Voya 2013 Annual Report Download - page 352

ING U.S., Inc.
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements
(Dollar amounts in millions, unless otherwise stated)
meet a court’s jurisdictional requirements. Moreover, some jurisdictions allow claimants to allege monetary
damages that far exceed any reasonable possible verdict. The variability in pleading requirements and past
experience demonstrates that the monetary and other relief that may be requested in a lawsuit or claim often
bears little relevance to the merits or potential value of a claim. Litigation against the Company includes a variety
of claims including negligence, breach of contract, fraud, violation of regulation or statute, breach of fiduciary
duty, negligent misrepresentation, failure to supervise, elder abuse and other torts.
As with other financial services companies, the Company periodically receives informal and formal requests for
information from various state and federal governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations in connection
with inquiries and investigations of the products and practices of the Company or the financial services industry.
It is the practice of the Company to cooperate fully in these matters.
The outcome of a litigation or regulatory matter and amount or range of potential loss is difficult to forecast and
estimating potential losses requires significant management judgment. It is not possible to predict the ultimate
outcome or to provide reasonably possible losses or ranges of losses for all pending regulatory matters and
litigation. While it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain cases could have a material adverse effect upon
the Company’s financial position, based on information currently known, management believes that the outcome
of pending litigation and regulatory matters is not likely to have such an effect. However, given the large and
indeterminate amounts sought and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, it is possible that an adverse
outcome in certain of the Company’s litigation or regulatory matters could, from time to time, have a material
adverse effect upon the Company’s results of operations or cash flows in a particular quarterly or annual period.
For some matters, the Company is able to estimate a possible range of loss. For such matters in which a loss is
probable, an accrual has been made. This paragraph contains an estimate of reasonably possible losses above any
amounts accrued. For matters where the Company, however, believes a loss is reasonably possible, but not
probable, no accrual is required. For matters for which an accrual has been made, but there remains a reasonably
possible range of loss in excess of the amounts accrued, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible range of
loss in excess of the accrued amounts. For matters for which a reasonably possible (but not probable) range of
loss exists, the estimate reflects the reasonably possible and unaccrued loss or range of loss. As of December 31,
2013, the Company estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, in excess of any amounts
accrued for these matters as of such date, to be up to approximately $100.0.
For other matters, the Company is currently not able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The
Company is often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have
provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a
damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from plaintiffs and other parties, investigation of factual allegations,
rulings by a court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts and the progress of settlement discussions. On a
quarterly and annual basis, the Company reviews relevant information with respect to litigation and regulatory
contingencies and updates the Company’s accruals, disclosures and reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss
based on such reviews.
Litigation against the Company includes a case styled Healthcare Strategies, Inc., Plan Administrator of the
Healthcare Strategies Inc. 401(k) Plan v. ING Life Insurance and Annuity Company (U.S.D.C. D. CT, filed
February 22, 2011), in which sponsors of 401(k) plans governed by ERISA, claim that ILIAC has entered into
revenue sharing agreements with mutual funds and others in violation of the prohibited transaction rules of
ERISA. Among other things, the plaintiffs seek disgorgement of all revenue sharing payments and profits earned
in connection with such payments, an injunction barring the practice of revenue sharing, and attorney fees. On
September 26, 2012, the district court certified the case as a class action in which the named plaintiffs represent
approximately 15,000 similarly situated plan sponsors. ILIAC denies the allegations and is vigorously defending
342