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.

As of June 30, 2020, the Company had off-balance sheet commitments to acquire mortgage loans of $66 and purchase limited partnerships and private placement investments of $873, of which $242 related to consolidated investment entities.

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 the dates indicated:


	June 30, 2020		December 31, 2019
Fixed maturity collateral pledged to FHLB ⁽¹⁾	$	1,214	$	1,211
FHLB restricted stock⁽²⁾	54		55
Other fixed maturities-state deposits	44		48
Cash and cash equivalents	14		12
Securities pledged⁽³⁾	1,122		1,408
Total restricted assets	$	2,448	$	2,734

⁽³⁾Includes the fair value of loaned securities of $838 and $1,159 as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, respectively. In addition, as of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the Company delivered securities as collateral of $201 and $183 and repurchase agreements of $83 and $66, respectively. Loaned securities and securities delivered as collateral are included in Securities pledged on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The Company is a member of the FHLB of Des Moines and the FHLB of Boston and is required to pledge collateral to back funding agreements issued to the FHLB. As of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, the Company had $835 and $877, respectively, in non-putable funding agreements, which are included in Contract owner account balances on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of June 30, 2020 and December 31, 2019, assets with a market value of approximately $1,214 and $1,211, respectively, collateralized the FHLB funding agreements. Assets pledged to the FHLB are included in Fixed maturities, available-for-sale, at fair value on the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Additionally, SLD is currently a member of FHLB of Topeka. The related non-puttable funding agreements and the assets pledged are reflected in Liabilities and Assets held for sale on Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

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. Such matters include an SEC inquiry into mutual fund share classes offered by Voya’s investment advisor subsidiary, involving issues similar to those under the SEC’s Share Class Selection Disclosure Initiative where the SEC has been examining the subsidiary’s receipt of 12b1 fees and other revenue in relation to the accuracy and adequacy of its disclosures. It is the practice of the Company to cooperate fully in these matters.

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, excluding the SEC inquiry referenced immediately above, 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 June 30, 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 $50.

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 also includes Henkel of America v. ReliaStar Life Insurance Company (USDC District of Connecticut, No. 1:18-cv-00965) (filed June 8, 2018). Plaintiff alleges that ReliaStar breached the terms of a stop loss policy it issued to Plaintiff by refusing to reimburse Plaintiff for more than $47 in claims incurred by participants in prior years and submitted for coverage under the stop loss policy. Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract claim or, in the alternative, that the stop loss policy be declared to cover the submitted claims, and also asserts that ReliaStar engaged in unfair trade practices and unfair insurance practices in violation of state statutes, and did so willfully and intentionally to warrant an award of punitive damages under state law. The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.

Finally, industry wide, life insurers continue to be exposed to class action litigation related to the cost of insurance rates and periodic deductions from cash value. Common allegations include that insurance companies have breached the terms of their universal life insurance policies by establishing or increasing the cost of insurance rates using cost factors not permitted by the contract, thereby unjustly enriching themselves. This litigation is generally known as cost of insurance litigation.

Cost of insurance litigation for the Company includes Barnes v. Security Life of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-00718) (filed March 27, 2018), a putative class action in which the plaintiff alleges that his insurance policy only permitted the Company to rely upon his expected future mortality experience to establish and increase his cost of insurance, but the Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors to do so. Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and conversion claims

against the Company and also seeks declaratory relief. The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the matter vigorously.

Cost of insurance litigation for the Company also includes Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-01897) (filed July 26, 2018), a putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges that two specific types of universal life insurance policies only permitted the Company to rely upon the policyholder’s expected future mortality experience to establish and increase the cost of insurance, but the Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors not only in the administration of the policies over time, but also in the decision to increase insurance costs beginning in approximately October 2015. Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract and seeks class certification. The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Finally, cost of insurance litigation includes Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. ReliaStar Life Insurance Company (USDC District of Minnesota, No. 1:18-cv-02863) (filed October 5, 2018), a putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges that the Company’s universal life insurance policies only permitted the Company to rely upon the policyholders’ expected future mortality experience to establish the cost of insurance, and that as projected mortality experience improved, the policy language required the Company to decrease the cost of insurance. Plaintiff alleges that the Company did not decrease the cost of insurance as required, thereby breaching its contract with the policyholders, and seeks class certification. The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the complaint to be without merit, and will defend the lawsuit vigorously.

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 fut/ure periods, previous reversals could be fully or partially recovered.