GNW » Topics » (a) Litigation

This excerpt taken from the GNW 10-Q filed May 8, 2009.

(a) Litigation

We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek indeterminate amounts which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, we could suffer reputational harm, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. At this time, it is not feasible to predict, nor to determine the ultimate outcomes of all pending investigations and legal proceedings, nor to provide reasonable ranges of potential losses.

These excerpts taken from the GNW 10-K filed Mar 2, 2009.

(a) Litigation

We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our 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. At this time, it is not feasible to predict, nor to determine the ultimate outcomes of all pending investigations and legal proceedings, nor to provide reasonable ranges of potential losses.

 

250


Table of Contents

Genworth Financial, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

Years Ended December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006

 

Between March and October 2008, we and/or one of our subsidiaries were named along with several other GIC industry participants as a defendant in several class action and non-class action lawsuits alleging antitrust and other violations (including, in certain of the cases, California state law claims) involving the sale of GICs to municipalities and seeking monetary damages, including treble damages. The United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has consolidated these federal cases for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the case name In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation. Certain plaintiffs have filed a consolidated amended complaint that names as a defendant only our subsidiary.

In December 2008, the same subsidiary was named along with several other GIC industry participants in an additional class action lawsuit alleging antitrust and other violations (including California state law claims) involving the sale of GICs to municipalities and seeking monetary damages, including treble damages: Fresno County Financing Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp, antitrust laws relating to the sale of GICs and seeking monetary damages: County of San Diego v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, removed to the United States District Court for Central California); County of San Mateo v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (Superior Court of San Francisco, California, removed to the United States District Court for Northern California); and County of Contra Costa v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (Superior Court of San Francisco, California, removed to the United States District Court for Northern California).et al. (United States District Court for Eastern California). This action has been conditionally transferred by the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation to the Southern District of New York for consolidation into In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation. We intend to defend the cases vigorously.

In June 2008, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries filed an arbitration proceeding regarding five bulk transactions insuring a lender’s payment option adjustable rate loans seeking a declaration of Genworth’s right to rescind coverage. In December 2008, our mortgage insurance subsidiary invoked its rights and rescinded these bulk policies, reflecting approximately $538 million of risk in-force, and thereafter amended its arbitration demand accordingly. In the amended arbitration demand, our mortgage insurance subsidiary alleges, inter alia, that the lender breached material warranties, breached contractual obligations, committed negligence, made material misrepresentations concerning its underwriting practices, concealed material facts regarding its underwriting practices, and fraudulently induced the issuance of mortgage insurance policies. The amended demand seeks, inter alia, restitution of all amounts paid under the bulk policies, consequential damages, a declaration approving the rescission of the bulk policies, and other relief as may be appropriate. Also in December 2008, the lender filed a counterclaim against our mortgage insurance subsidiary alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, bad faith denial of coverage, and equitable estoppel. The lender seeks, inter alia, compensatory damages, punitive damages, a declaration that the rescinded bulk insurance policies are valid in-force policies, and other relief as may be appropriate. We intend to prosecute our claims and defend the counterclaims vigorously.

(a) Litigation

FACE="Times New Roman" SIZE="2">We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts which may remain unknown
for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our 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. At this time, it is not feasible to predict, nor to
determine the ultimate outcomes of all pending investigations and legal proceedings, nor to provide reasonable ranges of potential losses.

 


250







Table of Contents



Genworth Financial, Inc.

ALIGN="center">Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

Years Ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006

 


Between March and October 2008, we and/or one of our subsidiaries were named along with several other
GIC industry participants as a defendant in several class action and non-class action lawsuits alleging antitrust and other violations (including, in certain of the cases, California state law claims) involving the sale of GICs to
municipalities and seeking monetary damages, including treble damages. The United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has consolidated these federal cases for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York under the case name In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation. Certain plaintiffs have filed a consolidated amended complaint that names as a defendant only our subsidiary.

STYLE="margin-top:12px;margin-bottom:0px; text-indent:4%">In December 2008, the same subsidiary was named along with several other GIC industry participants in an additional class action lawsuit alleging
antitrust and other violations (including California state law claims) involving the sale of GICs to municipalities and seeking monetary damages, including treble damages: Fresno County Financing Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp, antitrust
laws relating to the sale of GICs and seeking monetary damages: County of San Diego v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, removed to the United States District Court for Central California); County of
San Mateo v. Bank of America, N.A., et al.
(Superior Court of San Francisco, California, removed to the United States District Court for Northern California); and County of Contra Costa v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (Superior Court of
San Francisco, California, removed to the United States District Court for Northern California).et al. (United States District Court for Eastern California). This action has been conditionally transferred by the United States Judicial Panel
on Multi-District Litigation to the Southern District of New York for consolidation into In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation. We intend to defend the cases vigorously.

STYLE="margin-top:12px;margin-bottom:0px; text-indent:4%">In June 2008, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries filed an arbitration proceeding regarding five bulk transactions insuring a lender’s
payment option adjustable rate loans seeking a declaration of Genworth’s right to rescind coverage. In December 2008, our mortgage insurance subsidiary invoked its rights and rescinded these bulk policies, reflecting approximately $538 million
of risk in-force, and thereafter amended its arbitration demand accordingly. In the amended arbitration demand, our mortgage insurance subsidiary alleges, inter alia, that the lender breached material warranties, breached contractual
obligations, committed negligence, made material misrepresentations concerning its underwriting practices, concealed material facts regarding its underwriting practices, and fraudulently induced the issuance of mortgage insurance policies. The
amended demand seeks, inter alia, restitution of all amounts paid under the bulk policies, consequential damages, a declaration approving the rescission of the bulk policies, and other relief as may be appropriate. Also in December 2008, the
lender filed a counterclaim against our mortgage insurance subsidiary alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, bad faith denial of coverage, and equitable estoppel. The lender seeks, inter
alia,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, a declaration that the rescinded bulk insurance policies are valid in-force policies, and other relief as may be appropriate. We intend to prosecute our claims and defend the counterclaims
vigorously.

(a) Litigation

FACE="Times New Roman" SIZE="2">We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts which may remain unknown
for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our 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. At this time, it is not feasible to predict, nor to
determine the ultimate outcomes of all pending investigations and legal proceedings, nor to provide reasonable ranges of potential losses.

 


250







Table of Contents



Genworth Financial, Inc.

ALIGN="center">Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

Years Ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006

 


Between March and October 2008, we and/or one of our subsidiaries were named along with several other
GIC industry participants as a defendant in several class action and non-class action lawsuits alleging antitrust and other violations (including, in certain of the cases, California state law claims) involving the sale of GICs to
municipalities and seeking monetary damages, including treble damages. The United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has consolidated these federal cases for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York under the case name In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation. Certain plaintiffs have filed a consolidated amended complaint that names as a defendant only our subsidiary.

STYLE="margin-top:12px;margin-bottom:0px; text-indent:4%">In December 2008, the same subsidiary was named along with several other GIC industry participants in an additional class action lawsuit alleging
antitrust and other violations (including California state law claims) involving the sale of GICs to municipalities and seeking monetary damages, including treble damages: Fresno County Financing Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp, antitrust
laws relating to the sale of GICs and seeking monetary damages: County of San Diego v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, removed to the United States District Court for Central California); County of
San Mateo v. Bank of America, N.A., et al.
(Superior Court of San Francisco, California, removed to the United States District Court for Northern California); and County of Contra Costa v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (Superior Court of
San Francisco, California, removed to the United States District Court for Northern California).et al. (United States District Court for Eastern California). This action has been conditionally transferred by the United States Judicial Panel
on Multi-District Litigation to the Southern District of New York for consolidation into In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation. We intend to defend the cases vigorously.

STYLE="margin-top:12px;margin-bottom:0px; text-indent:4%">In June 2008, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries filed an arbitration proceeding regarding five bulk transactions insuring a lender’s
payment option adjustable rate loans seeking a declaration of Genworth’s right to rescind coverage. In December 2008, our mortgage insurance subsidiary invoked its rights and rescinded these bulk policies, reflecting approximately $538 million
of risk in-force, and thereafter amended its arbitration demand accordingly. In the amended arbitration demand, our mortgage insurance subsidiary alleges, inter alia, that the lender breached material warranties, breached contractual
obligations, committed negligence, made material misrepresentations concerning its underwriting practices, concealed material facts regarding its underwriting practices, and fraudulently induced the issuance of mortgage insurance policies. The
amended demand seeks, inter alia, restitution of all amounts paid under the bulk policies, consequential damages, a declaration approving the rescission of the bulk policies, and other relief as may be appropriate. Also in December 2008, the
lender filed a counterclaim against our mortgage insurance subsidiary alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, bad faith denial of coverage, and equitable estoppel. The lender seeks, inter
alia,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, a declaration that the rescinded bulk insurance policies are valid in-force policies, and other relief as may be appropriate. We intend to prosecute our claims and defend the counterclaims
vigorously.

(a) Litigation

FACE="Times New Roman" SIZE="2">We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts which may remain unknown
for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our 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. At this time, it is not feasible to predict, nor to
determine the ultimate outcomes of all pending investigations and legal proceedings, nor to provide reasonable ranges of potential losses.

 


250







Table of Contents



Genworth Financial, Inc.

ALIGN="center">Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

Years Ended
December 31, 2008, 2007 and 2006

 


Between March and October 2008, we and/or one of our subsidiaries were named along with several other
GIC industry participants as a defendant in several class action and non-class action lawsuits alleging antitrust and other violations (including, in certain of the cases, California state law claims) involving the sale of GICs to
municipalities and seeking monetary damages, including treble damages. The United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has consolidated these federal cases for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York under the case name In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation. Certain plaintiffs have filed a consolidated amended complaint that names as a defendant only our subsidiary.

STYLE="margin-top:12px;margin-bottom:0px; text-indent:4%">In December 2008, the same subsidiary was named along with several other GIC industry participants in an additional class action lawsuit alleging
antitrust and other violations (including California state law claims) involving the sale of GICs to municipalities and seeking monetary damages, including treble damages: Fresno County Financing Authority v. AIG Financial Products Corp, antitrust
laws relating to the sale of GICs and seeking monetary damages: County of San Diego v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, removed to the United States District Court for Central California); County of
San Mateo v. Bank of America, N.A., et al.
(Superior Court of San Francisco, California, removed to the United States District Court for Northern California); and County of Contra Costa v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (Superior Court of
San Francisco, California, removed to the United States District Court for Northern California).et al. (United States District Court for Eastern California). This action has been conditionally transferred by the United States Judicial Panel
on Multi-District Litigation to the Southern District of New York for consolidation into In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation. We intend to defend the cases vigorously.

STYLE="margin-top:12px;margin-bottom:0px; text-indent:4%">In June 2008, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries filed an arbitration proceeding regarding five bulk transactions insuring a lender’s
payment option adjustable rate loans seeking a declaration of Genworth’s right to rescind coverage. In December 2008, our mortgage insurance subsidiary invoked its rights and rescinded these bulk policies, reflecting approximately $538 million
of risk in-force, and thereafter amended its arbitration demand accordingly. In the amended arbitration demand, our mortgage insurance subsidiary alleges, inter alia, that the lender breached material warranties, breached contractual
obligations, committed negligence, made material misrepresentations concerning its underwriting practices, concealed material facts regarding its underwriting practices, and fraudulently induced the issuance of mortgage insurance policies. The
amended demand seeks, inter alia, restitution of all amounts paid under the bulk policies, consequential damages, a declaration approving the rescission of the bulk policies, and other relief as may be appropriate. Also in December 2008, the
lender filed a counterclaim against our mortgage insurance subsidiary alleging, inter alia, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, bad faith denial of coverage, and equitable estoppel. The lender seeks, inter
alia,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, a declaration that the rescinded bulk insurance policies are valid in-force policies, and other relief as may be appropriate. We intend to prosecute our claims and defend the counterclaims
vigorously.

This excerpt taken from the GNW 10-Q filed Nov 10, 2008.

(a) Litigation

We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek indeterminate amounts which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, we could suffer reputational harm, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. At this time, it is not feasible to predict, nor to determine the ultimate outcomes of all pending investigations and legal proceedings, nor to provide reasonable ranges of potential losses.

 

21


Table of Contents

GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

As previously reported, between March and July 2008, we were named along with several other GIC industry participants as a defendant in several class action lawsuits alleging antitrust violations involving the sale of GICs to municipalities and seeking treble damages. In June 2008, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation consolidated the federal cases for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the case name In re Municipal Derivative Antitrust Litigation. As previously reported, in July 2008, we were named along with several other GIC industry participants as a defendant in two separate non-class action lawsuits brought by municipalities alleging fraud and violations of California’s antitrust laws relating to the sale of GICs to each municipality and seeking monetary damages: City of Los Angeles v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, removed to the United States District Court for Central California) and City of Stockton v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (Superior Court of San Francisco County, California, removed to United States District Court for Northern California). In September and October 2008, we were named along with several other GIC industry participants in three more non-class action lawsuits alleging fraud and violations of California’s antitrust laws relating to the sale of GICs and seeking monetary damages: County of San Diego v. Bank of America, N.A. et al. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, removed to the United States District Court for Central California); County of San Mateo v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (Superior Court of San Francisco, California, removed to the United States District Court for Northern California); and County of Contra Costa v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (Superior Court of San Francisco, California, removed to the United States District Court for Northern California). We intend to defend the cases vigorously.

In August 2008, one of our subsidiaries, Genworth Life Insurance Company, received an industry-wide Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Texas Attorney General’s Office seeking documents relating to our long-term care insurance business in Texas. We are cooperating with the Texas Attorney General’s Office in responding to the CID.

This excerpt taken from the GNW 10-Q filed Aug 4, 2008.

(a) Litigation

We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek indeterminate amounts which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, we could suffer reputational harm, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. At this time, it is not feasible to predict, nor to determine the ultimate outcomes of all pending investigations and legal proceedings, nor to provide reasonable ranges of potential losses.

Between March and July 2008, we were named along with several other GIC industry participants as a defendant in several class action lawsuits alleging antitrust violations involving the sale of GICs to municipalities and seeking treble damages. In June 2008, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation consolidated the federal cases for pre-trial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York under the case name In re Municipal Derivative Antitrust Litigation. In addition, in July

 

18


Table of Contents

GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

2008, we were named along with several other GIC industry participants as a defendant in two separate non-class action lawsuits brought by municipalities alleging fraud and violations of California’s antitrust laws relating to the sale of GICs to each municipality and seeking monetary damages: City of Los Angeles v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California) and City of Stockton v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., (Superior Court of San Francisco County, California). We intend to defend the cases vigorously. 

In June 2008, one of our subsidiaries received subpoenas from the Office of the Florida Attorney General and the Office of the Connecticut Attorney General, representing multiple state Attorney General offices, seeking information relating to an investigation into alleged antitrust violations involving the sale of GICs to municipalities. We have not issued and do not currently issue GICs to municipalities, but from January 2004 to December 2006, our subsidiary provided management and administrative services to a third party that does issue GICs to municipalities. We are cooperating fully with respect to these investigations.

As previously reported, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries received an administrative subpoena in February 2006 from the Minnesota Department of Commerce with respect to our reinsurance arrangements, including captive reinsurance transactions, as part of an industry-wide review. In recent months, the Minnesota Department has requested additional information. In addition, in June 2008, the same subsidiary received from the Minneapolis, Minnesota office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development a subpoena requesting information substantially similar to the Minnesota Department’s request. We have responded to these industry-wide regulatory inquiries and follow-up inquiries, and will cooperate with respect to any follow-up requests or inquiries where jurisdiction is appropriate.

As previously reported, the U.K. antitrust authorities are conducting a review of the payment protection insurance sector in the U.K. In June 2008, the antitrust authorities issued their provisional findings and a range of proposed remedies to address the antitrust issues identified in their findings. The antitrust authorities are consulting on the proposed remedies with industry and other stakeholders so at this stage it is not clear what remedies will be implemented. We are actively participating in the consultation process. It therefore remains unclear as to what the effect that this investigation may have on the wider payment protection insurance sector in the U.K. or on our payment protection insurance business in the U.K.

This excerpt taken from the GNW 10-Q filed Apr 29, 2008.

(a) Litigation

We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek indeterminate amounts which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, we could suffer reputational harm, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. At this time, it is not feasible to predict, nor to determine the ultimate outcomes of all pending investigations and legal proceedings, nor to provide reasonable ranges of potential losses.

In March and April 2008, we were named along with several other GIC industry participants as a defendant in three proposed class action lawsuits alleging federal antitrust violations involving the sale of GICs to municipalities and seeking treble damages: Hinds County, Mississippi, et al. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al. (United States District Court for the Southern District of New York); Fairfax County, Virginia, et al. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al. (United States District Court for the District of Columbia); and City of Oakland, California v. AIG Financial Products Corp., et al. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California). We intend to defend the cases vigorously.

 

17


Table of Contents

GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

These excerpts taken from the GNW 10-K filed Feb 28, 2008.

(a) Litigation

We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts which may

 

222


Table of Contents

Genworth Financial, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

Years Ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005

 

remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our 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. At this time, it is not feasible to predict, nor to determine the ultimate outcomes of all pending investigations and legal proceedings, nor to provide reasonable ranges of potential losses.

(a) Litigation

FACE="Times New Roman" SIZE="2">We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts which may

 


222







Table of Contents



Genworth Financial, Inc.

ALIGN="center">Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

Years Ended
December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005

 



remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on
our 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. At this time, it is not feasible to predict, nor to determine the ultimate outcomes of all pending investigations and legal proceedings, nor to provide reasonable ranges of potential losses.


This excerpt taken from the GNW 10-Q filed Oct 26, 2007.

(a) Litigation

We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek indeterminate amounts which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, we could suffer reputational harm, which could have

 

13


Table of Contents

GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. At this time, it is not feasible to predict, nor to determine the ultimate outcomes of all pending investigations and legal proceedings, nor to provide reasonable ranges of potential losses.

This excerpt taken from the GNW 10-Q filed Aug 2, 2007.

(a) Litigation

We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek indeterminate amounts which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, even if we ultimately

 

12


Table of Contents

GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, we could suffer reputational harm, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

This excerpt taken from the GNW 10-Q filed May 1, 2007.

(a) Litigation

We face a significant risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our 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.

 

10


GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

This excerpt taken from the GNW 8-K filed Apr 16, 2007.

(a) Litigation

We face a significant risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our 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.

 

191


Genworth Financial, Inc.

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—(Continued)

Years Ended December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004

 

This excerpt taken from the GNW 10-K filed Feb 28, 2007.

(a) Litigation

We face a significant risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our 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.

This excerpt taken from the GNW 10-Q filed Oct 27, 2006.

(a) Litigation

We face a significant risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our 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.

This excerpt taken from the GNW 10-Q filed Jul 28, 2006.

(a) Litigation

We face a significant risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our 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.

This excerpt taken from the GNW 10-Q filed Apr 28, 2006.

(a) Litigation

We face a significant risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts,

 

16


Table of Contents

GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC.

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)

(Unaudited)

 

including punitive and treble damages, which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our 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.

This excerpt taken from the GNW 10-K filed Feb 27, 2006.

(a) Litigation

 

We face a significant risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our 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.

 

224


Table of Contents

Genworth Financial, Inc.

 

Notes to Financial Statements—(Continued)

Years Ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003

 

One of our mortgage insurance subsidiaries is named as a defendant in two lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, William Portis et al. v. GE Mortgage Insurance Corp. and Karwo v. Citimortgage, Inc. and General Electric Mortgage Insurance Corporation. The Portis complaint was filed on January 15, 2004, and the Karwo complaint was filed on March 15, 2004. Each action seeks certification of a nationwide class of consumers who allegedly were required to pay for our private mortgage insurance at a rate higher than our “best available rate,” based upon credit information we obtained. Each action alleges that the FCRA requires notice to such borrowers and that we violated the FCRA by failing to give such notice. The plaintiffs in Portis allege in the complaint that they are entitled to “actual damages” and “damages within the Court’s discretion of not more than $1,000 for each separate violation” of the FCRA. The plaintiffs in Karwo allege that they are entitled to “appropriate actual, punitive and statutory damages” and “such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.” Similar cases were filed against six other mortgage insurers. We have reached an agreement in principle to settle these cases. If an acceptable definitive settlement cannot be negotiated or approved by the courts, we intend to defend vigorously against the actions to which we are a party, but we cannot predict their outcome.

 

This excerpt taken from the GNW 10-K filed Mar 1, 2005.

(25) Litigation

 

We face a significant risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including 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. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages, which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our financial condition

 

204


Table of Contents

Genworth Financial, Inc.

 

Notes to Financial Statements—(Continued)

Years Ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002

 

(25) Litigation (Continued)

 

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.

 

One of our insurance subsidiaries is named as a defendant in a lawsuit, McBride v. Life Insurance Co. of Virginia dba GE Life and Annuity Assurance Co., related to the sale of universal life insurance policies. The complaint was filed on November 1, 2000, in Georgia state court, as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased certain universal life insurance policies from that subsidiary and alleges improper practices in connection with the sale and administration of universal life policies. We have vigorously denied liability with respect to the plaintiff’s allegations. Nevertheless, to avoid the risks and costs associated with protracted litigation and to resolve our differences with policyholders, we agreed in principle on October 8, 2003 to settle the case on a nationwide class basis with respect to the insurance subsidiary named in the lawsuit. The settlement provides benefits to the class, and allows us to continue to serve our customers’ needs undistracted by disruptions caused by litigation. The court gave final approval to the settlement on August 12, 2004. In the third quarter of 2003, we accrued $50 million in reserves relating to this litigation, which represents our best estimate of bringing this matter to conclusion. The precise amount of payments in this matter cannot be estimated because they are dependent upon the number of individuals who ultimately will seek relief in the claim form process of the class settlement, the identity of such claimants and whether they are entitled to relief under the settlement terms and the nature of the relief to which they are entitled. That process is currently underway. In addition, approximately 650 class members elected to exclude themselves from the class action settlement. In the fourth quarter of 2004, we reached an agreement in principle to settle the threatened claims of policyholders who had excluded approximately 500 policies from the class action settlement. At that time, we accrued a reserve for the settlement in principle. We have also been named as a defendant in six lawsuits brought by 67 class members who elected to exclude themselves from the class action settlement. We cannot determine at this point whether or how many other class members who have excluded themselves from the class action will initiate individual actions against us, or the effect of such suits or claims, including the six pending lawsuits, on our financial condition or results of operations.

 

One of our mortgage insurance subsidiaries is named as a defendant in two lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, William Portis et al. v. GE Mortgage Insurance Corp. and Karwo v. Citimortgage, Inc. and General Electric Mortgage Insurance Corporation. The Portis complaint was filed on January 15, 2004, and the Karwo complaint was filed on March 15, 2004. Each action seeks certification of a nationwide class of consumers who allegedly were required to pay for our private mortgage insurance at a rate higher than our “best available rate,” based upon credit information we obtained. Each action alleges that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) requires an “adverse action” notice to such borrowers and that we violated the FCRA by failing to give such notice. The plaintiffs in Portis allege in the complaint that they are entitled to “actual damages” and “damages within the Court’s discretion of not more than $1,000 for each separate violation” of the FCRA. The plaintiffs in Karwo allege that they are entitled to “appropriate actual, punitive and statutory damages” and “such other or further relief as the Court deems proper.” In the Karwo case, the codefendant, CitiMortgage, filed a motion to dismiss, which was recently denied. Similar cases were filed against six other mortgage insurers. In two of those cases, both in the Middle District of Florida, the judges have denied motions for class certification. A motion for reconsideration has been filed in one of these cases and the other was dismissed following a settlement with the named plaintiff. We intend to defend vigorously against these actions, but we cannot predict their outcome.

 

205


Table of Contents
Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki