COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	11.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Company has entered into indemnity agreements with each of its current directors other than those that are employees of Dai-ichi Life that provide, among other things and subject to certain limitations, a contractual right to indemnification to the fullest extent permissible under the law. The Company has agreements with certain of its officers providing up to $10 million in indemnification. These obligations are in addition to the customary obligation to indemnify officers and directors contained in the Company’s governance documents. Under insurance guaranty fund laws, in most states insurance companies doing business therein can be assessed up to prescribed limits for policyholder losses incurred by insolvent companies. In addition, from time to time, companies may be asked to contribute amounts beyond prescribed limits. Most insurance guaranty fund laws provide that an assessment may be excused or deferred if it would threaten an insurer’s own financial strength. The Company does not believe its insurance guaranty fund assessments will be materially different from amounts already provided for in the financial statements. A number of civil jury verdicts have been returned against insurers, broker dealers and other providers of financial services involving sales, refund or claims practices, alleged agent misconduct, failure to properly supervise representatives, relationships with agents or persons with whom the insurer does business, and other matters. Often these lawsuits have resulted in the award of substantial judgments that are disproportionate to the actual damages, including material amounts of punitive and non-economic compensatory damages. In some states, juries, judges, and arbitrators have substantial discretion in awarding punitive non-economic compensatory damages which creates the potential for unpredictable material adverse judgments or awards in any given lawsuit or arbitration. Arbitration awards are subject to very limited appellate review. In addition, in some class action and other lawsuits, companies have made material settlement payments. Publicly held companies in general and the financial services and insurance industries in particular are also sometimes the target of law enforcement and regulatory investigations relating to the numerous laws and regulations that govern such companies. Some companies have been the subject of law enforcement or regulatory actions or other actions resulting from such investigations. The Company, in the ordinary course of business, is involved in such matters. The Company establishes liabilities for litigation and regulatory actions when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. For matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no liability is established. For such matters, the Company may provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. The Company reviews relevant information with respect to litigation and regulatory matters on a quarterly and annual basis and updates its established liabilities, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or range of loss based on such reviews. After the entry into the Merger Agreement on June 3, 2014, four lawsuits were filed against the Company, our then current directors, Dai-ichi Life and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. on behalf of alleged Company shareowners. On June 11, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit styled Edelman, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV- 2014-902474.00, was filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. On July 30, 2014, the plaintiff in Edelman filed an amended complaint. Three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Martin, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9794-CB, filed June 19, 2014, Leyendecker, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9931-CB, filed July 22, 2014 and Hilburn, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9937-CB, filed July 23, 2014. The Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the Martin, Leyendecker, and Hilburn actions under the caption In re Protective Life Corp. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 9794-CB, designated the Hilburn complaint as the operative consolidated complaint (the “Delaware Action”) and appointed Charlotte Martin, Samuel J. Leyendecker, Jr., and Deborah J. Hilburn to serve as co-lead plaintiffs. These lawsuits alleged that our Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to the Company’s shareowners, that the Merger involved an unfair price, an inadequate sales process, and unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly precluded competing offers, and that the preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on July 10, 2014 failed to disclose purportedly material information. The complaints also alleged that the Company, Dai-ichi Life and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints sought injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the Merger, and attorneys’ and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief. The Delaware Action also sought an award of unspecified damages. With respect to the Edelman lawsuit, on September 5, 2014, the court held a hearing to address motions to dismiss the lawsuit filed on behalf of the Company, the members of the Company’s Board, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. On September 19, 2014, the court granted those motions and dismissed the Edelman lawsuit in its entirety and with prejudice, pending a possible appeal by the plaintiff. With respect to the Delaware Action, on September 24, 2014, the Company, each of the members of the Company’s Board, Dai-ichi Life, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) with the plaintiffs in that case, which set forth the parties’ agreement in principle for a settlement of the Delaware Action. As set forth in the MOU, the Company, the members of the Company’s Board, Dai-ichi Life, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. agreed to the settlement solely to eliminate the burden, expense, distraction, and uncertainties inherent in further litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. The MOU contemplated that the parties would seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement providing for the certification of a mandatory non opt-out class, for settlement purposes only, to include any and all record and beneficial owners of shares (excluding the members of the Company’s Board and their immediate family members, any entity in which any member of the Company’s Board has a controlling interest, and any successors in interest thereto) that held shares at any time during the period beginning on June 3, 2014, through the date of consummation or termination of the Merger, including any and all of their respective successors in interest, successors, predecessors in interest, representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, heirs, assigns, or transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them, together with their predecessors, successors and assigns, and a global release of claims relating to the Merger as set forth in the MOU. As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the Merger which are set forth in the Company’s Form 8-K filed on September 25, 2014 and which supplement the information contained in the Company’s definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC on August 25, 2014, as amended on August 27, 2014. Nothing in the Form 8-K or stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any of the disclosures set forth in the Form 8-K. The stipulation of settlement and release of all claims in the Delaware Action was approved by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on June 16, 2015. The terms of the settlement had no effect on the consideration received by Company shareowners in connection with the completion of the Merger, and the amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded to the plaintiffs’ counsel did not have a material impact upon the Company. In 2012, the IRS proposed favorable and unfavorable adjustments to the Company’s 2003 through 2007 reported taxable income. The Company protested certain unfavorable adjustments and was seeking resolution at the IRS’ Appeals Division. The case followed normal procedure and was under review at Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation. Subsequent to September 30, 2015, Appeals accepted the Company’s proposed settlement offer that related to its earlier protest. As a result, the Company expects to pay approximately $13.0 million in tax. This payment will not materially impact the Company nor its effective tax rate. In the three months ended September 30, 2015, the IRS proposed favorable and unfavorable adjustments to the Company’s 2008 through 2011 reported taxable income. The Company agreed to these adjustments. As a result, it expects to receive approximately $9.8 million in tax refunds. However, due to the activity in the previous exam cycle per the preceding paragraph, the tax computations are in the process of being recomputed. Regardless of these recalculations, these refunds will not materially affect the Company’s effective tax rate. Through the acquisition of MONY by PLICO certain income tax credit carryforwards, which arose in MONY’s pre-acquisition tax years, transferred to the Company. This transfer was in accordance with the applicable rules of the Internal Revenue Code and the related Regulations. In spite of this transfer, AXA, the former parent of the consolidated income tax return group in which MONY was a member, retains the right to utilize these credits in the future to offset future increases in its 2010 through 2013 tax liabilities. The Company had determined that, based on all information known as of the acquisition date and through the March 31, 2014 reporting date, it was probable that a loss of the utilization of these carryforwards had been incurred. Due to indemnification received from AXA during the quarter ending June 30, 2014, the probability of loss of these carryforwards has been eliminated. Accordingly, in the table summarizing the fair value of net assets acquired from the Acquisition, the amount of the deferred tax asset from the credit carryforwards is no longer offset by a liability. Certain of the Company’s insurance subsidiaries, as well as certain other insurance companies for which the Company has coinsured blocks of life insurance and annuity policies, are under audit for compliance with the unclaimed property laws of a number of states. The audits are being conducted on behalf of the treasury departments or unclaimed property administrators in such states. The focus of the audits is on whether there have been unreported deaths, maturities, or policies that have exceeded limiting age with respect to which death benefits or other payments under life insurance or annuity policies should be treated as unclaimed property that should be escheated to the state. The Company is presently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from the audits due to a number of factors, including uncertainty as to the legal theory or theories that may give rise to liability, the early stages of the audits being conducted, and, with respect to one block of life insurance policies that is co-insured by a subsidiary of the Company, uncertainty as to whether the Company or other companies are responsible for the liabilities, if any, arising in connection with such policies. The Company will continue to monitor the matter for any developments that would make the loss contingency associated with the audits probable or reasonably estimable. Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries are under a targeted multi-state examination with respect to their claims paying practices and their use of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File or similar databases (a “Death Database”) to identify unreported deaths in their life insurance policies, annuity contracts and retained asset accounts. There is no clear basis in previously existing law for requiring a life insurer to search for unreported deaths in order to determine whether a benefit is owed, and substantial legal authority exists to support the position that the prevailing industry practice was lawful. A number of life insurers, however, have entered into settlement or consent agreements with state insurance regulators under which the life insurers agreed to implement procedures for periodically comparing their life insurance and annuity contracts and retained asset accounts against a Death Database, treating confirmed deaths as giving rise to a death benefit under their policies, locating beneficiaries and paying them the benefits and interest, and escheating the benefits and interest as well as penalties to the state if the beneficiary could not be found. It has been publicly reported that the life insurers have paid administrative and/or examination fees to the insurance regulators in connection with the settlement or consent agreements. The Company believes it is reasonably possible that insurance regulators could demand from the Company administrative and/or examination fees relating to the targeted multi-state examination. Based on publicly reported payments by other life insurers, the Company estimates the range of such fees to be from $0 to $3.5 million.

11.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company has entered into indemnity agreements with each of its current directors other than those that are employees of Dai-ichi Life that provide, among other things and subject to certain limitations, a contractual right to indemnification to the fullest extent permissible under the law. The Company has agreements with certain of its officers providing up to $10 million in indemnification. These obligations are in addition to the customary obligation to indemnify officers and directors contained in the Company’s governance documents.

Under insurance guaranty fund laws, in most states insurance companies doing business therein can be assessed up to prescribed limits for policyholder losses incurred by insolvent companies. In addition, from time to time, companies may be asked to contribute amounts beyond prescribed limits. Most insurance guaranty fund laws provide that an assessment may be excused or deferred if it would threaten an insurer’s own financial strength. The Company does not believe its insurance guaranty fund assessments will be materially different from amounts already provided for in the financial statements.

A number of civil jury verdicts have been returned against insurers, broker dealers and other providers of financial services involving sales, refund or claims practices, alleged agent misconduct, failure to properly supervise representatives, relationships with agents or persons with whom the insurer does business, and other matters. Often these lawsuits have resulted in the award of substantial judgments that are disproportionate to the actual damages, including material amounts of punitive and non-economic compensatory damages. In some states, juries, judges, and arbitrators have substantial discretion in awarding punitive non-economic compensatory damages which creates the potential for unpredictable material adverse judgments or awards in any given lawsuit or arbitration. Arbitration awards are subject to very limited appellate review. In addition, in some class action and other lawsuits, companies have made material settlement payments. Publicly held companies in general and the financial services and insurance industries in particular are also sometimes the target of law enforcement and regulatory investigations relating to the numerous laws and regulations that govern such companies. Some companies have been the subject of law enforcement or regulatory actions or other actions resulting from such investigations. The Company, in the ordinary course of business, is involved in such matters.

The Company establishes liabilities for litigation and regulatory actions when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. For matters where a loss is believed to be reasonably possible, but not probable, no liability is established. For such matters, the Company may provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. The Company reviews relevant information with respect to litigation and regulatory matters on a quarterly and annual basis and updates its established liabilities, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible losses or range of loss based on such reviews.

After the entry into the Merger Agreement on June 3, 2014, four lawsuits were filed against the Company, our then current directors, Dai-ichi Life and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. on behalf of alleged Company shareowners. On June 11, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit styled Edelman, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV- 2014-902474.00, was filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. On July 30, 2014, the plaintiff in Edelman filed an amended complaint. Three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Martin, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9794-CB, filed June 19, 2014, Leyendecker, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9931-CB, filed July 22, 2014 and Hilburn, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9937-CB, filed July 23, 2014. The Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the Martin, Leyendecker, and Hilburn actions under the caption In re Protective Life Corp. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 9794-CB, designated the Hilburn complaint as the operative consolidated complaint (the “Delaware Action”) and appointed Charlotte Martin, Samuel J. Leyendecker, Jr., and Deborah J. Hilburn to serve as co-lead plaintiffs. These lawsuits alleged that our Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to the Company’s shareowners, that the Merger involved an unfair price, an inadequate sales process, and unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly precluded competing offers, and that the preliminary proxy statement filed with the SEC on July 10, 2014 failed to disclose purportedly material information. The complaints also alleged that the Company, Dai-ichi Life and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints sought injunctive relief, including enjoining or rescinding the Merger, and attorneys’ and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief. The Delaware Action also sought an award of unspecified damages.

With respect to the Edelman lawsuit, on September 5, 2014, the court held a hearing to address motions to dismiss the lawsuit filed on behalf of the Company, the members of the Company’s Board, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. On September 19, 2014, the court granted those motions and dismissed the Edelman lawsuit in its entirety and with prejudice, pending a possible appeal by the plaintiff. With respect to the Delaware Action, on September 24, 2014, the Company, each of the members of the Company’s Board, Dai-ichi Life, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) with the plaintiffs in that case, which set forth the parties’ agreement in principle for a settlement of the Delaware Action. As set forth in the MOU, the Company, the members of the Company’s Board, Dai-ichi Life, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. agreed to the settlement solely to eliminate the burden, expense, distraction, and uncertainties inherent in further litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. The MOU contemplated that the parties would seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement providing for the certification of a mandatory non opt-out class, for settlement purposes only, to include any and all record and beneficial owners of shares (excluding the members of the Company’s Board and their immediate family members, any entity in which any member of the Company’s Board has a controlling interest, and any successors in interest thereto) that held shares at any time during the period beginning on June 3, 2014, through the date of consummation or termination of the Merger, including any and all of their respective successors in interest, successors, predecessors in interest, representatives, trustees, executors, administrators, heirs, assigns, or transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under, any of them, together with their predecessors, successors and assigns, and a global release of claims relating to the Merger as set forth in the MOU. As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the Merger which are set forth in the Company’s Form 8-K filed on September 25, 2014 and which supplement the information contained in the Company’s definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC on August 25, 2014, as amended on August 27, 2014. Nothing in the Form 8-K or stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any of the disclosures set forth in the Form 8-K. The stipulation of settlement and release of all claims in the Delaware Action was approved by the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on June 16, 2015. The terms of the settlement had no effect on the consideration received by Company shareowners in connection with the completion of the Merger, and the amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded to the plaintiffs’ counsel did not have a material impact upon the Company.

In 2012, the IRS proposed favorable and unfavorable adjustments to the Company’s 2003 through 2007 reported taxable income. The Company protested certain unfavorable adjustments and was seeking resolution at the IRS’ Appeals Division. The case followed normal procedure and was under review at Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation. Subsequent to September 30, 2015, Appeals accepted the Company’s proposed settlement offer that related to its earlier protest. As a result, the Company expects to pay approximately $13.0 million in tax. This payment will not materially impact the Company nor its effective tax rate.

In the three months ended September 30, 2015, the IRS proposed favorable and unfavorable adjustments to the Company’s 2008 through 2011 reported taxable income. The Company agreed to these adjustments. As a result, it expects to receive approximately $9.8 million in tax refunds. However, due to the activity in the previous exam cycle per the preceding paragraph, the tax computations are in the process of being recomputed. Regardless of these recalculations, these refunds will not materially affect the Company’s effective tax rate. Through the acquisition of MONY by PLICO certain income tax credit carryforwards, which arose in MONY’s pre-acquisition tax years, transferred to the Company. This transfer was in accordance with the applicable rules of the Internal Revenue Code and the related Regulations. In spite of this transfer, AXA, the former parent of the consolidated income tax return group in which MONY was a member, retains the right to utilize these credits in the future to offset future increases in its 2010 through 2013 tax liabilities. The Company had determined that, based on all information known as of the acquisition date and through the March 31, 2014 reporting date, it was probable that a loss of the utilization of these carryforwards had been incurred. Due to indemnification received from AXA during the quarter ending June 30, 2014, the probability of loss of these carryforwards has been eliminated. Accordingly, in the table summarizing the fair value of net assets acquired from the Acquisition, the amount of the deferred tax asset from the credit carryforwards is no longer offset by a liability.

Certain of the Company’s insurance subsidiaries, as well as certain other insurance companies for which the Company has coinsured blocks of life insurance and annuity policies, are under audit for compliance with the unclaimed property laws of a number of states. The audits are being conducted on behalf of the treasury departments or unclaimed property administrators in such states. The focus of the audits is on whether there have been unreported deaths, maturities, or policies that have exceeded limiting age with respect to which death benefits or other payments under life insurance or annuity policies should be treated as unclaimed property that should be escheated to the state. The Company is presently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from the audits due to a number of factors, including uncertainty as to the legal theory or theories that may give rise to liability, the early stages of the audits being conducted, and, with respect to one block of life insurance policies that is co-insured by a subsidiary of the Company, uncertainty as to whether the Company or other companies are responsible for the liabilities, if any, arising in connection with such policies. The Company will continue to monitor the matter for any developments that would make the loss contingency associated with the audits probable or reasonably estimable.

Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries are under a targeted multi-state examination with respect to their claims paying practices and their use of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File or similar databases (a “Death Database”) to identify unreported deaths in their life insurance policies, annuity contracts and retained asset accounts. There is no clear basis in previously existing law for requiring a life insurer to search for unreported deaths in order to determine whether a benefit is owed, and substantial legal authority exists to support the position that the prevailing industry practice was lawful. A number of life insurers, however, have entered into settlement or consent agreements with state insurance regulators under which the life insurers agreed to implement procedures for periodically comparing their life insurance and annuity contracts and retained asset accounts against a Death Database, treating confirmed deaths as giving rise to a death benefit under their policies, locating beneficiaries and paying them the benefits and interest, and escheating the benefits and interest as well as penalties to the state if the beneficiary could not be found. It has been publicly reported that the life insurers have paid administrative and/or examination fees to the insurance regulators in connection with the settlement or consent agreements. The Company believes it is reasonably possible that insurance regulators could demand from the Company administrative and/or examination fees relating to the targeted multi-state examination. Based on publicly reported payments by other life insurers, the Company estimates the range of such fees to be from $0 to $3.5 million.