Legal and Environmental Matters

The Company has aggregate accruals for its legal, environmental and regulatory matters of approximately $11.3at September 30, 2015. These accruals relate primarily to the matters described below. In addition, the Company and its subsidiaries are also involved in other litigation and claims related to their current and prior businesses and arising out of their ordinary course of business. These include claims and litigations involving HRG’s and its subsidiaries current business practices and transactions and historical claims related to certain workers compensation, environmental matters, cases in state courts and in a Federal multi-district litigation alleging injury from exposure to asbestos on offshore drilling rigs and shipping vessels alleged to have been formerly owned or operated by HRG’s offshore drilling and bulk-shipping affiliates. However, based on currently available information, including legal defenses available to the Company, and given the aforementioned accruals and related insurance coverage, the Company does not believe that the outcome of these legal, environmental and regulatory matters will have a material effect on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

HRG

HRG is a nominal defendant, and members of its Board are named as defendants in a purported class and derivative action filed in March 2014 by Haverhill Retirement System in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Harbinger Capital Partners LLC and certain of its affiliated funds (“HCP”) and Leucadia National Corporation (“Leucadia”), each a stockholder of HRG, are also named as defendants in the complaint. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with transactions involving Leucadia. The complaint seeks, among other things, an unspecified award of compensatory damages and costs and disbursements. While the Company believes the allegations are without merit, it may determine to resolve this matter if it believes a resolution is advantageous.

HRG is a nominal defendant, and members of its Board are named as defendants in a derivative action filed in December 2010 by Alan R. Kahn in the Delaware Court of Chancery. HCP is also named as a defendant. The plaintiff alleges that HRG's acquisition of HCP shares of Spectrum Brands in exchange for shares of common stock of HRG from HRG was financially unfair to HRG and its public stockholders and seeks unspecified damages and the rescission of the transaction. On June 26, 2015, the parties filed a Memorandum of Understanding with the court to document an agreement in principle for the settlement of the action. Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, HCP and the Company’s insurer would pay a total of $3.8 into a settlement fund that will, net of distribution and notice costs and any fee award to plaintiff’s counsel, be distributed to stockholders of the Company other than stockholders affiliated with HCP, the then members of the Company’s board of directors and certain other persons. Under the Memorandum of Understanding, HRG is not required to contribute any payment to the settlement fund. A final settlement is conditional upon reasonable discovery by the plaintiff and court approval.

As previously reported, on March 18, 2015, HRG prevailed in its lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against OMGUK for a $50.0 purchase price adjustment in connection with HRG’s acquisition of FGL’s subsidiaries on April 6, 2011 under a Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”). The court awarded the $50.0 purchase price adjustment plus pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees because it determined, following a trial in October 2014, that the Maryland Insurance Administration did not approve a certain contemplated reinsurance transaction notwithstanding FGL’s best efforts to seek approval in good faith. As also previously reported, on May 27, 2014, the court granted OMGUK’s motion for summary judgment as to a counterclaim related to the financing of accruals referred to as the CARVM. On March 18, 2015, the court determined damages for CARVM are $5.9 and awarded pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees as to the counterclaim to OMGUK.

In lieu of final judgment, on June 1, 2015, HRG, FGL, and OMGUK entered into a global settlement agreement and mutual releases of all claims and obligations arising out of the litigation and the SPA. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, and the Assignment and Assumption Agreement entered into on August 23, 2013 between HRG and FGL pursuant to which FGL assigned to HRG all rights under the litigation, on June 5, 2015, OMGUK paid HRG $61.6 fully resolving all claims in the litigation.

Spectrum Brands

Spectrum Brands is a defendant in various other matters of litigation generally arising out of the ordinary course of business. Spectrum Brands does not believe that the resolution of any other matters or proceedings presently pending will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition, liquidity or cash flows.

At September 30, 2015, Spectrum Brands has accrued approximately $4.4 for the estimated costs associated with environmental remediation activities at some of its current and former manufacturing sites. Spectrum Brands believes that any additional liability that may result from resolution of these matters in excess of the amounts provided for will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of Spectrum Brands. Spectrum Brands is subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations. Spectrum Brands believe it is in substantial compliance with all such environmental laws that are applicable to its operations.

FGL

FGL is assessed amounts by the state guaranty funds to cover losses to policyholders of insolvent or rehabilitated insurance companies. Those mandatory assessments may be partially recovered through a reduction in future premium taxes in certain states. At September 30, 2015, FGL has accrued $3.8 for guaranty fund assessments which is expected to be offset by estimated future premium tax deductions of $3.8 .

FGL has received inquiries from a number of state regulatory authorities regarding its use of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File (“Death Master File”) and compliance with state claims practices regulation. Legislation requiring insurance companies to use the Death Master File to identify potential claims has been enacted in a number of states. As a result of these legislative and regulatory developments, in May 2012, FGL undertook an initiative to use the Death Master File and other publicly available databases to identify persons potentially entitled to benefits under life insurance policies, annuities and retained asset accounts. During Fiscal 2012, FGL incurred an $11.0 benefit expense, net of reinsurance, to increase reserves to cover potential benefits payable resulting from this ongoing effort. Based on its analysis to date, and management’s estimate, FGL believes the remaining accrual will cover the reasonably estimated liability arising out of these developments. In addition, FGL has received audit and examination notices from several state agencies responsible for escheatment and unclaimed property regulation in those states in those states and in some cases has challenged the audits. FGL established a contingency of $1.8 based on its estimates related to the external legal costs and administrative costs of challenging said audits and examinations of which $1.7 has been paid through September 30, 2015. Additional costs that cannot be reasonably estimated as of the date of this filing are possible as a result of ongoing regulatory developments and other future requirements related to this matter.

FGL is involved in various pending or threatened legal proceedings, including purported class actions, arising in the ordinary course of business. In some instances, these proceedings include claims for unspecified or substantial punitive damages and similar types of relief in addition to amounts for alleged contractual liability or requests for equitable relief. In the opinion of FGL management and in light of existing insurance and other potential indemnification, reinsurance and established accruals, such litigation is not expected to have a material adverse effect on FGL’s financial position, although it is possible that the results of operations and cash flows could be materially affected by an unfavorable outcome in any one period.

On July 18, 2011, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. OM Financial Life Insurance Company. The Plaintiff asked the Court to certify the action as a class action on behalf of both a nationwide and a California class defined as certain persons who were sold OM Financial Life Insurance equity-indexed universal life insurance policies.

The Plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on defendants’ advice to purchase unsuitable insurance policies. After extensive motion practice, the federal court dismissed the federal causes of action, with prejudice, and, on May 9, 2013, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissed the state law claims, without prejudice, and granted the Plaintiff leave to re-file the state law claims in California state court.

On July 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life Insurance Company, et. al. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), Case No. BC-514340. The state court complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on Defendants’ advice in purchasing unsuitable equity-indexed insurance policies. The Plaintiff sought to certify a class defined as “all persons who reside or are located in the state of California who were sold OM Financial/FGL Insurance equity-indexed universal life insurance policies as an investment.”

On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, FGL Insurance and the other two defendants signed a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which FGL Insurance has agreed to pay a total of $5.3 to settle the claims of a nationwide class consisting, with certain exclusions, of all persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance indexed universal life insurance policy issued from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2014, inclusive. As part of the settlement, FGL Insurance agreed to certification of the nationwide class for settlement purposes only. An amended Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on June 5, 2014.

On January 2, 2015, the Court entered the Final Judgment in Cressy, certifying the class for settlement purposes, and approving the class settlement. On August 10, 2015, FGL tendered $1.3 to the Settlement Administrator for a claim review fund. FGL will implement an interest enhancement for certain policies as part of the class settlement, which began on October 12, 2015.

At September 30, 2015, FGL estimated the total cost for the settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class action would be $9.2 and established a liability for the unpaid portion of the estimate of $1.9. FGL has incurred and paid $4.0 related to legal fees and other costs and $3.3 related to settlement costs as of September 30, 2015. Based on the information currently available, FGL does not expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs to differ materially from the amount accrued. FGL had been seeking indemnification from OMGUK under the First Amended and Restated Stock Purchase Agreement, dated February 17, 2011 between FGL (formerly, Harbinger F&G, LLC) and OMGUK related to the settlement and the costs and fees in defending the Cressy litigation in both the federal and state courts. The settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class action and the amount recovered from OMGUK are presented net in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations in the caption "Benefits and other changes in policy reserves." During Fiscal 2015, FGL, the Company and OMGUK reached a global settlement which resolved all prior outstanding claims, resulting in FGL receiving $3.6 in settlement of its outstanding recoverable related to the Cressy litigation.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front Street Re (Cayman) Ltd. (“Ludwick”). The complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) requests injunctive and declaratory relief seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the putative class in an amount not presently determinable, treble damages, and other relief, and claims the plaintiff overpaid by less than $0.1for her annuity. FGL, HRG and the other defendants believe that they have meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. On April 13, 2015, the defendants joined in the filing of a joint motion to dismiss the complaint that was filed by all of the defendants. The motion has been fully briefed and is pending before the Court and parties are currently engaging in document discovery. As of September 30, 2015, HRG and FGL did not have sufficient information to determine whether FGL is exposed to any losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense contingency estimate of $1.3, which was accrued during Fiscal 2015.

In light of the inherent uncertainties involved in the matter aforementioned, there can be no assurance that the litigation discussed above, or any other pending or future litigation, will not have a material adverse effect on FGL's business, financial condition, or results of operations in future periods.

Compass

Various federal, state and local laws and regulations covering discharge of materials into the environment, or otherwise relating to the protection of the environment, may affect Compass’ operations and the costs of its oil and natural gas exploitation, development and production operations. Compass does not anticipate that it will be required in the foreseeable future to expend amounts material in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole by reason of environmental laws and regulations. Because these laws and regulations are constantly being changed, Compass is unable to predict the conditions and other factors over which Compass does not exercise control that may give rise to environmental liabilities affecting it.

Salus

On March 17, 2015, Salus, in its capacity as agent for certain secured lenders of RadioShack under a $250.0 term loan, filed an adversary complaint in the RadioShack bankruptcy cases pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware against certain other secured asset-based lenders (including Standard General L.P., its affiliates and certain hedge fund lenders) of RadioShack (the "ABL Lenders") under a $585.0 term and revolving loan facility. The adversary complaint seeks (i) a determination that the liens securing the term loan provided by Salus to RadioShack have priority over the ABL Lenders' liens with respect to the termed out portion of the ABL Lenders’ loans to RadioShack and (ii) disgorgement of payments received from RadioShack by the ABL Lenders in connection with the termed out loans. The ABL Lenders have moved to dismiss the adversary complaint, which motion remains pending.

Guarantees

Throughout its history, the Company has entered into indemnifications in the ordinary course of business with customers, suppliers, service providers, business partners and, in certain instances, when it sold businesses. Additionally, the Company has indemnified its directors and officers who are, or were, serving at the request of the Company in such capacities. Although the specific terms or number of such arrangements is not precisely known due to the extensive history of past operations, costs incurred to settle claims related to these indemnifications have not been material to the Company’s financial statements. The Company has no reason to believe that future costs to settle claims related to its former operations will have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

See Note 14, Debt and Note 29, Subsequent Events for details of the limited unconditional and irrevocable guarantee for the full and prompt payment when due of present and future payment obligations under the Compass Credit Agreement that was provided by HGI Funding by pledging certain of its assets as a collateral.

The F&G Stock Purchase Agreement included a Guarantee and Pledge Agreement (the "Guarantee and Pledge Agreement"), which created a security interest in the equity of FGH and FGH’s equity interest in FGL Insurance for the benefit of OMGUK in the event that FGL failed to perform certain obligations under the F&G Stock Purchase Agreement. In June, 2015, in connection with the settlement of the litigation amongst the Company, FGH and OMGUK, the Guarantee and Pledge Agreement was terminated and the Company was released from its obligations thereunder.

Lease Commitments

The Company’s minimum rent payments under operating leases are recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. Future annual minimum rental commitments under non-cancelable operating leases, principally pertaining to land, buildings and equipment, principally relating to Spectrum Brands, net of contractual third-party sublease, are as follows:



Fiscal Year	Operating Leases
2016	$	45.5
2017	40.7
2018	31.0
2019	23.8
2020	16.3
Thereafter	25.7
Total minimum lease payments	$	183.0

The Company’s total rent expense was $43.5, $46.8 and $51.3 during Fiscal 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

Unfunded Asset Based Lending Commitments

FGL, Front Street and Salus have unfunded investment commitments as of September 30, 2015 based upon the timing of when investments are executed compared to when the actual investments are funded, as some investments require that funding occur over a period of months or years. A summary of unfunded commitments by invested asset class are included below:



Asset Type	September 30, 2015
Asset-based loans	$	103.6
Other invested assets	81.2
Commercial mortgage loans	27.4
Fixed, available-for-sale	20.0
Other assets	16.3
Total	$	248.5