XML 239 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.0.6
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2012



In the normal course of business, various contingent liabilities and commitments are entered into by AIG and certain of its subsidiaries. In addition, AIG guarantees various obligations of certain subsidiaries.

AIG recorded an increase in its estimated litigation liability of approximately $783 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 based on developments in several actions.

Although AIG cannot currently quantify its ultimate liability for unresolved litigation and investigation matters, including those referred to below, it is possible that such liability could have a material adverse effect on AIG's consolidated financial condition or its consolidated results of operations or consolidated cash flows for an individual reporting period.


Legal Contingencies


Overview.    AIG and its subsidiaries, in common with the insurance and financial services industries in general, are subject to litigation, including claims for punitive damages, in the normal course of their business. In AIG's insurance operations (including UGC), litigation arising from claims settlement activities is generally considered in the establishment of AIG's liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense. However, the potential for increasing jury awards and settlements makes it difficult to assess the ultimate outcome of such litigation. AIG is also subject to derivative, class action and other claims asserted by its shareholders and others alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties by its directors and officers and violations of insurance laws and regulations, as well as federal and state securities laws. In the case of any derivative action brought on behalf of AIG, any recovery would accrue to the benefit of AIG.

Various regulatory and governmental agencies have been reviewing certain public disclosures, transactions and practices of AIG and its subsidiaries in connection with industry-wide and other inquiries into, among other matters, AIG's liquidity, compensation paid to certain employees, payments made to counterparties, and certain business practices and valuations of current and former operating insurance subsidiaries. AIG has cooperated, and will continue to cooperate, in producing documents and other information in response to subpoenas and other requests.

AIG's Subprime Exposure, AIGFP Credit Default Swap Portfolio and Related Matters


AIG, AIGFP and certain directors and officers of AIG, AIGFP and other AIG subsidiaries have been named in various actions relating to our exposure to the U.S. residential subprime mortgage market, unrealized market valuation losses on AIGFP's super senior credit default swap portfolio, losses and liquidity constraints relating to our securities lending program and related disclosure and other matters (Subprime Exposure Issues).

Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation.    Between May 21, 2008 and January 15, 2009, eight purported securities class action complaints were filed against AIG and certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP, AIG's outside auditors, and the underwriters of various securities offerings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the Southern District of New York), alleging claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act). On March 20, 2009, the Court consolidated all eight of the purported securities class actions as In re American International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation (the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation).

On May 19, 2009, lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of purchasers of AIG Common Stock during the alleged class period of March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008, and on behalf of purchasers of various AIG securities offered pursuant to AIG's shelf registration statements. The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants made statements during the class period in press releases, AIG's quarterly and year-end filings, during conference calls, and in various registration statements and prospectuses in connection with the various offerings that were materially false and misleading and that artificially inflated the price of AIG Common Stock. The alleged false and misleading statements relate to, among other things, the Subprime Exposure Issues. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act. On August 5, 2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on September 27, 2010, the Court denied the motions to dismiss.

On April 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation filed a motion to certify a class of plaintiffs. On November 2, 2011, the Court terminated the motion without prejudice to an application for restoration. On March 30, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed a renewed motion to certify a class of plaintiffs.

We have accrued our estimate of probable loss with respect to this litigation.

On November 18, 2011, January 20, 2012, June 11, 2012, and August 8, 2012, four separate, though similar, securities actions were brought against AIG and certain directors and officers of AIG and AIGFP by the Kuwait Investment Authority, various Oppenheimer Funds, eight foreign funds and investment entities led by the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme, and Pacific Life Funds and Pacific Select Fund. As of February 21, 2013, no discussions concerning potential damages have occurred and the plaintiffs have not formally specified an amount of alleged damages in their respective actions. As a result, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from these litigations.

ERISA Actions – Southern District of New York.    Between June 25, 2008, and November 25, 2008, AIG, certain directors and officers of AIG, and members of AIG's Retirement Board and Investment Committee were named as defendants in eight purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of participants in certain pension plans sponsored by AIG or its subsidiaries. The Court subsequently consolidated these eight actions as In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA Litigation II. On September 4, 2012, lead plaintiffs' counsel filed a second consolidated amended complaint. The action purports to be brought as a class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), on behalf of all participants in or beneficiaries of certain benefit plans of AIG and its subsidiaries that offered shares of AIG Common Stock. In the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary responsibilities to plan participants and their beneficiaries under ERISA, by continuing to offer the AIG Stock Fund as an investment option in the plans after it allegedly became imprudent to do so. The alleged ERISA violations relate to, among other things, the defendants' purported failure to monitor and/or disclose certain matters, including the Subprime Exposure Issues.

On November 20, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

As of February 21, 2013, plaintiffs have not formally specified an amount of alleged damages, discovery is ongoing, and the Court has not determined if a class action is appropriate or the size or scope of any class. As a result, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation.

Canadian Securities Class Action – Ontario Superior Court of Justice.    On November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class action against AIG, AIGFP, certain directors and officers of AIG and Joseph Cassano, the former Chief Executive Officer of AIGFP, pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act. If the Court grants the application, a class plaintiff will be permitted to file a statement of claim against defendants. The proposed statement of claim would assert a class period of March 16, 2006 through September 16, 2008 and would allege that during this period defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in quarterly and annual reports and during oral presentations in violation of the Ontario Securities Act.

On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. On July 12, 2010, the Court adjourned a hearing on the motion pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in a pair of actions captioned Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda 2012 SCC 17 (Van Breda). On April 18, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the standard for determining jurisdiction over foreign and out-of-province defendants, such as AIG, by holding that a defendant must have some form of "actual," as opposed to a merely "virtual," presence in order to be deemed to be "doing business" in the jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Canada also suggested that in future cases, defendants may contest jurisdiction even when they are found to be doing business in a Canadian jurisdiction if their business activities in the jurisdiction are unrelated to the subject matter of the litigation. The matter has been stayed pending further developments in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation.

In plaintiff's proposed statement of claim, plaintiff alleged general and special damages of $500 million and punitive damages of $50 million plus prejudgment interest or such other sums as the Court finds appropriate. As of February 21, 2013 the Court has not determined whether it has jurisdiction or granted plaintiff's application to file a statement of claim, no merits discovery has occurred and the action has been stayed. As a result, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation.

Starr International Litigation


On November 21, 2011, Starr International Company, Inc. (SICO) filed a complaint against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims (the Court of Federal Claims), bringing claims, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO Treasury Action). The complaint challenges the government's assistance of AIG, pursuant to which AIG entered into the FRBNY Credit Facility and the United States received an approximately 80 percent ownership in AIG. The complaint alleges that the interest rate imposed on AIG and the appropriation of approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity was discriminatory, unprecedented, and inconsistent with liquidity assistance offered by the government to other comparable firms at the time and violated the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

On November 21, 2011, SICO also filed a second complaint in the Southern District of New York against the FRBNY bringing claims, both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO New York Action). This complaint also challenges the government's assistance of AIG, pursuant to which AIG entered into the FRBNY Credit Facility and the United States received an approximately 80 percent ownership in AIG. The complaint alleges that the FRBNY owed fiduciary duties to AIG as our controlling shareholder, and that the FRBNY breached these fiduciary duties by "divert[ing] the rights and assets of AIG and its shareholders to itself and favored third parties" through transactions involving ML III, an entity controlled by the FRBNY, and by "participating in, and causing AIG's officers and directors to participate in, the evasion of AIG's existing Common Stock shareholders' right to approve the massive issuance of the new Common Shares required to complete the government's taking of a nearly 80 percent interest in the Common Stock of AIG." SICO also alleges that the "FRBNY has asserted that in exercising its control over, and acting on behalf of, AIG it did not act in an official, governmental capacity or at the direction of the United States," but that "[t]o the extent the proof at or prior to trial shows that the FRBNY did in fact act in a governmental capacity, or at the direction of the United States, the improper conduct . . . constitutes the discriminatory takings of the property and property rights of AIG without due process or just compensation."

On January 31, 2012 and February 1, 2012, amended complaints were filed in the Court of Federal Claims and the Southern District of New York, respectively.

In rulings dated July 2, 2012, and September 17, 2012, the Court of Federal Claims largely denied the United States' motion to dismiss in the SICO Treasury Action. Discovery is proceeding. On December 3, 2012, SICO moved for class certification.

On November 19, 2012, the Southern District of New York granted the FRBNY's motion to dismiss the SICO New York Action. On December 21, 2012, SICO filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The United States has alleged, as an affirmative defense in its answer, that AIG is obligated to indemnify the FRBNY and its representatives, including the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the United States (as the FRBNY's principal), for any recovery in the SICO Treasury Action, and seeks a contingent offset or recoupment for the value of net operating loss benefits the United States alleges that we received as a result of the government's assistance. The FRBNY has also requested indemnification under the FRBNY Credit Facility from AIG in connection with the SICO New York Action and from ML III under the Master Investment and Credit Agreement and the Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of ML III.

In both of the actions commenced by SICO, the only claims naming AIG as a party (nominal defendant) are derivative claims on behalf of AIG. On September 21, 2012, SICO made a pre-litigation demand on our Board demanding that we pursue the derivative claims in both actions or allow SICO to pursue the claims on our behalf. On January 9, 2013, our Board unanimously refused SICO's demand in its entirety and on January 23, 2013, counsel for the Board sent a letter to counsel for SICO describing the process by which our Board considered and refused SICO's demand and stating the reasons for our Board's determination.

Other Litigation Related to AIGFP


On September 30, 2009, Brookfield Asset Management, Inc. and Brysons International, Ltd. (together, Brookfield) filed a complaint against AIG and AIGFP in the Southern District of New York. Brookfield seeks a declaration that a 1990 interest rate swap agreement between Brookfield and AIGFP (guaranteed by AIG) terminated upon the occurrence of certain alleged events that Brookfield contends constituted defaults under the swap agreement's standard "bankruptcy" default provision. Brookfield claims that it is excused from all future payment obligations under the swap agreement on the basis of the purported termination. At December 31, 2012, the estimated present value of expected future cash flows discounted at LIBOR was $1.5 billion, which represents our maximum contractual loss from the alleged termination of the contract. It is our position that no termination event has occurred and that the swap agreement remains in effect. A determination that a termination event has occurred could result in a loss of our entitlement to all future payments under the swap agreement and result in a loss to us of the full value at which we are carrying the swap agreement.

Additionally, a determination that AIG triggered a "bankruptcy" event of default under the swap agreement could also, depending on the Court's precise holding, affect other AIG or AIGFP agreements that contain the same or similar default provisions. Such a determination could also affect derivative agreements or other contracts between third parties, such as credit default swaps under which AIG is a reference credit, which could affect the trading price of AIG securities. During the third quarter of 2011, beneficiaries of certain previously repaid AIGFP guaranteed investment agreements brought an action against AIG Parent and AIGFP making "bankruptcy" event of default allegations similar to those made by Brookfield. The Court subsequently issued a decision dismissing that action, which is currently on appeal.

Employment Litigation against AIG and AIG Global Real Estate Investment Corporation.


Fitzpatrick matter.    On December 9, 2009, AIG Global Real Estate Investment Corporation's (AIGGRE) former President, Kevin P. Fitzpatrick, several entities he controls, and various other single purpose entities (the SPEs) filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County against AIG and AIGGRE (the Defendants). The case was removed to the Southern District of New York, and an amended complaint was filed on March 8, 2010. The amended complaint asserts that the Defendants violated fiduciary duties to Fitzpatrick and his controlled entities and breached Fitzpatrick's employment agreement and agreements of SPEs that purportedly entitled him to carried interest fees arising out of the sale or disposition of certain real estate. Fitzpatrick has also brought derivative claims on behalf of the SPEs, purporting to allege that the Defendants breached contractual and fiduciary duties in failing to fund the SPEs with various amounts allegedly due under the SPE agreements. Fitzpatrick has also requested injunctive relief, an accounting, and that a receiver be appointed to manage the affairs of the SPEs. He has further alleged that the SPEs are subject to a constructive trust. Fitzpatrick also has alleged a violation of ERISA relating to retirement benefits purportedly due. Fitzpatrick has claimed that he is currently owed damages totaling approximately $196 million, and that potential future amounts owed to him are approximately $78 million, for a total of approximately $274 million. Fitzpatrick further claims unspecified amounts of carried interest on certain additional real estate assets of AIG and its affiliates. He also seeks punitive damages for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Defendants assert that Fitzpatrick has been paid all amounts currently due and owing pursuant to the various agreements through which he seeks recovery. As set forth above, the possible range of our loss is $0 to $274 million, although Fitzpatrick claims that he is also entitled to additional unspecified amounts of carried interest and punitive damages.

Behm matter.    Frank Behm, former President of AIG Global Real Estate Asia Pacific, Inc. (AIGGREAP), has filed two actions in connection with the termination of his employment. Behm filed an action on or about October 1, 2010 in Delaware Superior Court in which he asserts claims of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for termination in violation of public policy, deprivation of compensation, and breach of contract. Additionally, on or about March 29, 2011, Behm filed an arbitration proceeding before the American Arbitration Association alleging wrongful termination, in which he sought the payment of carried interest or "promote" distributed through the SPEs, based on the sales of certain real estate assets. Behm also contended that he was entitled to promote as a third-party beneficiary of Kevin Fitzpatrick's employment agreement, which, Behm claimed, defined broadly a class of individuals, allegedly including himself, who, with the approval of our former Chief Investment Officer, became eligible to receive promote payments. Behm claimed approximately $67 million in carried interest. Multiple AIG entities (the AIG Entities) are named as parties in each of the Behm matters. The AIG Entities have filed a counterclaim in the Delaware case, contending that Behm owes them approximately $3.6 million (before pre-judgment interest) in tax equalization payments made by the AIG Entities on Behm's behalf.

Both matters filed by Behm are premised on the same key allegations. Behm claims that the AIG Entities wrongfully terminated him from AIGGREAP in an effort to silence him for voicing opposition to allegedly improper practices concerning the amount of AIG reserves for carried interest that Behm contends is due to him and others. The AIG Entities contend that their reserves are appropriate, as Behm's claims for additional carried interest are without merit. Behm claims that, when he refused to accede to the AIG Entities' position as to the amount of carried interest due, he was targeted for investigation and subsequently terminated, purportedly for providing confidential AIG information to a competitor, and its executive search firm. Behm argues that he did not disclose any confidential information; instead, he met with several of the competitor's representatives in order to foster interest in purchasing AIGGREAP.

On November 16, 2012, the arbitration panel ruled on Behm's claims that had been submitted to arbitration (the Award). Pursuant to the Award, on December 15, 2012, the AIG Entities paid Behm approximately $10.5 million in full settlement of all claims submitted to the arbitration, with the exception that Behm retained rights to certain future profit interests. The AIG Entities also paid Behm a portion of the fees and costs of the arbitration.

The Delaware Superior Court action is currently in discovery, and Behm has not articulated the specific amounts of money that he claims are due. As a result, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation.

False Claims Act Complaint


On February 25, 2010, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California by two individuals (Relators) seeking to assert claims on behalf of the United States against AIG and certain other defendants, including Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank, under the False Claims Act. Relators filed a First Amended Complaint on September 30, 2010, adding certain additional defendants, including Bank of America and Société Générale. The amended complaint alleges that defendants engaged in fraudulent business practices in respect of their activities in the over-the-counter market for collateralized debt obligations, and submitted false claims to the United States in connection with the FRBNY Credit Facility and the ML II and ML III entities (the Maiden Lane Interests) through, among other things, misrepresenting AIG's ability and intent to repay amounts drawn on the FRBNY Credit Facility, and misrepresenting the value of the securities that the Maiden Lane Interests acquired from AIG and certain of its counterparties. The complaint seeks unspecified damages pursuant to the False Claims Act in the amount of three times the damages allegedly sustained by the United States as well as interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. The complaint and amended complaints were initially filed and maintained under seal while the United States considered whether to intervene in the action. On or about April 28, 2011, after the United States declined to intervene, the District Court lifted the seal, and Relators served the amended complaint on us on July 11, 2011. The Relators have not specified in their amended complaint an amount of alleged damages. As a result, we are unable reasonably to estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation.

2006 Regulatory Settlements and Related Regulatory Matters


2006 Regulatory Settlements.    In February 2006, AIG reached a resolution of claims and matters under investigation with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Office of the New York Attorney General (NYAG) and the New York State Department of Insurance (DOI). The settlements resolved investigations conducted by the SEC, NYAG and DOI in connection with the accounting, financial reporting and insurance brokerage practices of AIG and its subsidiaries, as well as claims relating to the underpayment of certain workers' compensation premium taxes and other assessments. These settlements did not, however, resolve investigations by regulators from other states into insurance brokerage practices related to contingent commissions and other broker-related conduct, such as alleged bid rigging. Nor did the settlements resolve any obligations that AIG may have to state guarantee funds in connection with any of these matters.

As a result of these settlements, AIG made payments or placed amounts in escrow in 2006 totaling approximately $1.64 billion, $225 million of which represented fines and penalties.

In addition to the escrowed funds, $800 million was deposited into, and subsequently disbursed by, a fund under the supervision of the SEC, to resolve claims asserted against AIG by investors, including the securities class action and shareholder lawsuits described below.

A portion of the total $1.64 billion originally placed in escrow was designated to satisfy certain regulatory and litigation liabilities related to workers' compensation premium reporting issues. The original workers' compensation escrow amount was approximately $338 million and was placed in an account established as part of the 2006 New York regulatory settlement and referred to as the Workers' Compensation Fund. Additional money was placed into escrow accounts as a result of subsequent litigation and regulatory settlements bringing the total workers' compensation escrow amount to approximately $597 million. Approximately $147 million was released from the workers' compensation escrow accounts in satisfaction of fines, penalties and premium tax obligations, which were imposed pursuant to a December 17, 2010 regulatory settlement agreement relating to workers' compensation premium reporting issues that was deemed final and effective on May 29, 2012. Following this disbursement, approximately $450 million remains in escrow and is specifically designated to satisfy class action liabilities related to workers' compensation premium reporting issues. This amount is included in Other assets at December 31, 2012.

On February 1, 2012, AIG was informed by the SEC that AIG had complied with the terms of the settlement order under which AIG had agreed to retain an independent consultant, and as of that date, was no longer subject to such order.

Litigation Related to the Matters Underlying the 2006 Regulatory Settlements


AIG and certain present and former directors and officers of AIG have been named in various actions related to the matters underlying the 2006 Regulatory Settlements. These actions are described below.

The Consolidated 2004 Securities Litigation.    Beginning in October 2004, a number of putative securities fraud class action suits were filed in the Southern District of New York against AIG and consolidated as In re American International Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (the Consolidated 2004 Securities Litigation). Subsequently, a separate, though similar, securities fraud action was also brought against AIG by certain Florida pension funds. The lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2004 Securities Litigation is a group of public retirement systems and pension funds benefiting Ohio state employees, suing on behalf of themselves and all purchasers of AIG's publicly traded securities between October 28, 1999 and April 1, 2005. The named defendants are AIG and a number of present and former AIG officers and directors, as well as C.V. Starr & Co., Inc. (Starr), SICO, General Reinsurance Corporation, and PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, among others. The lead plaintiff alleges, among other things, that AIG: (i) concealed that it engaged in anti-competitive conduct through alleged payment of contingent commissions to brokers and participation in illegal bid-rigging; (ii) concealed that it used "income smoothing" products and other techniques to inflate its earnings; (iii) concealed that it marketed and sold "income smoothing" insurance products to other companies; and (iv) misled investors about the scope of government investigations. In addition, the lead plaintiff alleges that Maurice R. Greenberg, AIG's former Chief Executive Officer, manipulated our stock price. The lead plaintiff asserts claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 20(a) and Section 20A of the Exchange Act.

On July 14, 2010, AIG approved the terms of a settlement (the Settlement) with lead plaintiffs. The Settlement is conditioned on, among other things, court approval and a minimum level of shareholder participation. Under the terms of the Settlement, if consummated, AIG would pay an aggregate of $725 million. Only two shareholders objected to the Settlement, and 25 shareholders claiming to hold less than 1.5 percent of AIG's outstanding shares at the end of the class period submitted timely and valid requests to opt out of the class. Of those 25 shareholders, seven are investment funds controlled by the same investment group, and that investment group is the only opt-out who held more than 1,000 shares at the end of the class period. By order dated February 2, 2012, the District Court granted lead plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the Settlement. AIG has fully funded the amount of the Settlement into an escrow account.

On January 23, 2012, AIG and the Florida pension funds, who had brought a separate securities fraud action, executed a settlement agreement under which AIG paid $4 million.

On February 17, 2012 and March 6, 2012, two objectors appealed the final approval of the Settlement. On September 27, 2012, the two objectors withdrew their appeals with prejudice.

The Multi-District Litigation.    Commencing in 2004, policyholders brought multiple federal antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) class actions in jurisdictions across the nation against insurers and brokers, including AIG and a number of its subsidiaries, alleging that the insurers and brokers engaged in one or more broad conspiracies to allocate customers, steer business, and rig bids. These actions, including 24 complaints filed in different federal courts naming AIG or an AIG subsidiary as a defendant, were consolidated by the judicial panel on multi-district litigation and transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (District of New Jersey) for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The consolidated actions have proceeded in that Court in two parallel actions, In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation (the Commercial Complaint) and In re Employee Benefits Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation (the Employee Benefits Complaint, and, together with the Commercial Complaint, the Multi-District Litigation).

The plaintiffs in the Commercial Complaint are a group of corporations, individuals and public entities that contracted with the broker defendants for the provision of insurance brokerage services for a variety of insurance needs. The broker defendants are alleged to have placed insurance coverage on the plaintiffs' behalf with a number of insurance companies named as defendants, including AIG subsidiaries. The Commercial Complaint also named various brokers and other insurers as defendants (three of which have since settled). The Commercial Complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a number of overlapping "broker-centered" conspiracies to allocate customers through the payment of contingent commissions to brokers and through purported "bid-rigging" practices. It also alleges that the insurer and broker defendants participated in a "global" conspiracy not to disclose to policyholders the payment of contingent commissions. Plaintiffs assert that the defendants violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, and the antitrust laws of 48 states and the District of Columbia, and are liable under common law breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment theories. Plaintiffs seek treble damages plus interest and attorneys' fees as a result of the alleged RICO and Sherman Antitrust Act violations.

The plaintiffs in the Employee Benefits Complaint are a group of individual employees and corporate and municipal employers alleging claims on behalf of two separate nationwide purported classes: an employee class and an employer class that acquired insurance products from the defendants from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2004. The Employee Benefits Complaint names AIG as well as various other brokers and insurers, as defendants. The activities alleged in the Employee Benefits Complaint, with certain exceptions, track the allegations of customer allocation through steering and bid-rigging made in the Commercial Complaint.

On August 16, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the Third Circuit) affirmed the dismissal of the Employee Benefits Complaint in its entirety, affirmed in part and vacated in part the District Court's dismissal of the Commercial Complaint, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. On March 30, 2012, the District Court granted final approval of a settlement between AIG and certain other defendants on the one hand, and class plaintiffs on the other, which settled the claims asserted against those defendants in the Commercial Complaint. Pursuant to the settlement, AIG will pay approximately $7 million of a total aggregate settlement amount of approximately $37 million. On April 27, 2012, notices of appeal of the District Court order granting final approval were filed in the Third Circuit. As of December 5, 2012, the Third Circuit had dismissed all appeals from the District Court order granting final approval of the settlement. On January 16, 2013, class plaintiffs filed a motion in the District Court seeking an order authorizing distribution of the settlement fund.

A number of complaints making allegations similar to those in the Multi-District Litigation have been filed against AIG and other defendants in state and federal courts around the country. The defendants have thus far been successful in having the federal actions transferred to the District of New Jersey and consolidated into the Multi-District Litigation. Two consolidated actions naming AIG defendants are still pending in the District of New Jersey. In the consolidated action The Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. (Heritage), an individual plaintiff alleges damages "in excess of $75,000." Because discovery has not been completed and a precise amount of damages has not been specified, AIG is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the Heritage litigation. As of February 21, 2013, the plaintiff in Avery Dennison Corp. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (Avery), the other remaining consolidated action has not formally specified an amount of alleged damages. AIG is therefore unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this matter.

Finally, the AIG defendants have settled the four state court actions filed in Florida, New Jersey, Texas, and Kansas state courts, where plaintiffs had made similar allegations as those asserted in the Multi-District Litigation.

Workers' Compensation Premium Reporting.    On May 24, 2007, the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), on behalf of the participating members of the National Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Pool (the NWCRP), filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the Northern District of Illinois) against us with respect to the underpayment by AIG of its residual market assessments for workers' compensation insurance. The complaint alleged claims for violations of RICO, breach of contract, fraud and related state law claims arising out of our alleged underpayment of these assessments between 1970 and the present and sought damages purportedly in excess of $1 billion.

On April 1, 2009, Safeco Insurance Company of America (Safeco) and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company (Ohio Casualty) filed a complaint in the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of a purported class of all NWCRP participant members, against AIG and certain of its subsidiaries with respect to the underpayment by AIG of its residual market assessments for workers' compensation insurance. The complaint was styled as an "alternative complaint," should the Northern District of Illinois grant our motion to dismiss the NCCI lawsuit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, which motion to dismiss was ultimately granted on August 23, 2009. The allegations in the class action complaint are substantially similar to those filed by the NWCRP.

On February 28, 2012, the Northern District of Illinois entered a final order and judgment approving a class action settlement between us and a group of intervening plaintiffs, made up of seven participating members of the NWCRP, which would require AIG to pay $450 million to satisfy all liabilities to the class members arising out of the workers' compensation premium reporting issues, a portion of which would be funded out of the remaining amount held in the Workers' Compensation Fund. Liberty Mutual filed papers in opposition to approval of the proposed settlement and in opposition to certification of a settlement class, in which it alleged our actual exposure, should the class action continue through judgment, to be in excess of $3 billion. We dispute this allegation. Liberty Mutual and its subsidiaries Safeco and Ohio Casualty subsequently appealed the Northern District of Illinois' final order and judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (the Seventh Circuit). On January 10, 2013, AIG and Liberty Mutual entered into a settlement under which Liberty Mutual, Safeco and Ohio Casualty agreed voluntarily to withdraw their appeals. In furtherance of such settlement, AIG, the Liberty Mutual parties and the settlement class plaintiffs submitted an agreed stipulation of dismissal that is currently under review by the Seventh Circuit.

The $450 million settlement amount, which is currently held in escrow pending final resolution of the class-action settlement, was funded in part from the approximately $191 million remaining in the Workers' Compensation Fund. In the event that the settlement between AIG and Liberty Mutual is not approved, the appeal of the order and judgment approving the class action settlement may resume. As of December 31, 2012, we had an accrued liability equal to the amounts payable under the settlement.

Litigation Matters Relating to AIG's Insurance Operations


Caremark.    AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark). The plaintiffs in the second-filed action intervened in the first-filed action, and the second-filed action was dismissed. An excess policy issued by a subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was expressly stated to be without limit of liability. In the current actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999 settlement was misled as to the extent of available insurance coverage and would not have approved the settlement had he known of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy. They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or concealing the nature and extent of coverage.

The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2 billion, plus punitive damages. AIG and its subsidiaries deny the allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage. The plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the coverage and did not start the running of the statute of limitations.

On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification. AIG and the other defendants have appealed that order to the Alabama Supreme Court, and the case in the trial court will be stayed until that appeal is resolved. General discovery has not commenced and AIG is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation.

Regulatory Matters    AIG's life insurance companies have received industry-wide regulatory inquiries, including a multi-state audit and market conduct examination covering compliance with unclaimed property laws and a directive from the New York Insurance Department regarding claims settlement practices and other related state regulatory inquiries. AIG recorded an increase of $55 million in policyholders benefit reserves in the third quarter of 2012 in conjunction with the resolution of the multi-state examinations relating to the handling of unclaimed property and the use of the Social Security Death Master File (SSDMF) to identify potential claims not yet presented to AIG in the normal course of business. In addition, AIG paid an $11 million regulatory assessment to the various state insurance departments that are parties to the regulatory settlement to defray costs of their examinations and monitoring. Although AIG has enhanced its claims practices to include use of the SSDMF, it is possible that the settlement remediation requirements, remaining inquiries, other regulatory activity or litigation could result in the payment of additional amounts. AIG has also received a demand letter from a purported AIG shareholder requesting that the Board of Directors investigate these matters, and bring appropriate legal proceedings against any person identified by the investigation as engaging in misconduct. AIG believes it has adequately reserved for such claims, but there can be no assurance that the ultimate cost will not vary, perhaps materially, from its estimate.

In connection with the previously disclosed multi-state examination of certain accident and health products, including travel products, issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. (National Union), Chartis Inc., on behalf of itself, National Union, and certain of Chartis Inc.'s insurance and non-insurance companies (collectively, the Chartis parties) entered into a Regulatory Settlement Agreement with regulators from 50 U.S. jurisdictions effective November 29, 2012. Under the agreement, and without admitting any liability for the issues raised in the examination, the Chartis parties (i) paid a civil penalty of $50 million, (ii) entered into a corrective action plan describing agreed-upon specific steps and standards for evaluating the Chartis parties' ongoing compliance with laws and regulations governing the issues identified in the examination, and (iii) agreed to pay a contingent fine in the event that the Chartis parties fail to satisfy certain terms of the corrective action plan. National Union and other AIG companies are also currently subject to civil litigation relating to the conduct of their accident and health business, and may be subject to additional litigation relating to the conduct of such business from time to time in the ordinary course. There can be no assurance that any regulatory action resulting from the issues identified will not have a material adverse effect on AIG's ongoing operations of the business subject to the agreement, or on similar business written by other AIG carriers.

Industry-wide examinations conducted by the Minnesota Department of Insurance and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on captive reinsurance practices by lenders and mortgage insurance companies, including UGC, have been ongoing for several years. In 2011, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB") assumed responsibility for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act from HUD, and assumed HUD's aforementioned ongoing investigation. In June 2012, the CFPB issued a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") to UGC and other mortgage insurance companies, requesting the production of documents and answers to written questions. The CFPB agreed to toll the deadlines associated with the CID pending discussions that could resolve the investigation. Although UGC filed a petition to modify the CID on December 7, 2012, ending the tolling period, the discussions that could resolve the investigation are still ongoing. UGC has received a proposed consent order from the Minnesota Commissioner of Commerce (the MN Commissioner) which alleges that UGC violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other state and federal laws in connection with its practices with captive reinsurance companies owned by lenders. UGC engaged in discussions with the MN Commissioner with respect to the terms of the proposed consent order. UGC cannot predict if or when a consent order may be entered into or, if entered into, what the terms of the final consent order will be. UGC is also currently subject to civil litigation relating to its placement of reinsurance with captives owned by lenders, and may be subject to additional litigation relating to the conduct of such business from time to time in the ordinary course.


Other Contingencies


Liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense


Although we regularly review the adequacy of the established Liability for unpaid claims and claims adjustment expense, there can be no assurance that our loss reserves will not develop adversely and have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Estimation of ultimate net losses, loss expenses and loss reserves is a complex process, particularly for long-tail casualty lines of business, which include, but are not limited to, general liability, commercial automobile liability, environmental, workers' compensation, excess casualty and crisis management coverages, insurance and risk management programs for large corporate customers and other customized structured insurance products, as well as excess and umbrella liability, directors and officers and products liability. Generally, actual historical loss development factors are used to project future loss development. However, there can be no assurance that future loss development patterns will be the same as in the past. Moreover, any deviation in loss cost trends or in loss development factors might not be identified for an extended period of time subsequent to the recording of the initial loss reserve estimates for any accident year. There is the potential for reserves with respect to a number of years to be significantly affected by changes in loss cost trends or loss development factors that were relied upon in setting the reserves. These changes in loss cost trends or loss development factors could be attributable to changes in economic conditions in the United States and abroad, changes in the legal, regulatory, judicial and social environment, changes in medical cost trends (inflation, intensity and utilization of medical services), underlying policy pricing, terms and conditions, and claims handling practices.


Lease Commitments


We occupy leased space in many locations under various long-term leases and have entered into various leases covering the long-term use of data processing equipment.

The following table presents the future minimum lease payments under operating leases:

(in millions)


  $ 390  









Remaining years after 2017



  $ 1,498  

Rent expense was $445 million, $482 million and $587 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. These amounts include $16 million, $37 million and $129 million attributable to discontinued operations for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Flight Equipment Related to Business Held for Sale


At December 31, 2012, ILFC had committed to purchase 229 new aircraft with aggregate estimated total remaining payments of approximately $17.5 billion, including four aircraft through sale-leaseback transactions with airlines deliverable from 2012 through 2019. ILFC had also committed to purchase five used aircraft and nine new spare engines. ILFC also has the right to purchase an additional 50 Airbus A320neo family narrowbody aircraft. ILFC will be required to find lessees for any aircraft acquired and to arrange financing for a substantial portion of the purchase price. These commitments are related to discontinued operations and will not be retained by AIG upon closing of the sale. See Note 4 herein, for a discussion of the ILFC transaction.

The following table presents the minimum future rental income on noncancelable operating leases of flight equipment that has been delivered:

(in millions)


  $ 3,854  









Remaining years after 2017



  $ 14,805  

Flight equipment is leased under operating leases with remaining terms ranging from one to fourteen years.

Other Commitments


In the normal course of business, we enter into commitments to invest in limited partnerships, private equity funds, hedge funds and mutual funds and to purchase and develop real estate in the U.S. and abroad. These commitments totaled $2.3 billion at December 31, 2012.






We have issued unconditional guarantees with respect to the prompt payment, when due, of all present and future payment obligations and liabilities of AIGFP and AIG Markets arising from transactions entered into by AIGFP and AIG Markets, respectively.

In connection with AIGFP's business activities, AIGFP has issued, in a limited number of transactions, standby letters of credit or similar facilities to equity investors in an amount equal to the termination value owing to the equity investor by the lessee in the event of a lessee default (the equity termination value). The total amount outstanding at December 31, 2012 was $306 million. In those transactions, AIGFP has agreed to pay such amount if the lessee fails to pay. The amount payable by AIGFP is, in certain cases, partially offset by amounts payable under other instruments typically equal to the present value of scheduled payments to be made by AIGFP. In the event that AIGFP is required to make a payment to the equity investor, the lessee is unconditionally obligated to reimburse AIGFP. To the extent that the equity investor is paid the equity termination value from the standby letter of credit and/or other sources, including payments by the lessee, AIGFP takes an assignment of the equity investor's rights under the lease of the underlying property. Because the obligations of the lessee under the lease transactions are generally economically defeased, lessee bankruptcy is the most likely circumstance in which AIGFP would be required to pay.

Asset Dispositions





We are subject to financial guarantees and indemnity arrangements in connection with the completed sales of businesses pursuant to our asset disposition plan. The various arrangements may be triggered by, among other things, declines in asset values, the occurrence of specified business contingencies, the realization of contingent liabilities, developments in litigation or breaches of representations, warranties or covenants provided by us. These arrangements are typically subject to various time limitations, defined by the contract or by operation of law, such as statutes of limitation. In some cases, the maximum potential obligation is subject to contractual limitations, while in other cases such limitations are not specified or are not applicable.

We are unable to develop a reasonable estimate of the maximum potential payout under certain of these arrangements. Overall, we believe that it is unlikely it will have to make any material payments related to completed sales under these arrangements, and no material liabilities related to these arrangements have been recorded in the Consolidated Balance Sheet. See Note 4 herein for additional information on sales of businesses and asset dispositions.




Pursuant to the terms of the ALICO stock purchase agreement, we have agreed to provide MetLife with certain indemnities. The most significant remaining indemnities include:

Indemnifications related to specific product, investment, litigation and other matters that are excluded from the general representations and warranties indemnity. These indemnifications provide for various deductible amounts, which in certain cases are zero, and maximum exposures, which in certain cases are unlimited, and may extend for various periods after the completion of the sale.

Tax indemnifications related to insurance reserves that extend for taxable periods ending on or before December 31, 2013 and that are limited to an aggregate of $200 million, and certain other tax-related representations and warranties that extend to the expiration of the statute of limitations and are subject to an aggregate deductible of $50 million.

In connection with the indemnity obligations described above, as of December 31, 2012, approximately $567 million of proceeds from the sale of ALICO were on deposit in an escrow arrangement. Under the terms of a letter agreement between MetLife and us entered into on April 26, 2012, $44 million was released to us on April 30, 2012 which represented funds that were initially held back from the release of escrow to us on November 1, 2011. Under the terms of a letter agreement between MetLife and us entered into on July 13, 2012, $950 million was released to us on August 31, 2012 instead of November 1, 2012 as originally provided under the ALICO stock purchase agreement. An additional $33 million was released on November 8, 2012. The amount required to be held in escrow declines to zero in May 2013, although indemnification claims then pending will reduce the amount that can be released to us.



See Note 11 herein for commitments and guarantees associated with VIEs.

See Note 12 herein for disclosures on derivatives.

See Note 27 herein for additional disclosures on guarantees of outstanding debt.