COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

Litigation

Litigation, regulatory and other loss contingencies arise in the ordinary course of the Company’s activities as a diversified financial services firm. The Company is a defendant in a number of litigation matters arising from the conduct of its business. In some of these matters, claimants seek to recover very large or indeterminate amounts, including compensatory, punitive, treble and exemplary damages. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages and other relief. Claimants are not always required to specify the monetary damages they seek or they may be required only to state an amount sufficient to meet a court's jurisdictional requirements. Moreover, some jurisdictions allow claimants to allege monetary damages that far exceed any reasonably possible verdict. The variability in pleading requirements and past experience demonstrates that the monetary and other relief that may be requested in a lawsuit or claim often bears little relevance to the merits or potential value of a claim. Litigation against the Company includes a variety of claims including, among other things, insurers’ sales practices, alleged agent misconduct, alleged failure to properly supervise agents, contract administration, product design, features and accompanying disclosure, cost of insurance increases, the use of captive reinsurers, payments of death benefits and the reporting and escheatment of unclaimed property, alleged breach of fiduciary duties, alleged mismanagement of client funds and other matters.

As with other financial services companies, the Company periodically receives informal and formal requests for information from various state and federal governmental agencies and self-regulatory organizations in connection with inquiries and investigations of the products and practices of the Company or the financial services industry. It is the practice of the Company to cooperate fully in these matters.

The outcome of a litigation or regulatory matter is difficult to predict and the amount or range of potential losses associated with these or other loss contingencies requires significant management judgment. It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome or to provide reasonably possible losses or ranges of losses for all pending regulatory matters, litigation and other loss contingencies. While it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain cases could have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s financial position, based on information currently known, management believes that neither the outcome of pending litigation and regulatory matters, nor potential liabilities associated with other loss contingencies, are likely to have such an effect. However, given the large and indeterminate amounts sought in certain litigation and the inherent unpredictability of all such matters, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain of the Company's litigation or regulatory matters, or liabilities arising from other loss contingencies, could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect upon the Company’s results of operations or cash flows in a particular quarterly or annual period.

For some matters, the Company is able to estimate a possible range of loss. For such matters in which a loss is probable, an accrual has been made. For matters where the Company, however, believes a loss is reasonably possible, but not probable, no accrual is required. For matters for which an accrual has been made, but there remains a reasonably possible range of loss in excess of the amounts accrued or for matters where no accrual is required, the Company develops an estimate of the unaccrued amounts of the reasonably possible range of losses. As of September 30, 2017, the Company estimates the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, in excess of any amounts accrued for these matters as of such date, to be up to approximately $9 million.

For other matters, the Company is currently not able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss. The Company is often unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss until developments in such matters have provided sufficient information to support an assessment of the range of possible loss, such as quantification of a damage demand from plaintiffs, discovery from plaintiffs and other parties, investigation of factual allegations, rulings by a court on motions or appeals, analysis by experts and the progress of settlement discussions. On a quarterly and annual basis, the Company reviews relevant information with respect to litigation and regulatory contingencies and updates the Company's accruals, disclosures and reasonably possible losses or ranges of loss based on such reviews.

In July 2011, a derivative action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey entitled Mary Ann Sivolella v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and AXA Equitable Funds Management Group, LLC (“Sivolella Litigation”) and a substantially similar action was filed in January 2013 entitled Sanford et al. v. AXA Equitable FMG (“Sanford Litigation”). These lawsuits were filed on behalf of a total of twelve mutual funds and, among other things, seek recovery under (i) Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”), for alleged excessive fees paid to AXA Equitable and AXA Equitable FMG for investment management services and administrative services and (ii) a variety of other theories including unjust enrichment. The Sivolella Litigation and the Sanford Litigation were consolidated and a 25-day trial commenced in January 2016 and concluded in February 2016. In August 2016, the District Court issued its decision in favor of AXA Equitable and AXA Equitable FMG, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden to demonstrate that AXA Equitable and AXA Equitable FMG breached their fiduciary duty in violation of Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act or show any actual damages. In September 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the District Court’s trial opinion and to amend or make new findings of fact and/or conclusions of law. In December 2016, the District Court issued an order denying the motion to amend and plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. We are vigorously defending this matter.

In April 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, now entitled Ross v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons and entities that, between 2011 and March 11, 2014, directly or indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance policies issued by AXA Equitable (the “Policies”). The complaint alleges that AXA Equitable did not disclose in its New York statutory annual statements or elsewhere that the collateral for certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies was supported by parental guarantees, an omission that allegedly caused AXA Equitable to misrepresent its “financial condition” and “legal reserve system.” The lawsuit seeks recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of all premiums paid by the class for the Policies during the relevant period. In July 2015, the Court granted AXA Equitable’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In April 2015, a second action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was filed on behalf of a putative class of variable annuity holders with “Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders,” entitled Calvin W. Yarbrough, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The new action covers the same class period, makes substantially the same allegations, and seeks the same relief as the Ross action. In October 2015, the Court, on its own, dismissed the Yarbrough litigation on similar grounds as the Ross litigation. In December 2015, the Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs motion to consolidate their appeals but ordered that the appeals be heard together before a single panel of judges. In February 2017, the Second Circuit affirmed the decisions of the district court in favor of AXA Equitable, and that decision is now final because the plaintiffs failed to file a further appeal.

In November 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County entitled Arlene Shuster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all AXA Equitable variable life insurance policyholders who allocated funds from their policy accounts to investments in AXA Equitable’s separate accounts, which were subsequently subjected to volatility-management strategy, and who suffered injury as a result thereof. The action asserts that AXA Equitable breached its variable life insurance contracts by implementing the volatility management strategy. In February 2016, the Court dismissed the complaint. In March 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. In August 2015, another lawsuit was filed in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial Division of New Haven entitled Richard T. O’Donnell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons who purchased variable annuities from AXA Equitable which were subsequently subject to the volatility management strategy and who suffered injury as a result thereof. Plaintiff asserts a claim for breach of contract alleging that AXA Equitable implemented the volatility management strategy in violation of applicable law. In November 2015, the Connecticut Federal District Court transferred this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2017, the Southern District of New York granted AXA Equitable’s motion to dismiss the complaint. In April 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. We are vigorously defending these matters.

In February 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entitled Brach Family Foundation, Inc. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. This lawsuit is a putative class action brought on behalf of all owners of universal life ("UL") policies subject to AXA Equitable’s COI increase. In early 2016, AXA Equitable raised COI rates for certain UL policies issued between 2004 and 2007, which had both issue ages 70 and above and a current face value amount of $1 million and above. The current complaint alleges a claim for breach of contract and a claim that the AXA Equitable made misrepresentations in violation of Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law (“Section 4226”). Plaintiff seeks (a) with respect to its breach of contract claim, compensatory damages, costs, and, pre- and post-judgment interest, and (b) with respect to its claim concerning Section 4226, a penalty in the amount of premiums paid by the plaintiff and the putative class. AXA Equitable’s response to the complaint was filed in February 2017. Additionally, a separate putative class action and seven individual actions challenging the COI increase have been filed against AXA Equitable in Federal or State courts. Within that group, all but one of the outstanding Federal actions (the second putative class action and two individual actions) have been transferred to the Federal court where the Brach Family Foundation, Inc. litigation is pending. In October 2017, the Brach court entered an order consolidating the Brach class action and the other putative class action for all purposes and ordered that the two individual actions be consolidated with the Brach litigation for the purposes of coordinating pre-trial activities. We are vigorously defending each of these matters.

Restructuring

In an effort to further reduce its global real estate footprint, AB completed a comprehensive review of its worldwide office locations and began implementing a global space consolidation plan in 2012. This resulted in the sublease of office space primarily in New York as well as offices in England, Australia and various U.S. locations.

In the first nine months of 2017 and 2016, AB recorded new real estate charges of $39 million and $25 million, respectively, relating to the further consolidation of office space at its New York offices. Real estate charges are recorded in Other operating costs and expenses in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Income (Loss).

Obligation under funding agreements

As a member of the FHLBNY, AXA Equitable has access to collateralized borrowings. It also may issue funding agreements to the FHLBNY. Both the collateralized borrowings and funding agreements would require AXA Equitable to pledge qualified mortgage-backed assets and/or government securities as collateral. AXA Equitable issues short-term funding agreements to the FHLBNY and uses the funds for asset liability and cash management purposes. AXA Equitable issues long-term funding agreements to the FHLBNY and uses the funds for spread lending purposes. Funding agreements are reported in Policyholders’ account balances in the consolidated balance sheets. For other instruments used for asset liability management purposes see “Derivative and offsetting assets and liabilities” included in Note 3. Funding agreements are reported in Policyholders’ account balances in the consolidated balance sheets.



	Outstanding balance at end of period		Maturity of Outstanding balance	Issued during the period		Repaid during the period
September 30, 2017:	(in millions)
Short-term FHLBNY funding agreements	$	500	less than one month	$	4,500	$	4,500
Long-term FHLBNY funding agreements	548		less than 4 years	174		—
	923		Less than 5 years	303		—
	744		greater than five years	—		—
Total long-term funding agreements	2,215			477		—
Total FHLBNY funding agreements at September 30, 2017	$	2,715		$	4,977	$	4,500
December 31, 2016:
Short-term FHLBNY funding agreements	$	500	less than one month	$	6,000	$	6,000
Long-term FHLBNY funding agreements	58		less than 4 years	58		—
	862		Less than 5 years	862		—
	818		greater than five years	818		—
Total long-term funding agreements	1,738			1,738		—
Total FHLBNY funding agreements at December 31, 2016	$	2,238		$	7,738	$	6,000

Other Commitments

AXA Equitable had approximately $18 million of undrawn letters of credit issued in favor of third party beneficiaries primarily related to reinsurance as well as $719 million (including $213 million with affiliates) and $709 million of commitments under equity financing arrangements to certain limited partnership and existing mortgage loan agreements, respectively, at September 30, 2017.

AXA Financial has legally assumed primary liability from AXA Equitable for all current and future liabilities of AXA Equitable under certain employee benefit plans that provide participants with medical, life insurance, and deferred compensation benefits. AXA Equitable remains secondarily liable for its obligations under these plans and would recognize such liability in the event AXA Financial does not perform under the terms of the agreements.