2.2.0.25falsefalse006095 - Disclosure - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIEStruefalsefalse1falsefalseUSDfalsefalse1/1/2010 - 12/31/2010
USD ($)
USD ($) / shares
$c00021http://www.sec.gov/CIK0001224608duration2010-01-01T00:00:002010-12-31T00:00:00u000Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso42170u002Dividehttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/iso4217USDiso4217http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0u001Standardhttp://www.xbrl.org/2003/instancesharesxbrli0USDUSD$2true0cno_NotesToFinancialStatementsAbstractcnofalsenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalse1falsefalsefalse00falsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherxbrli:stringItemTypestringNo definition available.falsefalse3false0us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlockus-gaaptruenadurationNo definition available.falsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseterselabel1falsefalsefalse00<div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div><table style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"><tr valign="top"><td style="WIDTH: 45pt" align="right"><div><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">8.  </font></div></td><td><div style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="justify"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES</font></div></td></tr></table></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 36pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -9pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Litigation and Other Legal Proceedings</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in various legal actions in the normal course of business, in which claims for compensatory and punitive damages are asserted, some for substantial amounts.  Some of the pending matters have been filed as purported class actions and some actions have been filed in certain jurisdictions that permit punitive damage awards that are disproportionate to the actual damages incurred.  The amounts sought in certain of these actions are often large or indeterminate and the ultimate outcome of certain actions is difficult to predict.  In the event of an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters, the ultimate liability may be in excess of the liabilities we have established and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.  In addition, the resolution of pending or future litigation may involve modifications to the terms of outstanding insurance policies or could impact the timing and amount of rate increases, which could adversely affect the future profitability of the related insurance policies.  Although there can be no assurances, at the present time the Company does not anticipate that the ultimate liability from either pending or threatened legal actions, after consideration of existing loss provisions, will have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, operating results or cash flows of the Company.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In the cases described below, we have disclosed any specific dollar amounts sought in the complaints.  In our experience, monetary demands in complaints bear little relation to the ultimate loss, if any, to the Company.  However, for the reasons stated above, it is not possible to make meaningful estimates of the amount or range of loss that could result from some of these matters at this time.  The Company reviews these matters on an ongoing basis.  When assessing reasonably possible and probable outcomes, the Company bases its assessment on the expected ultimate outcome following all appeals.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Securities Litigation</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">After our Predecessor announced its intention to restructure on August 9, 2002, eight purported securities fraud class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.  The complaints named us as a defendant, along with certain of our former officers.  These lawsuits were filed on behalf of persons or entities who purchased our Predecessor’s common stock on various dates between October 24, 2001 and August 9, 2002.  The plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and allege material omissions and dissemination of materially misleading statements regarding, among other things, the liquidity of our Predecessor and alleged problems in Conseco Finance Corp.’s manufactured housing division, allegedly resulting in the artificial inflation of our Predecessor’s stock price.  These cases were consolidated into one case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, captioned <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Franz Schleicher, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., Gary Wendt, William Shea, Charles Chokel and James Adams, et al., Case No. 02-CV-1332 DFH-TAB</font>.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.  The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint with respect to the individual defendants on December 8, 2003.  Our liability with respect to this lawsuit was discharged in our Predecessor’s plan of reorganization and our obligation to indemnify individual defendants who were not serving as an officer or director on the Effective Date is limited to $3 million in the aggregate under such plan.  Our liability to indemnify individual defendants who were serving as an officer or director on the Effective Date, of which there is one such defendant, is not limited by such plan.  The parties to this case have reached a settlement, which was approved by the court.  The Company did not incur any additional liability in connection with the settlement.</font></div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">On August 6, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 719 Pension Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Conseco, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-CIV-6966</font>, on behalf of purchasers of our common stock during the period from August 4, 2005 to March 17, 2008 (the “Class Period”).  The complaint charges CNO and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On June 2, 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.  The amended complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants issued numerous statements regarding the Company’s financial performance. As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because the defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among others: (i) that the Company was reporting materially inaccurate revenue figures; (ii) that the Company’s reported financial results were materially misstated and did not present the true operating performance of the Company; (iii) that the Company’s shareholders’ equity was materially overstated during the Class Period, including the overstatement of shareholders’ equity by $20.6 million at December 31, 2006; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its corporate governance practices, its prospects and earnings growth.  On August 2, 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  We believe the action is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the action cannot be predicted with certainty.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">On June 2, 2010, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the Marion County Circuit/Superior Court, Indiana, <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">William T. Carter, derivatively on behalf of CNO Financial Group, Inc. v. R. Glenn Hilliard, Donna A. James, R. Keith Long, Debra J. Perry, C. James Prieur, Neal C. Schneider, Michael T. Tokarz, John G. Turner, William Kirsch, Eugene Bullis, Michael Dubes, James Hohmann, Edward Bonach, Ali Inanilan, and John Wells, and CNO Financial Group, Inc., Cause No. 49D10 10 06 PL 024523</font>, on behalf of nominal defendant CNO Financial Group, Inc. against certain current and/or former members of its Board of Directors and executive officers seeking to remedy defendant’s alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment from August 2005 to the present.  On November 1, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The allegations in the complaint are similar to those described in the preceding paragraph.  On December 17, 2010, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  We believe the action is without merit, and intend to defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the action cannot be predicted with certainty.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"></font> </div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman"><font style="LETTER-SPACING: 9pt">   </font> Cost of Insurance Litigation</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Two lawsuits are pending in Hawaii captioned <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">AE Ventures for Archie Murakami, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., Conseco Life Insurance Company; and Doe Defendants 1-100, Case No. CV05-00594 and Clifford S. Arakaki et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Doe Defendants 1-100, Case No. CV05-00026 (United States District Court, District of Hawaii)</font>.  These suits involve an aggregate of approximately 700 plaintiffs all of whom purport to have opted out of the previously settled In Re Conseco Life Insurance Co. Cost of Insurance Litigation multi-district action.  The complaints allege nondisclosure, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of HRS 480 (unfair and/or deceptive business practices), declaratory and injunctive relief, insurance bad faith, punitive damages, and seeks to impose alter ego liability.  A settlement in principle has been reached.  The ultimate outcome of these lawsuits cannot be predicted with certainty and an adverse outcome could exceed the amount we have accrued and could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Other Litigation</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">On November 17, 2005, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Robert H. Hansen, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Conseco Insurance Company, an Illinois corporation f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Cause No. C0504726</font>.  Plaintiff in this putative class action purchased an annuity in 2000 and is claiming relief on behalf of the proposed national class for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; elder abuse; unlawful, deceptive and unfair business practices; unlawful, deceptive and misleading advertising; breach of fiduciary duty; aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; and unjust enrichment and imposition of constructive trust.  On January 27, 2006, a similar complaint was filed in the same court entitled <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Friou P. Jones, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Conseco Insurance Company, an Illinois company f/k/a Conseco Annuity Assurance Company, Cause No. C06-00537</font>.  Mr. Jones had purchased an annuity in 2003.  Each case alleged that the annuity sold was inappropriate and that the annuity products in question are inherently unsuitable for seniors age 65 and older.  On March 3, 2006 a first amended complaint was filed in the Hansen case adding causes of action for fraudulent concealment and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.  In an order dated April 14, 2006, the court consolidated the two cases under the original Hansen cause number and retitled the consolidated action:  <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">In re Conseco Insurance Co. Annuity Marketing & Sales Practices Litig</font>.  A settlement in principle has been reached in this case, and the hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement is set for March 25, 2011.</font></div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">On March 4, 2008, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Celedonia X. Yue, M. D. on behalf of the class of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the General Public v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, successor to Philadelphia Life Insurance Company and formerly known as Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company, Cause No. CV08-01506 CAS</font>.  Plaintiff in this putative class action owns a Valulife universal life policy insuring the life of Ruth S. Yue originally issued by Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company in 1995.  Plaintiff is claiming breach of contract on behalf of the proposed national class and seeks injunctive and restitutionary relief pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and declaratory relief.  The putative class consists of all owners of Valulife and Valuterm universal life insurance policies issued by either Massachusetts General or Philadelphia Life and that were later acquired and serviced by Conseco Life.  Plaintiff alleges that members of the class will be damaged by increases in the cost of insurance (a non-guaranteed element) that are set to take place in the twenty first policy year of Valulife and Valuterm policies. No such increases have yet been applied to the subject policies.  During 2010, Conseco Life voluntarily agreed not to implement the cost of insurance rate increase at issue in this litigation and is following a process with respect to any future cost of insurance rate increases as set forth in the regulatory settlement agreement described below.  Plaintiff filed a motion for certification of a nationwide class and a California state class.  On December 7, 2009, the court granted that motion.  On October 8, 2010, the court dismissed the causes of actions alleged in the California state class.  On January 19, 2011, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to the declaratory relief claim and on February 2, 2011, the court issued an advisory opinion, in the form of a declaratory judgment, as to what, in its view, Conseco Life could consider in implementing future cost of insurance rate increases related to its Valulife and Valuterm block of policies.  On February 17, 2011, Conseco Life filed notice that it is appealing the court’s decision.  We believe the action is without merit, and intend to defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the action cannot be predicted with certainty.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">On December 8, 2008, a purported Florida state class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Sydelle Ruderman individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Washington National Insurance Company, Case No. 08-23401-CIV-Cohn/Selzer</font>. In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that the inflation escalation rider on her policy of long-term care insurance operates to increase the policy’s lifetime maximum benefit, and that Washington National breached the contract by stopping her benefits when they reached the lifetime maximum.  The Company takes the position that the inflation escalator only affects the per day maximum benefit.  Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, and the motion has been fully briefed by both sides.  The court has not yet ruled on the motion or set it for hearing.  Additional parties have asked the court to allow them to intervene in the action, and on January 5, 2010, the court granted the motion to intervene and granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification.  The court certified a (B) (3) Florida state class alleging damages and a (B) (2) Florida state class alleging injunctive relief.  The parties have reached a settlement in principle of the (B) (3) class.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment as to the (B) (2) class which was granted by the court on September 8, 2010.  The Company filed a notice of appeal on October 6, 2010.  We believe the action is without merit, and intend to defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the action cannot be predicted with certainty.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">On December 24, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Cedric Brady, et. al. individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance Company Case No. 3:08-cv-05746</font>.  The plaintiffs allege that Conseco Life and Conseco, Inc. committed breach of contract and insurance bad faith and violated various consumer protection statutes in the administration of various interest sensitive whole life products sold primarily under the name “Lifetrend” by requiring the payment of additional cash amounts to maintain the policies in force and by making changes to certain non-guaranteed elements in their policies.  On April 23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the additional counts of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion and declaratory relief.  On May 29, 2009, Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On July 29, 2009, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.  The court dismissed the allegations that Conseco Life violated various consumer protection statutes, the breach of fiduciary duty count, and dismissed Conseco, Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction.  On October 15, 2009, Conseco Life filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”), seeking the establishment of an MDL proceeding consolidating this case and the McFarland case described below into a single action.  On February 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on MDL ordered this case be consolidated for pretrial proceedings.  On July 7, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification of a nationwide class and a California state class.  The Company filed its motion in opposition on July 21, 2010.  On October 6, 2010, the court granted the motion for certification of a nationwide class and denied the motion for certification of a California state class.  Trial is set for May 7, 2012.  The Company believes the action is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the action cannot be predicted with certainty.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">On July 2, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Bill W. McFarland, and all those similarly situated v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:09-cv-598-J-32MCR</font>.  The plaintiff alleges that Conseco Life committed breach of contract and has been unjustly enriched in the administration, including changes to certain non-guaranteed elements, of various interest sensitive whole life products sold primarily under the name “Lifetrend.”  The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees.  As described in the preceding paragraph, on February 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on MDL ordered this case be consolidated with the Brady case for pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of California Federal Court.  On July 7, 2010, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification of a nationwide class and a California state class.  The Company filed its motion in opposition on July 21, 2010.  On October 6, 2010, the court granted the motion for certification of a nationwide class and denied the motion for certification of a California state class.  Trial is set for May 7, 2012.  The Company believes the action is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the action cannot be predicted with certainty.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">On January 26, 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, <font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-STYLE: italic">Samuel Rowe and Estella Rowe, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bankers Life & Casualty Company and Bankers Life Insurance Company of Illinois, Case No. 09CV491</font>.  The plaintiffs are alleging violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq., breach of common law fiduciary duty, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violation of California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15600 on behalf of the proposed national class and seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees.  The plaintiff alleges that the defendants used an improper and misleading sales and marketing approach to seniors that fails to disclose all facts, misuses consumers’ confidential financial information, uses misleading sales and marketing materials, promotes deferred annuities that are fundamentally inferior and less valuable than readily available alternative investment products and fails to adequately disclose other principal risks including maturity dates, surrender penalties and other restrictions which limit access to annuity proceeds to a date beyond the applicants actuarial life expectancy.  Plaintiffs have amended their complaint attempting to convert this from a California only class action to a national class action.  In addition, the amended complaint adds causes of action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”); aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and for unjust enrichment.  On September 13, 2010, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s RICO claims.  On October 25, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint re-alleging their RICO claims.  A hearing date on the motion for class certification has not been set.  We believe the action is without merit, and intend to defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome of the action cannot be predicted with certainty.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In addition, the Company and its subsidiaries are involved on an ongoing basis in other lawsuits, including purported class actions, related to their operations.  The ultimate outcome of all of these other legal matters pending against the Company or its subsidiaries cannot be predicted, and, although such lawsuits are not expected individually to have a material adverse effect on the Company, such lawsuits could have, in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, cash flows or results of operations.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-STYLE: italic; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Regulatory Examinations and Fines</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Insurance companies face significant risks related to regulatory investigations and actions.  Regulatory investigations generally result from matters related to sales or underwriting practices, payment of contingent or other sales commissions, claim payments and procedures, product design, product disclosure, additional premium charges for premiums paid on a periodic basis, denial or delay of benefits, charging excessive or impermissible fees on products, changing the way cost of insurance charges are calculated for certain life insurance products or recommending unsuitable products to customers.  We are, in the ordinary course of our business, subject to various examinations, inquiries and information requests from state, federal and other authorities.  The ultimate outcome of these regulatory actions cannot be predicted with certainty.  In the event of an unfavorable outcome in one or more of these matters, the ultimate liability may be in excess of liabilities we have established and we could suffer significant reputational harm as a result of these matters, which could also have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">The states of Pennsylvania, Illinois, Texas, Florida and Indiana led a multistate examination of the long-term care claims administration and complaint handling practices of Senior Health and Bankers Life, as well as the sales and marketing practices of Bankers Life.  On May 7, 2008, we announced a settlement among the state insurance regulators and Senior Health and Bankers Life.  This examination covered the years 2005, 2006 and 2007.  More than 40 states are parties to the settlement, which included a Senior Health fine of up to $2.3 million, with up to an additional $10 million payable, on the part of either Senior Health and/or Bankers Life, in the event the process improvements and benchmarks are not met.  The</font></div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">process improvement plan is being monitored by the lead states and pursuant to the settlement agreement, the lead states are conducting a re-examination of Bankers Life to confirm compliance with the process improvements and benchmarks.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In late October 2008, Conseco Life mailed notice to approximately 12,000 holders of its “Lifetrend” life insurance products to inform them of:  (i) changes to certain “non-guaranteed elements” (“NGEs”) of their policies; and (ii) the fact that certain policyholders who were not paying premiums may have failed to receive a notice that their policy was underfunded and that additional premiums were required in order for the policyholders to maintain their guaranteed cash values.  In December 2008, Conseco Life mailed notice to approximately 16,000 holders of its CIUL3+ universal life policies to inform them of an increase in certain NGEs with respect to their policies.  Prior to or around the time that the notices were sent, Conseco Life had informed the insurance regulators in a number of states, including among others Indiana, Iowa and Florida, of these matters and the planned communication with the impacted policyholders.  Several states initiated regulatory actions and inquiries after the notices were sent by Conseco Life, and Conseco Life agreed to take no further actions with respect to those policies during the pendency of a market conduct examination.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">After working with various state insurance regulators to review the terms of the Lifetrend and CIUL3+ policies, Conseco Life reached a settlement in principle with the regulators regarding issues involving these policies. During this regulatory review process, Conseco Life had been allowed to move forward with implementing the NGE changes in its CIUL3+ policies while the regulators continued their review.  Conseco Life had also resumed the administration of its Lifetrend policies with administrative changes in place but did not implement the NGE changes pending execution of the final settlement agreement with the regulators.  On June 30, 2010, we announced that Conseco Life had finalized a regulatory settlement agreement that requires the establishment of a $10 million fund for certain owners of its Lifetrend life insurance products and the payment of a $1 million assessment to participating jurisdictions.  Over 45 jurisdictions, representing almost 98 percent of the Lifetrend policyholders, have signed the settlement agreement.  Conseco Life is in the process of notifying consumers of the settlement and the increase in their non-guaranteed elements.  As previously disclosed, we accrued for the financial impact of the settlement in our consolidated financial statements for year-end 2009.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -9pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Guaranty Fund Assessments</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -9pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">The balance sheet at December 31, 2010, included: (i) accruals of $21.8 million, representing our estimate of all known assessments that will be levied against the Company’s insurance subsidiaries by various state guaranty associations based on premiums written through December 31, 2010; and (ii) receivables of $16.2 million that we estimate will be recovered through a reduction in future premium taxes as a result of such assessments.  At December 31, 2009, such guaranty fund assessment accruals were $22.1 million and such receivables were $16.9 million.  These estimates are subject to change when the associations determine more precisely the losses that have occurred and how such losses will be allocated among the insurance companies.  We recognized expense for such assessments of $2.4 million, $.3 million and $3.1 million in 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -9pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Guarantees</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">We held bank loans made to certain former directors and employees that enabled them to purchase common stock of our Predecessor.  These loans, with a principal amount of $481.3 million, had been guaranteed by our Predecessor.  We received all rights to collect the balances due pursuant to the original terms of these loans.  In addition, we held loans to participants for interest on the loans.  The loans and the interest loans are collectively referred to as the “D&O loans.”  At December 31, 2010, we had reached settlements with the former directors and employees and had collected the remaining amounts outstanding related to the D&O loan settlements.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Pursuant to the settlement that was reached with the Official Committee of the Trust Originated Preferred Securities (“TOPrS”) Holders and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the Plan, the former holders of TOPrS (issued by our Predecessor’s subsidiary trusts and eliminated in our reorganization) who did not opt out of the bankruptcy settlement, were entitled to receive 45 percent of any net proceeds from the collection of certain D&O loans in an aggregate amount not to exceed $30 million.  As of December 31, 2010, we had paid $20.5 million to the former holders of TOPrS and we have established a liability of $2.0 million (which is included in other liabilities), representing the final amount which will be paid to the former holders of TOPrS pursuant to the settlement.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -9pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">In accordance with the terms of the employment agreements of two of the Company’s former chief executive officers, certain wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company are the guarantors of the former executives’ nonqualified supplemental retirement benefits.  The liability for such benefits was $22.6 million and $22.0 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009,</font></div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -9pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">respectively, and is included in the caption “Other liabilities” in the consolidated balance sheet.</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -9pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">Leases and Certain Other Long-Term Commitments</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 27pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -9pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman">The Company rents office space, equipment and computer software under noncancellable operating lease agreements.  In addition, the Company has entered into certain sponsorship agreements which require future payments.  Total expense pursuant to these lease and sponsorship agreements was $42.8 million, $42.3 million and $44.1 million in 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.  Future required minimum payments as of December 31, 2010, were as follows (dollars in millions):</font></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div><div><table style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%"><tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="bottom" align="left" width="88%"><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -9.35pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">2011                                                                                               </font></div></td><td valign="bottom" align="right" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" valign="bottom" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">$</font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: right" valign="bottom" width="9%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">45.0</font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="bottom" align="left" width="88%"><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -9.35pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">2012                                                                                               </font></div></td><td valign="bottom" align="right" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" valign="bottom" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: right" valign="bottom" width="9%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">33.8</font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="bottom" align="left" width="88%"><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -9.35pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">2013                                                                                               </font></div></td><td valign="bottom" align="right" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" valign="bottom" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: right" valign="bottom" width="9%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">27.0</font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td valign="bottom" align="left" width="88%"><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -9.35pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">2014                                                                                               </font></div></td><td valign="bottom" align="right" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" valign="bottom" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: right" valign="bottom" width="9%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">20.7</font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="bottom" align="left" width="88%"><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -9.35pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">2015                                                                                               </font></div></td><td valign="bottom" align="right" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" valign="bottom" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: right" valign="bottom" width="9%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">17.4</font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 2px" valign="bottom" align="left" width="88%"><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -9.35pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">Thereafter                                                                                               </font></div></td><td style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 2px" valign="bottom" align="right" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td><td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: black 2px solid; TEXT-ALIGN: left" valign="bottom" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td><td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: black 2px solid; TEXT-ALIGN: right" valign="bottom" width="9%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline">45.6</font></font></td><td style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 2px; TEXT-ALIGN: left" valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td></tr><tr bgcolor="#cceeff"><td valign="bottom" width="88%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">  </font></td><td valign="bottom" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" valign="bottom" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: right" valign="bottom" width="9%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td><td style="TEXT-ALIGN: left" valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td></tr><tr bgcolor="white"><td style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px" valign="bottom" align="left" width="88%"><div style="DISPLAY: block; MARGIN-LEFT: 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 18pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: -9.35pt" align="left"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">Total                                                                                         </font></div></td><td style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px" valign="bottom" align="right" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td><td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: black 4px double; TEXT-ALIGN: left" valign="bottom" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman">$</font></td><td style="BORDER-BOTTOM: black 4px double; TEXT-ALIGN: right" valign="bottom" width="9%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"><font style="DISPLAY: inline">189.5</font></font></td><td style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; TEXT-ALIGN: left" valign="bottom" nowrap="nowrap" width="1%"><font style="DISPLAY: inline; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman"> </font></td></tr></table></div><div style="DISPLAY: block; TEXT-INDENT: 0pt"><br /></div>8.  COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIESLitigation and Other Legal ProceedingsThe Company and its subsidiaries are involved in various legal actions in thefalsefalsefalsefalsefalseOtherus-types:textBlockItemTypestringIncludes disclosure of commitments and contingencies. This element may be used as a single block of text to encapsulate the entire disclosure including data and tables.Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name FASB Interpretation (FIN)
-Number 14
-Paragraph 3
Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef
-Publisher FASB
-Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS)
-Number 5
-Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12
falsefalse12COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIESUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownUnKnownfalsetrue