XML 67 R32.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.22.4
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES, PRODUCT WARRANTIES AND OTHER LOSS CONTINGENCIES
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES, PRODUCT WARRANTIES AND OTHER LOSS CONTINGENCIES
NOTE 24. COMMITMENTS, GUARANTEES, PRODUCT WARRANTIES AND OTHER LOSS CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS. We had total investment commitments of $3,877 million at December 31, 2022. The commitments primarily comprise investments by our run-off insurance operations in investment securities and other assets of $3,778 million and included within these commitments are obligations to make investments in unconsolidated VIEs of $3,773 million. See Note 23 for further information.

As of December 31, 2022, in our Aerospace segment, we have committed to provide financing assistance of $2,390 million of future customer acquisitions of aircraft equipped with our engines.

GUARANTEES. At December 31, 2022, we were committed under the following guarantee arrangements:

Credit support. We have provided $1,143 million of credit support on behalf of certain customers or associated companies, predominantly joint ventures and partnerships, using arrangements such as standby letters of credit and performance guarantees. The liability for such credit support was $32 million.

Indemnification agreements - Continuing Operations. We have $534 million of indemnification commitments, including representations and warranties in sales of business assets, for which we recorded a liability of $80 million.

Indemnification agreements - Discontinued Operations. We have provided specific indemnities to buyers of assets of our business that, in the aggregate, represent a maximum potential claim of $717 million with related reserves of $77 million.
PRODUCT WARRANTIES. We provide for estimated product warranty expenses when we sell the related products. Because warranty estimates are forecasts that are based on the best available information, mostly historical claims experience, claims costs may differ from amounts provided. An analysis of changes in the liability for product warranties follows.

202220212020
Balance at January 1$1,891 $2,054 $2,165 
Current-year provisions(a)1,319 862 788 
Expenditures(967)(945)(913)
Other changes(90)(81)14 
Balance at December 31$2,153 $1,891 $2,054 
(a) The increase in current-year provisions is primarily related to Renewable Energy, which was substantially all due to changes in estimates on pre-existing warranties and related to the deployment of repairs and other corrective measures.

LEGAL MATTERS. In the normal course of our business, we are involved from time to time in various arbitrations, class actions, commercial litigation, investigations and other legal, regulatory or governmental actions, including the significant matters described below that could have a material impact on our results of operations. In many proceedings, including the specific matters described below, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even reasonably possible or to estimate the size or range of the possible loss, and accruals for legal matters are not recorded until a loss for a particular matter is considered probable and reasonably estimable. Given the nature of legal matters and the complexities involved, it is often difficult to predict and determine a meaningful estimate of loss or range of loss until we know, among other factors, the particular claims involved, the likelihood of success of our defenses to those claims, the damages or other relief sought, how discovery or other procedural considerations will affect the outcome, the settlement posture of other parties and other factors that may have a material effect on the outcome. For these matters, unless otherwise specified, we do not believe it is possible to provide a meaningful estimate of loss at this time. Moreover, it is not uncommon for legal matters to be resolved over many years, during which time relevant developments and new information must be continuously evaluated.

Alstom legacy legal matters. In 2015, we acquired the Steam Power, Renewables and Grid businesses from Alstom, which prior to our acquisition were the subject of significant cases involving anti-competitive activities and improper payments. We had reserves of $455 million and $567 million at December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively, for legal and compliance matters related to the legacy business practices that were the subject of cases in various jurisdictions. Allegations in these cases relate to claimed anti-competitive conduct or improper payments in the pre-acquisition period as the source of legal violations or damages. Given the significant litigation and compliance activity related to these matters and our ongoing efforts to resolve them, it is difficult to assess whether the disbursements will ultimately be consistent with the reserve established. The estimation of this reserve may not reflect the full range of uncertainties and unpredictable outcomes inherent in litigation and investigations of this nature, and at this time we are unable to develop a meaningful estimate of the range of reasonably possible additional losses beyond the amount of this reserve. Factors that can affect the ultimate amount of losses associated with these and related matters include the way cooperation is assessed and valued, prosecutorial discretion in the determination of damages, formulas for determining disgorgement, fines or penalties, the duration and amount of legal and investigative resources applied, political and social influences within each jurisdiction, and tax consequences of any settlements or previous deductions, among other considerations. Actual losses arising from claims in these and related matters could exceed the amount provided.

Shareholder and related lawsuits. Since November 2017, several putative shareholder class actions under the federal securities laws have been filed against GE and certain affiliated individuals and consolidated into a single action currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Hachem case). In October 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a fifth amended consolidated class action complaint naming as defendants GE and current and former GE executive officers. It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 related to insurance reserves and accounting for long-term service agreements and seeks damages on behalf of shareholders who acquired GE stock between February 27, 2013 and January 23, 2018. GE filed a motion to dismiss in December 2019. In January 2021, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the majority of the claims. Specifically, the court dismissed all claims related to insurance reserves, as well as all claims related to accounting for long-term service agreements, with the exception of certain claims about historic disclosures related to factoring in the Power business that survive as to GE and its former CFO Jeffrey S. Bornstein. All other individual defendants have been dismissed from the case. In April 2022, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification for shareholders who acquired stock between February 26, 2016 and January 23, 2018, and granted the plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint. In September 2022, GE filed a motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims.

Since February 2018, multiple shareholder derivative lawsuits have been filed against current and former GE executive officers and members of GE’s Board of Directors and GE (as nominal defendant). These lawsuits have alleged violations of securities laws, breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control and gross mismanagement, although the specific matters underlying the allegations in the lawsuits have varied. Two shareholder derivative lawsuits are currently pending: the Lindsey and Priest/Tola cases, which were filed in New York state court. The allegations in these two cases relate to substantially the same facts as those underlying the Hachem case. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and improvements in GE’s corporate governance and internal procedures. The Lindsey case has been stayed by agreement of the parties, and GE filed a motion to dismiss the Priest/Tola complaint in March 2021.
In July 2018, a putative class action (the Mahar case) was filed in New York state court naming as defendants GE, former GE executive officers, a former member of GE’s Board of Directors and KPMG. It alleged violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements related to insurance reserves and performance of GE’s business segments in GE Stock Direct Plan registration statements and documents incorporated therein by reference and seeks damages on behalf of shareholders who acquired GE stock between July 20, 2015 and July 19, 2018 through the GE Stock Direct Plan. In February 2019, this case was dismissed. In March 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended derivative complaint naming the same defendants. In April 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In October 2019, the court denied GE's motion to dismiss and stayed the case pending the outcome of the Hachem case. In November 2019, the plaintiffs moved to re-argue to challenge the stay, and GE cross-moved to re-argue the denial of the motion to dismiss and filed a notice of appeal. The court denied both motions for re-argument, and in November 2020, the Appellate Division First Department affirmed the court's denial of GE's motion to dismiss. In January 2021, GE filed a motion for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, and that motion was denied in March 2021.

In February 2019, a securities action (the Touchstone case) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants GE and current and former GE executive officers. It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 1707.43 of the Ohio Securities Act and common law fraud based on alleged misstatements regarding insurance reserves, GE Power’s revenue recognition practices related to long term service agreements, GE’s acquisition of Alstom, and the goodwill recognized in connection with that transaction. The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of six institutional investors who purchased GE common stock between August 1, 2014 and October 30, 2018 and rescission of those purchases. In May 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and GE in June 2021 filed a motion to dismiss that complaint. In September 2022, the court granted GE’s motion to the dismiss the plaintiffs’ case with no opportunity to replead their case. In January 2023, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the court’s dismissal of their case with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported by Baker Hughes, in March 2019, two derivative lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as defendants GE, directors of Baker Hughes (including former members of GE’s Board of Directors and current and former GE executive officers) and Baker Hughes (as nominal defendant), and the court issued an order consolidating these two actions (the Schippnick case). The complaint as amended in May 2019 alleges, among other things, that GE and the Baker Hughes directors breached their fiduciary duties, and that GE was unjustly enriched by entering into transactions and agreements related to GE's sales of approximately 12% of its ownership interest in Baker Hughes in November 2018. The complaint seeks declaratory relief, disgorgement of profits, an award of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees and costs. In May 2019, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the directors who were members of the Baker Hughes Conflicts Committee and a former Baker Hughes director. In October 2019, the Court denied the remaining defendants’ motions to dismiss, except with respect to the unjust enrichment claim against GE, which has been dismissed. In November 2019, the defendants filed their answer to the complaint, and a special litigation committee of the Baker Hughes Board of Directors moved for an order staying all proceedings in this action pending completion of the committee's investigation of the allegations and claims asserted in the complaint. In October 2020, the special litigation committee filed a report with the Court recommending that the derivative action be terminated. In January 2021, the special committee filed a motion to terminate the action.

GE Retirement Savings Plan class actions. Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed regarding the oversight of the GE RSP, and those class actions have been consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The consolidated complaint names as defendants GE, GE Asset Management, current and former GE and GE Asset Management executive officers and employees who served on fiduciary bodies responsible for aspects of the GE RSP during the class period. Like similar lawsuits that have been brought against other companies in recent years, this action alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) in their oversight of the GE RSP, principally by retaining five proprietary funds that plaintiffs allege were underperforming as investment options for plan participants and by charging higher management fees than some alternative funds. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of GE RSP participants and beneficiaries from September 26, 2011 through the date of any judgment. In August and December 2018, the court issued orders dismissing one count of the complaint and denying GE's motion to dismiss the remaining counts. In September 2022, both GE and the plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims.

Bank BPH. As previously reported, Bank BPH, along with other Polish banks, has been subject to ongoing litigation in Poland related to its portfolio of floating rate residential mortgage loans, with cases brought by individual borrowers seeking relief related to their foreign currency indexed or denominated mortgage loans in various courts throughout Poland. At December 31, 2022, approximately 85% of the Bank BPH portfolio is indexed to or denominated in foreign currencies (primarily Swiss francs), and the total portfolio had a carrying value, net of reserves, of $1,199 million. We continue to observe an increase in the number of lawsuits being brought against Bank BPH and other banks in Poland, and we expect this to continue in future reporting periods.
We estimate potential losses for Bank BPH in connection with borrower litigation cases that are pending by recording legal reserves, as well as in connection with potential future cases or other adverse developments as part of our ongoing valuation of the Bank BPH portfolio, which we record at the lower of cost or fair value, less cost to sell. The total amount of estimated losses was $1,359 million and $755 million at December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively. We update our assumptions underlying the amount of estimated losses based primarily on the number of lawsuits filed and estimated to be filed in the future, whether liability will be established in lawsuits and the nature of the remedy ordered by courts if liability is established. The increase in the amount of estimated losses during 2022 was driven primarily by increases in the number of lawsuits filed and estimated to be filed in the future and increased findings of liability. We expect the trends we have previously reported of an increasing number of lawsuits being filed, more findings of liability and more severe remedies being ordered against Polish banks (including Bank BPH) to continue in future reporting periods, although Bank BPH is unable at this time to develop a meaningful estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with active and inactive Bank BPH mortgage loans beyond the amounts currently recorded. Additional factors may also affect our estimated losses over time, including: potentially significant judicial decisions or binding resolutions by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) or the Polish Supreme Court; the impact of any of these or other future or recent decisions or resolutions (including an expected ECJ ruling that could adversely impact the remedy cost to Polish banks upon a finding of liability, and the Polish Supreme Court binding resolution delivered verbally in May 2021 with written reasoning issued in July 2021) on how Polish courts will interpret and apply the law in particular cases and how borrower behavior may change in response, neither of which are known immediately upon the issuance of a decision or resolution; financial, economic and other conditions in Poland that may adversely affect borrowers; uncertainty related to a proposal by the Chairman of the Polish Financial Supervisory Authority in December 2020 that banks voluntarily offer borrowers an opportunity to convert their foreign currency indexed or denominated mortgage loans to Polish zlotys using an exchange rate applicable at the date of loan origination, and about the various settlement strategies or other approaches that Polish banks have increasingly adopted or will adopt, or that Bank BPH may adopt in the future, in response to this proposal or other factors, the approaches that regulators and other government authorities will adopt in response, the receptivity of borrowers to settlement offers; and the financial and capital impact on banks that adopt settlement programs; and any potential legislation that may be passed in Poland relating to foreign exchange indexed or denominated mortgage loans. In addition, there is continued uncertainty arising from investigations of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK), including existing or anticipated UOKiK and court decisions resulting from those investigations, particularly UOKiK's investigation into the adequacy of disclosure of foreign exchange risk by banks (including BPH) and the legality under Polish law of unlimited foreign exchange risk on customers. Future adverse developments related to any of the foregoing, or other adverse developments such as actions by regulators, legislators or other governmental authorities (including UOKiK), likely would have a material adverse effect on Bank BPH and the carrying value of its mortgage loan portfolio as well as result in additional required capital contributions to Bank BPH or significant losses beyond the amounts that we currently estimate.

ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH AND SAFETY MATTERS. Our operations, like operations of other companies engaged in similar businesses, involve the use, disposal and cleanup of substances regulated under environmental protection laws and nuclear decommissioning regulations. We have obligations for ongoing and future environmental remediation activities, such as the Housatonic River cleanup described below, and may incur additional liabilities in connection with previously remediated sites, such as natural resource damages for the Hudson River where GE completed dredging in 2019. Additionally, like many other industrial companies, we and our subsidiaries are defendants in various lawsuits related to alleged worker exposure to asbestos or other hazardous materials. Liabilities for environmental remediation, nuclear decommissioning and worker exposure claims exclude possible insurance recoveries. It is reasonably possible that our exposure will exceed amounts accrued. However, due to uncertainties about the status of laws, regulations, technology and information related to individual sites and lawsuits, such amounts are not reasonably estimable. Total reserves related to environmental remediation, nuclear decommissioning and worker exposure claims were $2,686 million and $2,660 million at December 31, 2022 and 2021, respectively.

As previously reported, in 2000, GE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into a consent decree relating to PCB cleanup of the Housatonic River in Massachusetts. In October 2016, EPA issued its final decision pursuant to the consent decree. In January 2018, the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) remanded the decision back to the EPA with instruction to reissue a revised final remedy. After successful mediation with key stakeholders (including EPA, GE, certain towns, and environmental groups), public comment and further review by the EAB, the final revised permit (issued in January 2021) became effective in March 2022. In May 2022, two environmental advocacy groups petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to review the EPA’s final permit. As of December 31, 2022 and based on its assessment of current facts and circumstances and its defenses, GE believes that it has recorded adequate reserves to cover future obligations associated with the proposed final remedy.

Expenditures for site remediation, nuclear decommissioning and worker exposure claims amounted to approximately $231 million, $193 million and $180 million for the years ended December 31, 2022, 2021 and 2020, respectively. We presently expect that such expenditures will be approximately $250 million and $300 million in 2023 and 2024, respectively.