calculates or charges cost of insurance since the McBride settlement. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did not reach a decision on Genworth’s counterclaim. On June 30, 2021, we filed in the Middle District of Georgia our renewed motion to enforce the class action settlement and release and renewed our motion for leave to file a counterclaim. The briefing on both motions concluded in October 2021. On March 24, 2022, the Court denied our motions. On April 11, 2022, we filed an appeal of the Court’s denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On June 22, 2022, we filed our opening brief in support of the appeal. Plaintiff filed its respondent’s brief on September 20, 2022, and we filed our reply brief on November 10, 2022. The appeal was orally argued on August 17, 2023, and we are awaiting a decision from the Eleventh Circuit. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. Burkhart et al. v. Genworth Financial et al. In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth North America Corporation, Genworth Financial International Holdings, LLC (“GFIH”) and Genworth Life Insurance Company (“GLIC”) were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Richard F. Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth et al . Plaintiffs allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and engaged in certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain inadequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC policyholders and agents. The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer and seeks injunctive relief. We moved to dismiss this action in December 2018. On January 29, 2019, plaintiffs exercised their right to amend their complaint. On March 12, 2019, we moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to our motion to dismiss, which we replied to on June 14, 2019. On August 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to prevent proceeds that GFIH expected to receive from the then planned sale of its shares in Genworth MI Canada Inc. (“Genworth Canada”) from being transferred out of GFIH. On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking the same relief as their August 7, 2019 motion with an exception that allowed GFIH to transfer $450 million of expected proceeds from the sale of Genworth Canada through a dividend to Genworth Holdings to allow the pay-off of a senior secured term loan facility dated March 7, 2018 among Genworth Holdings as the borrower, GFIH as the limited guarantor and the lending parties thereto. Oral arguments on our motion to dismiss and plaintiffs’ motion occurred on October 21, 2019, and plaintiffs’ motion was denied. On January 31, 2020, the Court granted in part our motion to dismiss, dismissing claims relating to $395 million in dividends GLIC paid to its parent from 2012 to 2014 (out of the $410 million in total dividends subject to plaintiffs’ claims). The Court denied the balance of the motion to dismiss leaving a claim relating to $15 million in dividends and unquantified claims relating to the 2016 termination of a reinsurance transaction. On March 27, 2020, we filed our answer to plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On May 26, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended and supplemental class action complaint adding additional factual allegations and three new causes of action. On July 26, 2021, we moved to dismiss the three new causes of action and answered the balance of the second amended and supplemental class action complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss on September 30, 2021. The Court heard oral arguments on the motion on December 7, 2021 and ordered each party to file supplemental submissions, which were filed on January 28, 2022. On May 10, 2022, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the three new causes of action. On January 27, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin GFIH from transferring any assets to any affiliate, including paying any dividends to Genworth Holdings and to enjoin Genworth Holdings and Genworth Financial from transferring or distributing any value to Genworth Financial’s shareholders. On June 2, 2022, plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction. On January 12, 2024, plaintiffs moved for class certification. We filed our opposition papers on February 23, 2024 and intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. Trauernicht et al v. Genworth Financial On August 1, 2022, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by two former Genworth employees against Genworth Financial, its Board of Directors and the Fiduciary and Investments Committee of Genworth Financial’s Retirement and Savings Plan (“Savings Plan”). Plaintiffs purport to act on behalf of the Savings Plan and all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan. The complaint asserts that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by imprudently offering and inadequately monitoring a suite of BlackRock Target Date Funds as a retirement investment option for Genworth employees. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages and attorney’s fees. By stipulation entered September 6, 2022, the complaint was dismissed, without prejudice, against the Board of Directors and the Fiduciary and Investments Committee of Genworth Financial’s Savings Plan. On October 17, 2022, we moved to dismiss the complaint against the sole remaining defendant, Genworth Financial. Plaintiffs filed opposition papers on November 10, 2022, and we filed our reply papers on November 16, 2022. By order dated January 20, 2023, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to serve an amended complaint, rendering our initial motion to dismiss moot. On January 20, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on February 2, 2023, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 16, 2023, the Court directed plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint and denied our motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on April 17, 2023. On May 15, 2023, we answered and moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On September 13, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs moved for class certification on October 16, 2023, and we filed opposition papers on December 4, 2023. Oral argument on plaintiffs’ class certification motion was heard on February 12, 2024, and we are awaiting the Court’s ruling. On February 20, 2024, we moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims, and plaintiffs filed opposition papers on March 5, 2024. Oral argument was conducted on our summary judgment motion on March 25, 2024. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. M/O Arbitration Between Blue Cross Blue Shield Nebraska and GLIC On December 16, 2022, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska (“BCBSNE”) served an arbitration demand on GLIC in relation to BCBSNE’s stated intent to recapture a block of long-term care insurance policies for which the risk was partly ceded to GLIC. In its arbitration demand, BCBSNE alleges that GLIC breached the governing reinsurance agreement by refusing to agree to transfer assets equal to the fair value of the liabilities being recaptured. BCBSNE asserts it has satisfied all its obligations under the reinsurance agreement and is seeking to recapture the ceded block of reinsurance. BCBSNE seeks damages equal to the fair value of the recaptured liabilities, plus interest and other damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs. The arbitration panel has been appointed and an organizational meeting was held on August 30, 2023. The trial is scheduled for September and October of 2024. We intend to vigorously defend this arbitration proceeding. In Re MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Starting in June 2023, various Genworth entities (including Genworth Financial, GLIC and GLAIC) have been named as defendants in certain putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Massachusetts. These cases are captioned as follows: King v. Genworth Financial, Inc .; Anastasio v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al ; Hauser v. Genworth Life Insurance Company ; Smith v. Genworth Financial, Inc. ; Behrens v. Genworth Life Insurance Company ; Hale et al v. Genworth Financial, Inc. ; Burkett, Jr. v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company ; Manar v. Genworth Financial, Inc. ; Kennedy v. Genworth Financial, Inc. ; Romine et al. v. Progress Software Corporation et al. ; Schwarz et al. v. Progress Software Corporation et al. ; Casey et al. v. Genworth Life & Annuity Insurance Company ; and Bailey v. Genworth Financial, Inc . The actions relate to the data security events involving the MOVEit file transfer system (“MOVEit Cybersecurity Incident”), which PBI Research Services (“PBI”), a third-party vendor, uses in the performance of its services. Our life insurance subsidiaries use PBI to, among other things, satisfy applicable regulatory obligations to search various databases to identify the deaths of insured persons under life insurance policies, and to identify the deaths of long-term care insurance and annuity policies which can impact premium payment obligations and benefit eligibility. Plaintiffs seek to represent various classes and subclasses of Genworth long-term care insurance policyholders and agents whose data was accessed or potentially accessed by the MOVEit Cybersecurity Incident, alleging that Genworth breached its purported duty to safeguard their sensitive data from cybercriminals. The complaints assert claims for, inter alia, negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of various consumer protection and privacy statutes, and they seek, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 4, 2023, the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order consolidating all actions relating to the MOVEit Cybersecurity Incident before a single federal judge in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. All defendants, including the Genworth entities, filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaints on July 23, 2024. We intend to vigorously defend these actions. Silverstein v. GLIC On October 20, 2023, GLIC was named as the defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned Martin Silverstein, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Company . The complaint alleges that GLIC subjected universal life insurance policyholders to impermissible increases in cost of insurance charges, thereby breaching the underlying contracts. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and reinstatement of any lapsed policies. As of July 8, 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the action for approximately $ 5 million, subject to Court approval. We accrued $ 5 million for this litigation as of June 30 , 2024 . If the settlement is not finalized, we intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. Fox v. GLAIC In March 2024, GLAIC was served with a putative class action lawsuit venued in the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County, captioned James Fox, individually and on behalf of the class v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Co . Plaintiff, the holder of a lapsed California GLAIC life insurance policy, seeks to represent a class of current and former California GLAIC policyholders and beneficiaries whose policies were allegedly wrongfully terminated. The complaint alleges that GLAIC wrongfully terminated hundreds of California life insurance policies by failing to provide the policyholders with the notices and grace periods mandated by the contract and by the California Insurance Code as interpreted by the California Supreme Court in McHugh v. Protective Life Ins. Co . The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of contract, violation of the California Insurance Code, unfair competition and bad faith, and it seeks, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs. The action was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 3, 2024. On May 8, 2024, we answered the complaint. We intend to vigorously defend this action. At this time, we cannot determine or predict the ultimate outcome of any of the pending legal and regulatory matters specifically identified above or the likelihood of potential future legal and regulatory matters against us. Except as disclosed above, we are not able to provide an estimate or range of reasonably possible losses related to these matters. Therefore, we cannot ensure that the current investigations and proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, it is possible that related investigations and proceedings may be commenced in the future, and we could become subject to additional unrelated investigations and lawsuits. Increased regulatory scrutiny and any resulting investigations or proceedings could result in new legal precedents and industry-wide regulations or practices that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. (b) Commitments See note 6 for amounts we were committed to fund related to our investments as of June 30, 2024.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Topic 450 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//450/tableOfContent Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147480327/954-440-50-1 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//1943274/2147482648/440-10-50-4 Reference 5: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Topic 440 -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Publisher FASB -URI https://asc.fasb.org//440/tableOfContent + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration