Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies	(12) Commitments and Contingencies (a) Litigation and Regulatory Matters We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including the risk of class action lawsuits. Our pending legal and regulatory actions include proceedings specific to us and others generally applicable to business practices in the industries in which we operate. In our insurance operations, we are, have been, or may become subject to class actions and individual suits alleging, among other things, issues relating to sales or underwriting practices, increases to in-force long-term care insurance premiums, payment of contingent or other sales commissions, claims payments and procedures, product design, product disclosure, product administration, additional premium charges for premiums paid on a periodic basis, denial or delay of benefits, charging excessive or impermissible fees on products, recommending unsuitable products to customers, our pricing structures and business practices in our mortgage insurance subsidiaries, such as captive reinsurance arrangements with lenders and contract underwriting services, violations of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act of 1974 or related state anti-inducement laws, and mortgage insurance policy rescissions and curtailments, and breaching fiduciary or other duties to customers, including but not limited to breach of customer information. 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. In our investment-related operations, we are subject to litigation involving commercial disputes with counterparties. We are also subject to litigation arising out of our general business activities such as our contractual and employment relationships, including claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, post-closing obligations associated with previous dispositions and securities lawsuits. In addition, we are also subject to various regulatory inquiries, such as information requests, subpoenas, books and record examinations and market conduct and financial examinations from state, federal and international regulators and other authorities. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, we could suffer significant reputational harm, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In October 2016, Genworth Financial, certain members of its executive management team, including its former and present chief executive officer, and current and former members of its board of directors were named as defendants in a shareholder derivative suit filed by Esther Chopp in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case is captioned Chopp v. McInerney, et al . The complaint alleges that Genworth’s board of directors wrongfully refused plaintiff’s demand to commence litigation on behalf of Genworth and asserts claims for breaches of fiduciary duties, waste, contribution and indemnification, and unjust enrichment concerning Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves and concerning Genworth’s former Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an IPO of the business, and seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and such equitable relief as the Court may deem proper. We filed a motion to dismiss on November 14, 2016. The action was stayed pending the outcome of the proposed China Oceanwide transaction. On April 6, 2021, Genworth Financial terminated the proposed China Oceanwide transaction, thereby lifting the stay. On July 22, 2022, a stipulation dismissing the case without prejudice was filed with the Court and on July 25, 2022 the Court granted the dismissal. In September 2018, Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company (“GLAIC”), our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned TVPX ARX INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company . Plaintiff alleges unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges were imposed on policyholders. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, alleging that Genworth improperly considered non-mortality factors when calculating cost of insurance rates and failed to decrease cost of insurance charges in light of improved expectations of future mortality, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and equitable relief. On October 29, 2018, we filed a motion to enjoin the case in the Middle District of Georgia, and a motion to dismiss and motion to stay in the Eastern District of Virginia. We moved to enjoin the prosecution of the Eastern District of Virginia action on the basis that it involves claims released in a prior nationwide class action settlement (the “McBride settlement”) that was approved by the Middle District of Georgia. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2018. On December 6, 2018, we moved the Middle District of Georgia for leave to file our counterclaim, which alleges that plaintiff breached the covenant not to sue contained in the prior settlement agreement by filing its current action. On March 15, 2019, the Middle District of Georgia granted our motion to enjoin and denied our motion for leave to file our counterclaim. As such, plaintiff is enjoined from pursuing its class action in the Eastern District of Virginia. On March 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the order granting our motion to enjoin. On March 29, 2019, we filed our notice of cross-appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of our cross-appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from the portion of the order denying our motion for leave to file our counterclaim. On April 8, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case without prejudice, with leave for plaintiff to refile an amended complaint only if a final appellate Court decision vacates the injunction and reverses the Middle District of Georgia’s opinion. On May 21, 2019, plaintiff filed its appeal and memorandum in support in the Eleventh Circuit. We filed our response to plaintiff’s appeal memorandum on July 3, 2019. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on plaintiff’s appeal and our cross-appeal on April 21, 2020. On May 26, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Middle District of Georgia’s order enjoining Plaintiff’s class action and remanded the case back to the Middle District of Georgia for further factual development as to whether Genworth has altered how it calculates or charges cost of insurance since the McBride settlement. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did not reach a decision on Genworth’s counterclaim. On June 30, 2021, we filed in the Middle District of Georgia our renewed motion to enforce the class action settlement and release, and renewed our motion for leave to file a counterclaim. The briefing on both motions concluded in October 2021. On March 24, 2022, the Court denied our motions. On April 11, 2022, we filed an appeal of the Court’s denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On June 22, 2022, we filed our opening brief in support of the appeal. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth North America Corporation, Genworth Financial International Holdings, LLC (“GFIH”) and Genworth Life Insurance Company (“GLIC”) were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Richard F. Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth et al . Plaintiffs allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and engaged in certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain inadequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC policyholders and agents. The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer, and seeks injunctive relief. We moved to dismiss this action in December 2018. On January 29, 2019, plaintiffs exercised their right to amend their complaint. On March 12, 2019, we moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to our motion to dismiss, which we replied to on June 14, 2019. On August 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to prevent proceeds that GFIH expected to receive from the then planned sale of its shares in Genworth MI Canada Inc. (“Genworth Canada”) from being transferred out of GFIH. On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking the same relief as their August 7, 2019 motion with an exception that allowed GFIH to transfer $450 million of expected proceeds from the sale of Genworth Canada through a dividend to Genworth Holdings to allow the pay-off of a senior secured term loan facility dated March 7, 2018 among Genworth Holdings as the borrower, GFIH as the limited guarantor and the lending parties thereto. Oral arguments on our motion to dismiss and plaintiffs’ motion occurred on October 21, 2019, and plaintiffs’ motion was denied. On January 31, 2020, the Court granted in part our motion to dismiss, dismissing claims relating to $395 million in dividends GLIC paid to its parent from 2012 to 2014 (out of the $410 million in total dividends subject to plaintiffs’ claims). The Court denied the balance of the motion to dismiss leaving a claim relating to $15 million in dividends and unquantified claims relating to the 2016 termination of a reinsurance transaction. On March 27, 2020, we filed our answer to plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On May 26, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended and supplemental class action complaint adding additional factual allegations and three new causes of action. On July 26, 2021, we moved to dismiss the three new causes of action and answered the balance of the second amended and supplemental class action complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss on September 30, 2021. The Court heard oral arguments on the motion on December 7, 2021 and ordered each party to file supplemental submissions, which were filed on January 28, 2022. On May 10, 2022, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the three new causes of action. On January 27, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin GFIH from transferring any assets to any affiliate, including paying any dividends to Genworth Holdings and to enjoin Genworth Holdings and Genworth Financial from transferring or distributing any value to Genworth Financial’s shareholders. On June 2, 2022, plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. On April 6, 2020, GLAIC was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned Brighton Trustees, LLC, on behalf of and as trustee for Diamond LS Trust; and Bank of Utah, solely as securities intermediary for Diamond LS Trust; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company . On May 13, 2020, GLAIC was also named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned Ronald L. Daubenmier, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company . On June 26, 2020, plaintiffs filed a consent motion to consolidate the two cases. On June 30, 2020, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an order consolidating the Brighton Trustees and Daubenmier cases. On July 17, 2020, the Brighton Trustees and Daubenmier plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, alleging that GLAIC subjected policyholders to unlawful and excessive increases to cost of insurance charges. The consolidated complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million. The parties participated in a mediation on November 18, 2021. On March 25, 2022, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the action for $25 million, subject to Court approval. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement and set October 17, 2022 for the final hearing. We accrued $25 million for this litigation as of March 31, 2022. In the second quarter of 2022, we paid the accrued balance in full, and accordingly, have no remaining amounts outstanding related to the agreement in principle. If the settlement is not finally approved, we intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. In January 2021, GLIC and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York (“GLICNY”) were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned Judy Halcom, Hugh Penson, Harold Cherry, and Richard Landino, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Company and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York . Plaintiffs seek to represent long-term care insurance policyholders, alleging that the defendants made misleading and inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases for long-term care insurance policies. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million. The trial was scheduled to commence on June 1, 2022. On June 18, 2021, following two days of mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter on a nationwide basis and signed the settlement agreement on August 23, 2021. On August 31, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. The final approval hearing occurred on February 9, 2022, and on June 29, 2022, the Court issued its final approval of the settlement, which became final on July 29, 2022, when the appeals period expired and no appeal was filed. We expect to begin implementation of this settlement in the third quarter of 2022, but given the 90-day policyholder election window, we anticipate financial impacts will not begin until the fourth quarter of 2022. Moreover, because the election mailings occur on the policyholder’s anniversary date, the majority of the impacts are expected to be in 2023. Based on the Court’s final approval of the settlement, we anticipate a net positive benefit to earnings from the settlement of this case. In January 2021, GLAIC was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon captioned Patsy H. McMillan, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company . Plaintiff seeks to represent life insurance policyholders, alleging that GLAIC impermissibly calculated cost of insurance rates to be higher than permitted by her policy. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. On August 11, 2021, GLIC and GLICNY received a request for pre-suit mediation related to a potential class action lawsuit that may be brought by five long-term care insurance policyholders, seeking to represent a nationwide class alleging that the defendants made misleading and inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases for long-term care insurance policies. The draft complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $ 5 million. Genworth participated in pre-suit mediation in November 2021 and January 2022 . On January 15 , 2022 , the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the dispute on a nationwide basis, subject to the negotiation and execution of a final settlement agreement, and Court approval thereof. On January 28 , 2022 , the complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned Fred Haney, Marsha Merrill, Sylvia Swanson, and Alan Wooten, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Company and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York . The parties executed a settlement agreement consistent with the agreement in principle signed on January 15 , 2022 . On May 2 , 2022 , the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. The final approval hearing is scheduled for November 17 , 2022 . If the Court approves the settlement, we would expect an overall net favorable impact on our results of operations. If the Court does not approve the final settlement, we intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. At this time we cannot determine or predict the ultimate outcome of any of the pending legal and regulatory matters specifically identified above or the likelihood of potential future legal and regulatory matters against us. Except as disclosed above, we are not able to provide an estimate or range of reasonably possible losses related to these matters. Therefore, we cannot ensure that the current investigations and proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, it is possible that related investigations and proceedings may be commenced in the future, and we could become subject to additional unrelated investigations and lawsuits. Increased regulatory scrutiny and any resulting investigations or proceedings could result in new legal precedents and industry-wide regulations or practices that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. (b) Commitments As of June 30, 2022, we were committed to fund $1,409 million in limited partnership investments, $64 million in U.S. commercial mortgage loan investments and $24 million in private placement investments. As of June 30, 2022, we were also committed to fund $75 million of bank loan investments which had not yet been drawn.

Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2022

(12) Commitments and Contingencies

(a) Litigation and Regulatory Matters

We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including the risk of class action lawsuits. Our pending legal and regulatory actions include proceedings specific to us and others generally applicable to business practices in the industries in which we operate. In our insurance operations, we are, have been, or may become subject to class actions and individual suits alleging, among other things, issues relating to sales or underwriting practices, increases to in-force long-term care insurance premiums, payment of contingent or other sales commissions, claims payments and procedures, product design, product disclosure, product administration, additional premium charges for premiums paid on a periodic basis, denial or delay of benefits, charging excessive or impermissible fees on products, recommending unsuitable products to customers, our pricing structures and business practices in our mortgage insurance subsidiaries, such as captive reinsurance arrangements with lenders and contract underwriting services, violations of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act of 1974 or related state anti-inducement laws, and mortgage insurance policy rescissions and curtailments, and breaching fiduciary or other duties to customers, including but not limited to breach of customer information. 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. In our investment-related operations, we are subject to litigation involving commercial disputes with counterparties. We are also subject to litigation arising out of our general business activities such as our contractual and employment relationships, including claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, post-closing obligations associated with previous dispositions and securities lawsuits. In addition, we are also subject to various regulatory inquiries, such as information requests, subpoenas, books and record examinations and market conduct and financial examinations from state, federal and international regulators and other authorities. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, we could suffer significant reputational harm, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

In October 2016, Genworth Financial, certain members of its executive management team, including its former and present chief executive officer, and current and former members of its board of directors were named as defendants in a shareholder derivative suit filed by Esther Chopp in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case is captioned

Chopp v. McInerney, et al

. The complaint alleges that Genworth’s board of directors wrongfully refused plaintiff’s demand to commence litigation on behalf of Genworth and asserts claims for breaches of fiduciary duties, waste, contribution and indemnification, and unjust enrichment concerning Genworth’s long-term care insurance reserves and concerning Genworth’s former Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an IPO of the business, and seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees and such equitable relief as the Court may deem proper. We filed a motion to dismiss on November 14, 2016. The action was stayed pending the outcome of the proposed China Oceanwide transaction. On April 6, 2021, Genworth Financial terminated the proposed China Oceanwide transaction, thereby lifting the stay. On July 22, 2022, a stipulation dismissing the case without prejudice was filed with the Court and on July 25, 2022 the Court granted the dismissal.

In September 2018, Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company (“GLAIC”), our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned

TVPX ARX INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company

. Plaintiff alleges unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges were imposed on policyholders. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, alleging that Genworth improperly considered non-mortality factors when calculating cost of insurance rates and failed to decrease cost of insurance charges in light of improved expectations of future mortality, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and equitable relief. On October 29, 2018, we filed a motion to enjoin the case in the Middle District of Georgia, and a motion to dismiss and motion to stay in the Eastern District of Virginia. We moved to enjoin the prosecution of the Eastern District of Virginia action on the basis that it involves claims released in a prior nationwide class action settlement (the “McBride settlement”) that was approved by the Middle District of Georgia. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2018. On December 6, 2018, we moved the Middle District of Georgia for leave to file our counterclaim, which alleges that plaintiff breached the covenant not to sue contained in the prior settlement agreement by filing its current action. On March 15, 2019, the Middle District of Georgia granted our motion to enjoin and denied our motion for leave to file our counterclaim. As such, plaintiff is enjoined from pursuing its class action in the Eastern District of Virginia. On March 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the order granting our motion to enjoin. On March 29, 2019, we filed our notice of cross-appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of our cross-appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from the portion of the order denying our motion for leave to file our counterclaim. On April 8, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case without prejudice, with leave for plaintiff to refile an amended

complaint only if a final appellate Court decision vacates the injunction and reverses the Middle District of Georgia’s opinion. On May 21, 2019, plaintiff filed its appeal and memorandum in support in the Eleventh Circuit. We filed our response to plaintiff’s appeal memorandum on July 3, 2019. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on plaintiff’s appeal and our cross-appeal on April 21, 2020. On May 26, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Middle District of Georgia’s order enjoining Plaintiff’s class action and remanded the case back to the Middle District of Georgia for further factual development as to whether Genworth has altered how it calculates or charges cost of insurance since the McBride settlement. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did not reach a decision on Genworth’s counterclaim. On June 30, 2021, we filed in the Middle District of Georgia our renewed motion to enforce the class action settlement and release, and renewed our motion for leave to file a counterclaim. The briefing on both motions concluded in October 2021. On March 24, 2022, the Court denied our motions. On April 11, 2022, we filed an appeal of the Court’s denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On June 22, 2022, we filed our opening brief in support of the appeal. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth North America Corporation, Genworth Financial International Holdings, LLC (“GFIH”) and Genworth Life Insurance Company (“GLIC”) were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned

Richard F. Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth et al

. Plaintiffs allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and engaged in certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain inadequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC policyholders and agents. The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer, and seeks injunctive relief. We moved to dismiss this action in December 2018. On January 29, 2019, plaintiffs exercised their right to amend their complaint. On March 12, 2019, we moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to our motion to dismiss, which we replied to on June 14, 2019. On August 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to prevent proceeds that GFIH expected to receive from the then planned sale of its shares in Genworth MI Canada Inc. (“Genworth Canada”) from being transferred out of GFIH. On September 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking the same relief as their August 7, 2019 motion with an exception that allowed GFIH to transfer $450 million of expected proceeds from the sale of Genworth Canada through a dividend to Genworth Holdings to allow the

pay-off

of a senior secured term loan facility dated March 7, 2018 among Genworth Holdings as the borrower, GFIH as the limited guarantor and the lending parties thereto. Oral arguments on our motion to dismiss and plaintiffs’ motion occurred on October 21, 2019, and plaintiffs’ motion was denied. On January 31, 2020, the Court granted in part our motion to dismiss, dismissing claims relating to $395 million in dividends GLIC paid to its parent from 2012 to 2014 (out of the $410 million in total dividends subject to plaintiffs’ claims). The Court denied the balance of the motion to dismiss leaving a claim relating to $15 million in dividends and unquantified claims relating to the 2016 termination of a reinsurance transaction. On March 27, 2020, we filed our answer to plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On May 26, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended and supplemental class action complaint adding additional factual allegations and three new causes of action. On July 26, 2021, we moved to dismiss the three new causes of action and answered the balance of the second amended and supplemental class action complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss on September 30, 2021. The Court heard oral arguments on the motion on December 7, 2021 and ordered each party to file supplemental submissions, which were filed on January 28, 2022. On

May 10, 2022, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the three new causes of action. On January 27, 2022, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin GFIH from transferring any assets to any affiliate, including paying any dividends to Genworth Holdings and to enjoin Genworth Holdings and Genworth Financial from transferring or distributing any value to Genworth Financial’s shareholders. On June 2, 2022, plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

April 6, 2020, GLAIC was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned

Brighton Trustees, LLC, on behalf of and as trustee for Diamond LS Trust; and Bank of Utah, solely as securities intermediary for Diamond LS Trust; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company

. On May 13, 2020, GLAIC was also named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, captioned

Ronald L. Daubenmier, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company

. On June 26, 2020, plaintiffs filed a consent motion to consolidate the two cases. On June 30, 2020, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an order consolidating the Brighton Trustees and Daubenmier cases. On July 17, 2020, the Brighton Trustees and Daubenmier plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, alleging that GLAIC subjected policyholders to unlawful and excessive increases to cost of insurance charges. The consolidated complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million. The parties participated in a mediation on November 18, 2021. On March 25, 2022, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the action for $25 million, subject to Court approval.

The Court preliminarily approved the settlement and set October 17, 2022 for the final hearing.

We accrued $25 million for this litigation as of March 31, 2022. In the second quarter of 2022, we paid the accrued balance in full, and accordingly, have no remaining amounts outstanding related to the agreement in principle.

If the settlement is not finally approved, we intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

In January 2021, GLIC and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York (“GLICNY”) were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned

Judy Halcom, Hugh Penson, Harold Cherry, and Richard Landino, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Company and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York

. Plaintiffs seek to represent long-term care insurance policyholders, alleging that the defendants made misleading and inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases for long-term care insurance policies. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million. The trial

was

scheduled to commence on June 1, 2022. On June 18, 2021, following two days of mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter on a nationwide basis and signed the settlement agreement on August 23, 2021. On August 31, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. The final approval hearing occurred on February 9, 2022, and on June

29, 2022, the Court issued its final approval of the settlement, which became final on July 29, 2022, when the appeals period expired and no appeal was filed. We expect to begin implementation of this settlement in the third quarter of 2022, but given the 90-day policyholder election window, we anticipate

financial impacts will not begin until the fourth quarter of 2022. Moreover, because the election mailings occur on the policyholder’s anniversary date, the majority of the impacts are expected to be in 2023. Based on the Court’s final approval of the settlement, we anticipate a net positive benefit to earnings from the settlement of this case.

In January 2021, GLAIC was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon captioned

Patsy H. McMillan, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company

. Plaintiff seeks to represent life insurance policyholders, alleging that GLAIC impermissibly calculated cost of insurance rates to be higher than permitted by her policy. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $5 million. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

On August 11, 2021, GLIC and GLICNY received a request for pre-suit mediation related to a potential class action lawsuit that may be brought by five long-term care insurance policyholders, seeking to represent a

nationwide class alleging that the defendants made misleading and inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases

for long-term care insurance policies. The draft complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and seeks damages in excess of $

million. Genworth participated in

pre-suit

mediation in

November 2021

and

January 2022

. On January

2022

, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the dispute on a nationwide basis, subject to the negotiation and execution of a final settlement agreement, and Court approval thereof. On January

2022

, the complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned

Fred Haney, Marsha Merrill, Sylvia Swanson, and Alan Wooten, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Company and Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York

. The parties executed a settlement agreement consistent with the agreement in principle signed on January

2022

. On May

2022

, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. The final approval hearing is scheduled for November

2022

If the Court approves the settlement,

we would expect an overall net favorable impact on our results of operations. If the Court does not approve the final settlement, we intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

At this time we cannot determine or predict the ultimate outcome of any of the pending legal and regulatory matters specifically identified above or the likelihood of potential future legal and regulatory matters against us. Except as disclosed above, we are not able to provide an estimate or range of reasonably possible losses related to these matters. Therefore, we cannot ensure that the current investigations and proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, it is possible that related investigations and proceedings may be commenced in the future, and we could become subject to additional unrelated investigations and lawsuits. Increased regulatory scrutiny and any resulting investigations or proceedings could result in new legal precedents and industry-wide regulations or practices that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

(b) Commitments

As of June 30, 2022, we were committed to fund $1,409 million in limited partnership investments, $64 million in U.S. commercial mortgage loan investments and $24 million in private placement investments. As of June 30, 2022, we were also committed to fund $75 million of bank loan investments which had not yet been drawn.