COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Litigation

Litigation, regulatory and other loss contingencies arise in the ordinary course of the Company’s activities as a diversified financial services firm. The Company is a defendant in a number of litigation matters arising from the conduct of its business. In some of these matters, claimants seek to recover very large or indeterminate amounts, including compensatory, punitive, treble and exemplary damages. Modern pleading practice permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages and other relief. Claimants are not always required to specify the monetary damages they seek, or they may be required only to state an amount sufficient to meet a court’s jurisdictional requirements. Moreover, some jurisdictions allow claimants to allege monetary damages that far exceed any reasonably 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, among other things, insurers’ sales practices, alleged agent misconduct, alleged failure to properly supervise agents, contract administration, product design, features and accompanying disclosure, cost of insurance increases, payments of death benefits and the reporting and escheatment of unclaimed property, alleged breach of fiduciary duties, alleged mismanagement of client funds and other matters.

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 is difficult to predict, and the amount or range of potential losses associated with these or other loss contingencies 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, litigation and other loss contingencies. 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 neither the outcome of pending litigation and regulatory matters, nor potential liabilities associated with other loss contingencies, are likely to have such an effect. However, given the large and indeterminate amounts sought in certain litigation and the inherent unpredictability of all such matters, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain of the Company’s litigation or regulatory matters, or liabilities arising from other loss contingencies, 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. For matters where the Company 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 or for matters where no accrual is required, the Company develops an estimate of the unaccrued amounts of the reasonably possible range of losses. As of March 31, 2020, 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 million.

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.

In August 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial Division of New Haven entitled Richard T. O’Donnell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons who purchased variable annuities from Equitable Life, which were subsequently subjected to the volatility management strategy and who suffered injury as a result thereof. Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract alleging that Equitable Life implemented the volatility management strategy in violation of applicable law. Plaintiff seeks an award of damages individually and on a classwide basis, and costs and disbursements, including attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees and other costs. In November 2015, the Connecticut Federal District Court transferred this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In March 2017, the Southern District of New York granted Equitable Life’s motion to dismiss the complaint. In April 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In April 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the trial court’s decision with instructions to remand the case to Connecticut state court. In September 2018, the Second Circuit issued its mandate, following Equitable Life’s notification to the court that it would not file a petition for writ of certiorari. The case was transferred in December 2018 and is pending in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Stamford. We are vigorously defending this matter.

In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all owners of universal life (“UL”) policies subject to Equitable Life’s COI rate increase. In early 2016, Equitable Life raised COI rates for certain UL policies issued between 2004 and 2007, which had both issue ages 70 and above and a current face value amount of $1 million and above. A second putative class action was filed in Arizona in 2017 and consolidated with the Brach matter. The current consolidated amended class action complaint alleges the following claims: breach of contract; misrepresentations by Equitable Life in violation of Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law; violations of New York General Business Law Section 349; and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California Elder Abuse Statute. Plaintiffs seek: (a) compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and post-judgment interest; (b) with respect to their claim concerning Section 4226, a penalty in the amount of premiums paid by the plaintiffs and the putative class; and (c) injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees in connection with their statutory claims. Five other federal actions challenging the COI rate increase are also pending against Equitable Life and have been coordinated with the Brach action for the purposes of pre-trial activities. They contain allegations similar to those in the Brach action as well as additional allegations for violations of various states’ consumer protection statutes and common law fraud. Three actions are also pending against Equitable Life in New York state court. Equitable Life is vigorously defending each of these matters.

Pre-Capitalized Trust Securities (“P-Caps”)

In April 2019, pursuant to separate Purchase Agreements among Holdings, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, as representative of the several initial purchasers, and the Trusts (as defined below), Pine Street Trust I, a Delaware statutory trust (the “2029 Trust”), completed the issuance and sale of 600,000 of its Pre-Capitalized Trust Securities redeemable February 15, 2029 (the “2029 P-Caps”) for an aggregate purchase price of $600 million and Pine Street Trust II, a Delaware statutory trust (the “2049 Trust” and, together with the 2029 Trust, the “Trusts”), completed the issuance and sale of 400,000 of its Pre-Capitalized Trust Securities redeemable February 15, 2049 (the “2049 P-Caps” and, together with the 2029 P-Caps, the “P-Caps”) for an aggregate purchase price of $400 million in each case to qualified institutional buyers in reliance on Rule 144A that are also “qualified purchasers” for purposes of Section 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended.

The P-Caps are an off-balance sheet contingent funding arrangement that, upon Holdings’ election, gives Holdings the right over a ten-year period (in the case of the 2029 Trust) or over a thirty-year period (in the case of the 2049 Trust) to issue senior notes to the Trusts. The Trusts each invested the proceeds from the sale of their P-Caps in separate portfolios of principal and/or interest strips of U.S. Treasury securities. In return, Holdings will pay a semi-annual facility fee to the 2029 Trust and 2049 Trust calculated at a rate of 2.125% and 2.715% per annum, respectively, which will be applied to the unexercised portion of the contingent funding arrangement and Holdings will reimburse the Trusts for certain expenses. The facility fees are recorded in Other operating costs and expenses in the Consolidated Statements of Income (Loss).

Obligations under Funding Agreements

Federal Home Loan Bank of New York

As a member of the FHLBNY, Equitable Life has access to collateralized borrowings. It also may issue funding agreements to the FHLBNY. Both the collateralized borrowings and funding agreements would require Equitable Life to pledge qualified mortgage-backed assets and/or government securities as collateral. Equitable Life issues short-term funding agreements to the FHLBNY and uses the funds for asset, liability, and cash management purposes. Equitable Life issues long-term funding agreements to the FHLBNY and uses the funds for spread lending purposes.

Entering into FHLBNY membership, borrowings and funding agreements requires the ownership of FHLBNY stock and the pledge of assets as collateral. Equitable Life has purchased FHLBNY stock of $315 million and pledged collateral with a carrying value of $9.8 billion, as of March 31, 2020.

Funding agreements are reported in Policyholders’ account balances in the consolidated balance sheets. For other instruments used for asset/liability and cash management purposes, see “Derivative and offsetting assets and liabilities” included in Note 4. The table below summarizes the Company’s activity of funding agreements with the FHLBNY.

Change in FHLBNY Funding Agreements during the Three Months Ended March 31, 2020



	Outstanding Balance at December 31, 2019		Issued During the Period		Repaid During the Period		Long-term Agreements Maturing Within One Year			Outstanding Balance at March 31, 2020
	(in millions)
Short-term funding agreements:
Due in one year or less	$	4,608	$	11,750	$	11,900	$	174		$	4,632
Long-term funding agreements:
Due in years two through five	1,646		—		—		(174		)	1,472
Due in more than five years	646		—		—		—			646
Total long-term funding agreements	2,292		—		—		(174		)	2,119
Total funding agreements (1)	$	6,900	$	11,750	$	11,900	$	—		$	6,750

_____________


(1)	The $9 million and $9 million difference between the funding agreements carrying value shown in fair value table for March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively, reflects the remaining amortization of a hedge implemented and closed, which locked in the funding agreements borrowing rates.

Guarantees and Other Commitments

The Company provides certain guarantees or commitments to affiliates and others. At March 31, 2020, these arrangements include commitments by the Company to provide equity financing of $1.1 billion (including $220 million with affiliates) to certain limited partnerships and real estate joint ventures under certain conditions. Management believes the Company will not incur material losses as a result of these commitments.

The Company is the obligor under certain structured settlement agreements it had entered into with unaffiliated insurance companies and beneficiaries. To satisfy its obligations under these agreements, the Company owns single premium annuities issued by previously wholly-owned life insurance subsidiaries. The Company has directed payment under these annuities to be made directly to the beneficiaries under the structured settlement agreements. A contingent liability exists with respect to these agreements should the previously wholly-owned subsidiaries be unable to meet their obligations. Management believes the need for the Company to satisfy those obligations is remote.

Holdings had $426 million of commitments under existing mortgage loan agreements at March 31, 2020.