Contingencies and Other Matters	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Contingencies And Other Matters [Abstract]
Contingencies and Other Matters	Note 16 ― Contingencies and Other Matters The Company, through its subsidiaries, is contingently liable for various guarantees provided in the ordinary course of business. Financial Guarantees: Retiree and Life Insurance Benefits Separate account assets are contractholder funds maintained in accounts with specific investment objectives. The Company records separate account liabilities equal to separate account assets. In certain cases, the Company guarantees a minimum level of benefits for retirement and insurance contracts written in separate accounts. The Company establishes an additional liability if management believes that the Company will be required to make a payment under these guarantees. The Company guarantees that separate account assets will be sufficient to pay certain life insurance or retiree benefits. The sponsoring employers are primarily responsible for ensuring that assets are sufficient to pay these benefits and are required to maintain assets that exceed a certain percentage of benefit obligations. This percentage varies depending on the asset class within a sponsoring employer’s portfolio (for example, a bond fund would require a lower percentage than a riskier equity fund) and thus will vary as the composition of the portfolio changes. If employers do not maintain the required levels of separate account assets, the Company or an affiliate of the buyer of the retirement benefits business (Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company) has the right to redirect the management of the related assets to provide for benefit payments. As of June 30, 2017, employers maintained assets that exceeded the benefit obligations. Benefit obligations under these arrangements were $485 million as of June 30, 2017 and approximately 13% of these are reinsured by an affiliate of the buyer of the retirement benefits business. The remaining guarantees are provided by the Company with minimal reinsurance from third parties. There were no additional liabilities required for these guarantees as of June 30, 2017. Separate account assets supporting these guarantees are classified in Levels 1 and 2 of the GAAP fair value hierarchy. See Note 9 for further information on the fair value hierarchy. The Company does not expect that these financial guarantees will have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. GMIB Contracts See Note 8 for discussion. C. Certain Other Guarantees The Company had financial guarantees and indemnification obligations to lenders of approximately $104 million as of June 30, 2017, related to borrowings by certain real estate joint ventures that the Company either records as an investment or consolidates. These borrowings, most of which are nonrecourse to the Company, are secured by the joint ventures’ real estate properties with fair values in excess of the loan amounts and mature at various dates beginning in 2018 through 2021. The Company’s indemnification obligations would require payment to lenders for any actual damages resulting from certain acts such as unauthorized ownership transfers, misappropriation of rental payments by others or environmental damages. Based on initial and ongoing reviews of property management and operations, the Company does not expect that payments will be required under these financial guarantees or indemnification obligations. Any payments that might be required could be recovered through a refinancing or sale of the assets. In some cases, the Company also has recourse to partners for their proportionate share of amounts paid. There were no liabilities required for these financial guarantees and indemnification obligations as of June 30, 2017. As of June 30, 2017, the Company guaranteed that it would compensate the lessors for a shortfall of up to $32 million in the market value of certain leased equipment at the end of its leases. Guarantees of $25 million expire in 2022 and $7 million expire in 2026. The Company had liabilities for these guarantees of $4 million as of June 30, 2017. The Company does not expect that these guarantees will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. The Company had indemnification obligations as of June 30, 2017 in connection with acquisition and disposition transactions. These indemnification obligations are triggered by the breach of representations or covenants provided by the Company, such as representations for the presentation of financial statements, the filing of tax returns, compliance with law or the identification of outstanding litigation. These obligations 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 amount due is subject to contractual limitations based on a percentage of the transaction purchase price, while in other cases limitations are not specified or applicable. The Company does not believe that it is possible to determine the maximum potential amount due under these obligations, because not all amounts due under these indemnification obligations are subject to limitation. There were no liabilities required for these indemnification obligations as of June 30, 2017. Guaranty Fund Assessments The Company operates in a regulatory environment that may require its participation in assessments under state insurance guaranty association laws. The Company’s exposure to assessments for certain obligations of insolvent insurance companies to policyholders and claimants is based on its share of business written in the relevant jurisdictions. On March 1, 2017, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania entered an order of liquidation of Penn Treaty Network America Insurance Company, together with its subsidiary American Network Insurance Company (collectively “Penn Treaty”, a long-term care insurance carrier), triggering guaranty fund coverage and accrual of a liability. For the six months ended June 30, 2017, the Company recorded in operating expenses approximately $130 million pre-tax (approximately $85 million after-tax), representing its estimate of the total assessments, net of small reductions for premium tax offsets for insurance contracts currently written. Some of the assessments were recorded on a discounted basis, using a weighted average discount rate of 3.5%. As of June 30, 2017, the recorded liability was approximately $100 million and total future cash outflows as of June 30, 2017 are expected to approximate $130 million. This assessment is expected to be updated in future periods for changes in the estimate of the insolvency. In addition, a portion of this assessment is expected to be offset in the future by premium tax credits that will be recognized in the period received. Legal and Regulatory Matters The Company is routinely involved in numerous claims, lawsuits, regulatory audits, investigations and other legal matters arising, for the most part, in the ordinary course of managing a global health services business. These actions may include benefit disputes, breach of contract claims, tort claims, provider disputes, disputes regarding reinsurance arrangements, employment and employment discrimination-related suits, employee benefit claims, wage and hour claims, privacy, claims arising from consumer protection laws, intellectual property claims and real estate-related disputes. There are currently, and may be in the future, attempts to bring class action lawsuits against the industry. The Company also is regularly engaged in Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) audits and may be subject to examinations by various state and foreign taxing authorities. Disputed income tax matters arising from these examinations, including those resulting in litigation, are accounted for under GAAP guidance for uncertain tax positions. Further information on income tax matters can be found in Note 15. The business of administering and insuring health services programs, particularly health care and group insurance programs, is heavily regulated by federal and state laws and administrative agencies, such as state departments of insurance and the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, Labor and Justice, as well as the courts. Health care regulation and legislation in its various forms, including the Health Care Reform Act, other regulatory reform initiatives, such as those relating to Medicare programs, or additional changes in existing laws or regulations or their interpretations, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, there is heightened review by federal and state regulators of the health care, disability and life insurance industry business and related reporting practices. Cigna is frequently the subject of regulatory market conduct reviews and other examinations of its business and reporting practices, audits and investigations by state insurance and health and welfare departments, state attorneys general, CMS and the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). With respect to Cigna's Medicare Advantage business, CMS and OIG perform audits to determine a health plan's compliance with federal regulations and contractual obligations, including compliance with proper coding practices (sometimes referred to as Risk Adjustment Data Validation audits or RADV audits), that may result in retrospective adjustments to payments made to health plans. Regulatory actions can result in assessments, civil or criminal fines or penalties or other sanctions, including loss of licensing or exclusion from participating in government programs. The Department of Justice ("DOJ") is currently conducting an industry review of the risk adjustment data submission practices and business processes, including review of medical charts, of Medicare Advantage organizations under Medicare Parts C and D. In connection with this industry review, in December 2016, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Civil Division of the DOJ. We are in the process of voluntarily cooperating with the DOJ's request and responding to the information request. As a global company, Cigna is also subject to the laws, regulations and rules of the foreign jurisdictions in which it conducts business. Foreign laws and rules, and regulatory audit and investigation practices, may differ from or be more stringent than, similar requirements in the U.S. Regulation, legislation and judicial decisions have resulted in changes to industry and the Company’s business practices, financial liability or other sanctions and will continue to do so in the future. When the Company (in the course of its regular review of pending litigation and legal or regulatory matters) has determined that a material loss is reasonably possible, the matter is disclosed. Such matters are described below. In accordance with GAAP, when litigation and regulatory matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable, the Company accrues the estimated loss by a charge to shareholders’ net income. The amount accrued represents the Company’s best estimate of the probable loss at the time. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, the Company accrues an amount within the range that, in the Company’s judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, the Company accrues the minimum amount of the range. In cases when the Company has accrued an estimated loss, the accrued amount may differ materially from the ultimate amount of the loss. In many proceedings, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount or range of any loss. The Company provides disclosure in the aggregate for material pending litigation and legal or regulatory matters, including accruals, range of loss, or a statement that such information cannot be estimated. As a litigation or regulatory matter develops, the Company monitors the matter for further developments that could affect the amount previously accrued, if any, and updates such amount accrued or disclosures previously provided as appropriate. The outcome of litigation and other legal or regulatory matters is always uncertain, and unfavorable outcomes that are not justified by the evidence or existing law can occur. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the matters pending against it and is defending itself vigorously. Except as otherwise noted, the Company believes that the legal actions, regulatory matters, proceedings and investigations currently pending against it should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity based upon our current knowledge and taking into consideration current accruals. The Company had pre-tax reserves as of June 30, 2017 of approximately $190 million ($125 million after-tax) for the matters discussed below under “Litigation Matters.” Due to numerous uncertain factors presented in these cases, it is not possible to estimate an aggregate range of loss (if any) for these matters at this time. In light of the uncertainties involved in these matters, there is no assurance that their ultimate resolution will not exceed the amounts currently accrued by the Company. An adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity for any particular period. Litigation Matters Amara cash balance pension plan litigation. In December 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the “Plan”) on behalf of herself and other similarly situated Plan participants affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula. The plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), including that the Plan’s cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit); and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or inadequate disclosures about these conditions. In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company’s right to convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; (2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3) required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits under the post-conversion cash balance formula. The Second Circuit upheld this decision. From 2008 through the present, this case has undergone a series of court proceedings that resulted in the original District Court order being largely upheld. In 2015, the Company submitted to the District Court its proposed method for calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members and plaintiffs responded in August 2015. In January 2016, the District Court ordered the method of calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members. The court order left several aspects of the calculation of additional plan benefits open to interpretation. During 2016, the Company submitted its interpretation of the Court Order and the plaintiffs filed various objections. On January 10, 2017, the District Court issued an additional ruling regarding certain aspects of the calculation of additional plan benefits. On July 14, 2017, the District Court ruled on a motion for clarification and reconsideration, clarifying and modifying aspects of the January 10, 2017 Order. The Company’s reserve for this litigation remains reasonable at June 30, 2017, based on calculations consistent with the Company’s interpretation of the updated guidance from the Court. The Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration of the July 14, 2017 Order. The final timing of the resolution of this matter therefore remains uncertain. Once resolved, the Plan will be amended to comply with the final interpretation of the District Court’s order and the benefits will begin to be paid. Ingenix. In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the Company’s competitors. These actions were consolidated into Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of subscribers, health care providers and various medical associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the present. Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or have settled, similar litigation. In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim. In January 2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied separate motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class of subscriber plaintiffs. The Third Circuit denied plaintiffs’ request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling. As a result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs only. In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied the plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment. In July 2014, the plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court’s decisions in favor of the Company, including the class certification decision, to the Third Circuit. On May 2, 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decisions denying class certification for the claims asserted by members, the granting of summary judgment on the individual plaintiffs’ claims, as well as the dismissal of the antitrust claims. However, the Third Circuit also reversed the earlier dismissal of the providers’ ERISA claims. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its position. Regulatory Matters CMS actions. On June 16, 2017, the Company received notification from CMS that the sanctions issued in January 2016 requiring us to suspend certain enrollment and marketing activities for Medicare Advantage-Prescription Drug and Medicare Part D Plans have been lifted. Accordingly, the Company has resumed marketing of its Medicare Advantage-Prescription Drug and Medicare Part D Plans and began enrolling beneficiaries with effective dates beginning July 1, 2017. For the six months ended June 30, 2017, Medicare enrollment and consolidated revenues were materially impacted due to our inability to participate in 2017 annual enrollment, and management expects that trend to continue for the remainder of 2017. However, management anticipates that full-year 2017 shareholders’ net income will not be materially affected because we expect the margin impact of the revenue loss to be offset by 2017 remediation costs that are significantly lower than the $100 million after-tax amount reported in 2016 and other operational efficiencies to improve 2017 results. In October 2016, CMS announced projected Medicare Star Quality Ratings (“Star Ratings”) for the 2018 payment year. The projected Star Ratings for our plans included certain reductions that were primarily attributable to our CMS audit discussed above. Following an appeal, two of our Star Ratings measures were updated, affecting our overall Star Rating. Based on the final Medicare Star Ratings for the 2018 payment year, we expect that approximately 60% of our Medicare Advantage customers will be in a 4 Star or greater plan. Disability claims regulatory matter. During the second quarter of 2013, the Company finalized an agreement with the Departments of Insurance for Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and California (together, the “monitoring states”) related to the Company’s long-term disability claims handling practices. The agreement requires primarily: (1) enhanced procedures related to documentation and disposition and (2) a two-year monitoring period followed by a re-examination that began in the second quarter of 2016. Management believes the Company has addressed the requirements of the agreement. If the monitoring states find material non-compliance with the agreement upon re-examination, the Company may be subject to additional costs and penalties or requests to change its business practices that could negatively impact future earnings for this business. Other Legal Matters Antitrust Litigation. On July 21, 2016, the DOJ and certain state attorneys general filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the “District Court”) seeking to block the merger with Anthem. On February 8, 2017, the District Court issued an order enjoining the proposed merger and, on April 28, 2017, the Appeals Court affirmed the decision of the District Court. On May 5, 2017, Anthem filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision affirming the District Court’s order enjoining the merger. As a result of the termination of the merger agreement as further described below, the petition to the Supreme Court is now moot. Litigation with Anthem. On February 14, 2017, the Company delivered a notice to Anthem terminating the merger agreement, and notifying Anthem that it must pay the Company the $1.85 billion reverse termination fee pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement. Also on February 14, 2017, the Company filed suit against Anthem in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Chancery Court”). The complaint sought declaratory judgments that the Company’s termination of the merger agreement was valid and that Anthem was not permitted to extend the termination date. The complaint also sought payment of the reverse termination fee and additional damages in an amount exceeding $13 billion, including the lost premium value to the Company’s shareholders caused by Anthem’s willful breaches of the merger agreement. Also on February 14, 2017, Anthem filed a lawsuit in the Chancery Court against the Company seeking (i) a temporary restraining order to enjoin Cigna from terminating and taking any action contrary to the terms of the merger agreement, (ii) specific performance compelling Cigna to comply with the merger agreement and (iii) damages. On February 15, 2017, the Chancery Court granted Anthem's motion for a temporary restraining order and issued an order temporarily enjoining the Company from terminating the merger agreement. On May 11, 2017, the Chancery Court denied Anthem's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Cigna from terminating the merger agreement but stayed its ruling pending Anthem's determination as to whether to seek an appeal. On May 12, 2017, Anthem notified Cigna and the Chancery Court that it did not intend to appeal the Chancery Court's decision. As a result, the merger agreement was terminated. The litigation between the parties remains pending. We believe in the merits of our claims and dispute Anthem’s claims, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and pursue our claims. The outcomes of lawsuits are inherently unpredictable, and we may be unsuccessful in the ongoing litigation or any future claims or litigation. Shareholder Litigation. Following announcement of the Company’s merger agreement with Anthem in 2015, putative class action complaints (collectively the “complaints” or “Cigna Merger Litigation”) were filed by purported Cigna shareholders on behalf of a purported class of Cigna shareholders. Cigna, members of the Cigna board of directors, Anthem and Anthem Merger Sub Corp (“Merger Sub”) were named as defendants. The plaintiffs generally asserted that the members of the Cigna board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Cigna shareholders during merger negotiations and by entering into the merger agreement and approving the merger, and that Cigna, Anthem and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The allegations included, among other things, that (1) the merger consideration undervalued Cigna, (2) the sales process leading up to the merger was flawed due to purported conflicts of interest of members of the Cigna board of directors and (3) certain provisions of the merger agreement inappropriately favored Anthem and inhibited competing bids. Plaintiffs sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger, rescission of the merger agreement to the extent already implemented, and costs and damages. Solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company, the Company’s directors, Anthem and Merger Sub previously entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) to settle the Cigna Merger Litigation. The termination of the proposed acquisition of the Company by Anthem, as announced on May 12, 2017, has rendered moot both the MOU and the Cigna Merger Litigation. On July 21, 2017, a Stipulation and Proposed Order for Dismissal With Prejudice was submitted to the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford (the “Court”). Subject to approval by the Court, the Cigna Merger Litigation has been resolved.

Legal and Regulatory Matters

The Company is routinely involved in numerous claims, lawsuits, regulatory audits, investigations and other legal matters arising, for the most part, in the ordinary course of managing a global health services business. These actions may include benefit disputes, breach of contract claims, tort claims, provider disputes, disputes regarding reinsurance arrangements, employment and employment discrimination-related suits, employee benefit claims, wage and hour claims, privacy, claims arising from consumer protection laws, intellectual property claims and real estate-related disputes. There are currently, and may be in the future, attempts to bring class action lawsuits against the industry. The Company also is regularly engaged in Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) audits and may be subject to examinations by various state and foreign taxing authorities. Disputed income tax matters arising from these examinations, including those resulting in litigation, are accounted for under GAAP guidance for uncertain tax positions. Further information on income tax matters can be found in Note 15.

The business of administering and insuring health services programs, particularly health care and group insurance programs, is heavily regulated by federal and state laws and administrative agencies, such as state departments of insurance and the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, Labor and Justice, as well as the courts. Health care regulation and legislation in its various forms, including the Health Care Reform Act, other regulatory reform initiatives, such as those relating to Medicare programs, or additional changes in existing laws or regulations or their interpretations, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, there is heightened review by federal and state regulators of the health care, disability and life insurance industry business and related reporting practices. Cigna is frequently the subject of regulatory market conduct reviews and other examinations of its business and reporting practices, audits and investigations by state insurance and health and welfare departments, state attorneys general, CMS and the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). With respect to Cigna's Medicare Advantage business, CMS and OIG perform audits to determine a health plan's compliance with federal regulations and contractual obligations, including compliance with proper coding practices (sometimes referred to as Risk Adjustment Data Validation audits or RADV audits), that may result in retrospective adjustments to payments made to health plans. Regulatory actions can result in assessments, civil or criminal fines or penalties or other sanctions, including loss of licensing or exclusion from participating in government programs.

The Department of Justice ("DOJ") is currently conducting an industry review of the risk adjustment data submission practices and business processes, including review of medical charts, of Medicare Advantage organizations under Medicare Parts C and D. In connection with this industry review, in December 2016, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Civil Division of the DOJ. We are in the process of voluntarily cooperating with the DOJ's request and responding to the information request.

As a global company, Cigna is also subject to the laws, regulations and rules of the foreign jurisdictions in which it conducts business. Foreign laws and rules, and regulatory audit and investigation practices, may differ from or be more stringent than, similar requirements in the U.S.

Regulation, legislation and judicial decisions have resulted in changes to industry and the Company’s business practices, financial liability or other sanctions and will continue to do so in the future.

When the Company (in the course of its regular review of pending litigation and legal or regulatory matters) has determined that a material loss is reasonably possible, the matter is disclosed. Such matters are described below. In accordance with GAAP, when litigation and regulatory matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and estimable, the Company accrues the estimated loss by a charge to shareholders’ net income. The amount accrued represents the Company’s best estimate of the probable loss at the time. If only a range of estimated losses can be determined, the Company accrues an amount within the range that, in the Company’s judgment, reflects the most likely outcome; if none of the estimates within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, the Company accrues the minimum amount of the range. In cases when the Company has accrued an estimated loss, the accrued amount may differ materially from the ultimate amount of the loss. In many proceedings, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount or range of any loss. The Company provides disclosure in the aggregate for material pending litigation and legal or regulatory matters, including accruals, range of loss, or a statement that such information cannot be estimated. As a litigation or regulatory matter develops, the Company monitors the matter for further developments that could affect the amount previously accrued, if any, and updates such amount accrued or disclosures previously provided as appropriate.

The outcome of litigation and other legal or regulatory matters is always uncertain, and unfavorable outcomes that are not justified by the evidence or existing law can occur. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the matters pending against it and is defending itself vigorously. Except as otherwise noted, the Company believes that the legal actions, regulatory matters, proceedings and investigations currently pending against it should not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity based upon our current knowledge and taking into consideration current accruals. The Company had pre-tax reserves as of June 30, 2017 of approximately $190 million ($125 million after-tax) for the matters discussed below under “Litigation Matters.” Due to numerous uncertain factors presented in these cases, it is not possible to estimate an aggregate range of loss (if any) for these matters at this time. In light of the uncertainties involved in these matters, there is no assurance that their ultimate resolution will not exceed the amounts currently accrued by the Company. An adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or liquidity for any particular period.

Litigation Matters

Amara cash balance pension plan litigation. In December 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the “Plan”) on behalf of herself and other similarly situated Plan participants affected by the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula. The plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), including that the Plan’s cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit); and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or inadequate disclosures about these conditions.

In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company’s right to convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; (2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3) required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits under the post-conversion cash balance formula. The Second Circuit upheld this decision. From 2008 through the present, this case has undergone a series of court proceedings that resulted in the original District Court order being largely upheld. In 2015, the Company submitted to the District Court its proposed method for calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members and plaintiffs responded in August 2015.

In January 2016, the District Court ordered the method of calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members. The court order left several aspects of the calculation of additional plan benefits open to interpretation. During 2016, the Company submitted its interpretation of the Court Order and the plaintiffs filed various objections. On January 10, 2017, the District Court issued an additional ruling regarding certain aspects of the calculation of additional plan benefits. On July 14, 2017, the District Court ruled on a motion for clarification and reconsideration, clarifying and modifying aspects of the January 10, 2017 Order. The Company’s reserve for this litigation remains reasonable at June 30, 2017, based on calculations consistent with the Company’s interpretation of the updated guidance from the Court. The Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration of the July 14, 2017 Order. The final timing of the resolution of this matter therefore remains uncertain. Once resolved, the Plan will be amended to comply with the final interpretation of the District Court’s order and the benefits will begin to be paid.

Ingenix. In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the Company’s competitors. These actions were consolidated into Franco v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al., pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of subscribers, health care providers and various medical associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the present. Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or have settled, similar litigation.

In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim. In January 2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied separate motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class of subscriber plaintiffs. The Third Circuit denied plaintiffs’ request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling. As a result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs only. In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied the plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment. In July 2014, the plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court’s decisions in favor of the Company, including the class certification decision, to the Third Circuit. On May 2, 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decisions denying class certification for the claims asserted by members, the granting of summary judgment on the individual plaintiffs’ claims, as well as the dismissal of the antitrust claims. However, the Third Circuit also reversed the earlier dismissal of the providers’ ERISA claims. The Company will continue to vigorously defend its position.

Regulatory Matters

CMS actions. On June 16, 2017, the Company received notification from CMS that the sanctions issued in January 2016 requiring us to suspend certain enrollment and marketing activities for Medicare Advantage-Prescription Drug and Medicare Part D Plans have been lifted. Accordingly, the Company has resumed marketing of its Medicare Advantage-Prescription Drug and Medicare Part D Plans and began enrolling beneficiaries with effective dates beginning July 1, 2017.

For the six months ended June 30, 2017, Medicare enrollment and consolidated revenues were materially impacted due to our inability to participate in 2017 annual enrollment, and management expects that trend to continue for the remainder of 2017. However, management anticipates that full-year 2017 shareholders’ net income will not be materially affected because we expect the margin impact of the revenue loss to be offset by 2017 remediation costs that are significantly lower than the $100 million after-tax amount reported in 2016 and other operational efficiencies to improve 2017 results.

In October 2016, CMS announced projected Medicare Star Quality Ratings (“Star Ratings”) for the 2018 payment year. The projected Star Ratings for our plans included certain reductions that were primarily attributable to our CMS audit discussed above. Following an appeal, two of our Star Ratings measures were updated, affecting our overall Star Rating. Based on the final Medicare Star Ratings for the 2018 payment year, we expect that approximately 60% of our Medicare Advantage customers will be in a 4 Star or greater plan.

Disability claims regulatory matter. During the second quarter of 2013, the Company finalized an agreement with the Departments of Insurance for Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and California (together, the “monitoring states”) related to the Company’s long-term disability claims handling practices. The agreement requires primarily: (1) enhanced procedures related to documentation and disposition and (2) a two-year monitoring period followed by a re-examination that began in the second quarter of 2016. Management believes the Company has addressed the requirements of the agreement. If the monitoring states find material non-compliance with the agreement upon re-examination, the Company may be subject to additional costs and penalties or requests to change its business practices that could negatively impact future earnings for this business.

Other Legal Matters

Antitrust Litigation. On July 21, 2016, the DOJ and certain state attorneys general filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the “District Court”) seeking to block the merger with Anthem. On February 8, 2017, the District Court issued an order enjoining the proposed merger and, on April 28, 2017, the Appeals Court affirmed the decision of the District Court. On May 5, 2017, Anthem filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision affirming the District Court’s order enjoining the merger. As a result of the termination of the merger agreement as further described below, the petition to the Supreme Court is now moot.

Litigation with Anthem. On February 14, 2017, the Company delivered a notice to Anthem terminating the merger agreement, and notifying Anthem that it must pay the Company the $1.85 billion reverse termination fee pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement. Also on February 14, 2017, the Company filed suit against Anthem in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Chancery Court”). The complaint sought declaratory judgments that the Company’s termination of the merger agreement was valid and that Anthem was not permitted to extend the termination date. The complaint also sought payment of the reverse termination fee and additional damages in an amount exceeding $13 billion, including the lost premium value to the Company’s shareholders caused by Anthem’s willful breaches of the merger agreement.

Also on February 14, 2017, Anthem filed a lawsuit in the Chancery Court against the Company seeking (i) a temporary restraining order to enjoin Cigna from terminating and taking any action contrary to the terms of the merger agreement, (ii) specific performance compelling Cigna to comply with the merger agreement and (iii) damages.

On February 15, 2017, the Chancery Court granted Anthem's motion for a temporary restraining order and issued an order temporarily enjoining the Company from terminating the merger agreement. On May 11, 2017, the Chancery Court denied Anthem's motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Cigna from terminating the merger agreement but stayed its ruling pending Anthem's determination as to whether to seek an appeal. On May 12, 2017, Anthem notified Cigna and the Chancery Court that it did not intend to appeal the Chancery Court's decision. As a result, the merger agreement was terminated.

The litigation between the parties remains pending. We believe in the merits of our claims and dispute Anthem’s claims, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and pursue our claims. The outcomes of lawsuits are inherently unpredictable, and we may be unsuccessful in the ongoing litigation or any future claims or litigation.

Shareholder Litigation. Following announcement of the Company’s merger agreement with Anthem in 2015, putative class action complaints (collectively the “complaints” or “Cigna Merger Litigation”) were filed by purported Cigna shareholders on behalf of a purported class of Cigna shareholders.

Cigna, members of the Cigna board of directors, Anthem and Anthem Merger Sub Corp (“Merger Sub”) were named as defendants. The plaintiffs generally asserted that the members of the Cigna board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Cigna shareholders during merger negotiations and by entering into the merger agreement and approving the merger, and that Cigna, Anthem and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The allegations included, among other things, that (1) the merger consideration undervalued Cigna, (2) the sales process leading up to the merger was flawed due to purported conflicts of interest of members of the Cigna board of directors and (3) certain provisions of the merger agreement inappropriately favored Anthem and inhibited competing bids. Plaintiffs sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger, rescission of the merger agreement to the extent already implemented, and costs and damages.

Solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company, the Company’s directors, Anthem and Merger Sub previously entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) to settle the Cigna Merger Litigation. The termination of the proposed acquisition of the Company by Anthem, as announced on May 12, 2017, has rendered moot both the MOU and the Cigna Merger Litigation. On July 21, 2017, a Stipulation and Proposed Order for Dismissal With Prejudice was submitted to the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford (the “Court”). Subject to approval by the Court, the Cigna Merger Litigation has been resolved.