Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

The Company leases its office space and certain equipment under operating leases, the longest term of which expires in 2027.

For the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, rent expense for leases was $34. For the year ended December 31, 2015 rent expense for leases was $40. The future net minimum payments under non-cancelable leases are as follows as of December 31, 2017:



2018	$	29
2019	27
2020	24
2021	23
2022	23
Thereafter	39
Total minimum lease payments	$	165

Commitments

Through the normal course of investment operations, the Company commits to either purchase or sell securities, mortgage loans, or money market instruments, at a specified future date and at a specified price or yield. The inability of counterparties to honor these commitments may result in either a higher or lower replacement cost. Also, there is likely to be a change in the value of the securities underlying the commitments.

For the continuing business, as of December 31, 2017, the Company had off-balance sheet commitments to acquire mortgage loans of $369 and purchase limited partnerships and private placement investments of $1,212, of which $325 related to consolidated investment entities. For the businesses held for sale, as of December 31, 2017, the Company had off-balance sheet commitments to acquire mortgage loans of $202 and purchase limited partnerships and private placement investments of $400.

Insurance Company Guaranty Fund Assessments

Insurance companies are assessed on the costs of funding the insolvencies of other insurance companies by the various state guaranty associations, generally based on the amount of premiums companies collect in that state.

The Company accrues the cost of future guaranty fund assessments based on estimates of insurance company insolvencies provided by the National Organization of Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Associations and the amount of premiums written in each state. The Company has estimated this undiscounted liability, which is included in Other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, to be $6 and $12 as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The Company has also recorded an asset, in Other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets of $19 and $21 as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, for future credits to premium taxes. The Company estimates its liabilities for future assessments under state insurance guaranty association laws. The Company believes the reserves established are adequate for future assessments relating to insurance companies that are currently subject to insolvency proceedings.

Restricted Assets

The Company is required to maintain assets on deposit with various regulatory authorities to support its insurance operations. The Company may also post collateral in connection with certain securities lending, repurchase agreements, funding agreements, credit facilities and derivative transactions. The components of the fair value of the restricted assets were as follows as of December 31, 2017 and 2016:



	2017		2016
Fixed maturity collateral pledged to FHLB⁽¹⁾	$	602	$	405
FHLB restricted stock⁽²⁾	67		33
Other fixed maturities-state deposits	175		197
Securities pledged⁽³⁾	2,087		1,409
Total restricted assets	$	2,931	$	2,044

⁽¹⁾Included in Fixed maturities, available-for-sale, at fair value on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Excludes $691 of collateral pledged related to the businesses held for sale as of December 31, 2017.

⁽²⁾Included in Other investments on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

⁽³⁾Includes the fair value of loaned securities of $1,854 and $1,133 as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. In addition, as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company delivered securities as collateral of $233 and $276, respectively. Loaned securities and securities delivered as collateral are included in Securities pledged on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Federal Home Loan Bank Funding Agreements

The Company is a member of the FHLB of Des Moines and the FHLB of Topeka and is required to pledge collateral to back funding agreements issued to the FHLB. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company had $501 and $300, respectively, in non-putable funding agreements, which are included in Contract owner account balances on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of December 31, 2017 and 2016, assets with a market value of approximately $602 and $405, respectively, collateralized the FHLB funding agreements. Assets pledged to the FHLB are included in Fixed maturities, available-for-sale, at fair value on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Litigation, Regulatory Matters and Loss Contingencies

Litigation, regulatory and other loss contingencies arise in connection with 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, both in the ordinary course and otherwise. In some of these matters, claimants seek to recover very large or indeterminate amounts, including compensatory, punitive, treble and exemplary damages. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. 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 negligence, breach of contract, fraud, violation of regulation or statute, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, failure to supervise, elder abuse and other torts.

As with other financial services companies, the Company periodically receives informal and formal requests for information from various state and federal governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations in connection with inquiries and investigations of the products and practices of the Company or the financial services industry. It is the practice of the Company to cooperate fully in these matters.

The outcome of a litigation or regulatory matter 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, however, believes a loss is reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual is required. For matters for which an accrual has been made, but there remains a reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the amounts accrued 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 December 31, 2017, 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 $75.

For other matters, the Company is currently not able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The Company is often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from plaintiffs and other parties, investigation of factual allegations, rulings by a court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts and the progress of settlement discussions. On a quarterly and annual basis, the Company reviews relevant information with respect to litigation and regulatory contingencies and updates the Company's accruals, disclosures and reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews.

Litigation includes Beeson, et al. v SMMS, Lion Connecticut Holdings, Inc. and ING NAIC (Marin County CA Superior Court, CIV-092545). Thirty-four Plaintiff households (husband/wife/trust) assert that SMMS, which was purchased in 2000 and sold in 2003, breached a duty to monitor the performance of investments that Plaintiffs made with independent financial advisors they met in conjunction with retirement planning seminars presented at Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company. SMMS recommended the advisors to Fireman’s Fund as seminar presenters. Some of the seminars were arranged by SMMS. As a result of the performance of their investments, Plaintiffs claim they incurred damages. Fireman’s Fund has asserted breach of contract and concealment claims against SMMS alleging that SMMS failed to fulfill its ongoing obligation to monitor the financial advisors and the investments they recommended to Plaintiffs and by failing to disclose that a primary purpose of the seminars was to develop business for the financial advisors. The Company denied all claims and vigorously defended this case at trial. During trial, the Court ruled that SMMS had duties to Plaintiffs and Fireman’s Fund that it has breached. On December 12, 2014, the Court issued a Statement of Decision in which it awarded damages in the aggregate of $37 to Plaintiffs. On January 7, 2015, the Court made final the award in favor of the Plaintiffs. The Company appealed that judgment. On February 9, 2016, final judgment in favor of Fireman's Fund was entered in the amount of $13. The company has appealed that judgment.

Litigation also includes Dezelan v. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-1251) (filed July 26, 2016), a putative class action in which plaintiff, a participant in a 403(b) Plan, seeks to represent a class of plans whose assets are invested in Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company ("VRIAC") "Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds." Plaintiff alleges that VRIAC has violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by charging unreasonable fees and setting its own compensation in connection with stable value products. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, damages and attorney’s fees. The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously. On July 19, 2017 the district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, but permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint, and the Company has moved to dismiss that complaint.

Litigation also includes Patrico v. Voya Financial, Inc., et al (USDC SDNY, No. 1:16-cv-07070) (filed September 9, 2016), a putative class action in which plaintiff, a participant in a 401(k) Plan, seeks to represent a class of plans "for which Voya or its subsidiaries provide recordkeeping, investment management or investment advisory services and for which Financial Engines provides investment advice to plan participants." Plaintiff alleges that the Company and its affiliates have violated ERISA by charging unreasonable fees in connection with in-plan investment advice provided in conjunction with Financial Engines, a third-party investment adviser. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, damages and attorney’s fees. The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously. On June 20, 2017, the district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, but permitted the plaintiff to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, and the Company opposed that motion.

Litigation also includes Goetz v. Voya Financial and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Delaware, No. 1:17-cv-1289) (filed September 8, 2017), a putative class action in which plaintiff, a participant in a 401(k) plan, seeks to represent other participants in the plan as well as a class of similarly situated plans that "contract with [Voya] for recordkeeping and other services." Plaintiff alleges that "Voya" breached its fiduciary duty to the plan and other plan participants by charging unreasonable and excessive recordkeeping fees, and that "Voya" distributed materially false and misleading 404a-5 administrative and fund fee disclosures to conceal its excessive fees. The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.

Contingencies related to Performance-based Capital Allocations on Private Equity Funds

Certain performance-based capital allocations related to sponsored private equity funds ("carried interest") are not final until the conclusion of an investment term specified in the relevant asset management contract. As a result, such carried interest, if accrued or paid to the Company during such term, is subject to later adjustment based on subsequent fund performance. If the fund’s cumulative investment return falls below specified investment return hurdles, some or all of the previously accrued carried interest is reversed to the extent that the Company is no longer entitled to the performance-based capital allocation. Should the fund’s cumulative investment return subsequently increase above specified investment return hurdles in future periods, previous reversals could be fully or partially recovered.

As of December 31, 2017, approximately $66 of previously accrued carried interest would be subject to full or partial reversal in future periods if cumulative fund performance hurdles are not maintained throughout the remaining life of the affected funds. For the year ended December 31, 2017, approximately $25 in previously reversed accrued carried interest, associated with one private equity fund, was recovered as a result of an increase in fund performance.

As of December 31, 2016, approximately $31 of previously accrued carried interest would be subject to full or partial reversal in future periods if cumulative fund performance hurdles are not maintained throughout the remaining life of the affected funds. For the year ended December 31, 2016, approximately $30 in previously accrued carried interest, associated with one private equity fund, was reversed as a result of a decline in fund performance.