In connection with certain acquisitions, the Company has agreed to pay additional consideration in future periods, based upon the attainment by the acquired entity of defined operating objectives. In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the Company does not accrue contingent consideration obligations prior to the attainment of the objectives. At December 31, 2006, maximum potential future consideration pursuant to such arrangements, to be resolved over the following three years, is $185 million. Any such payments would result in increases in intangible assets, including goodwill.
The Company is also subject to other financial guarantees and indemnity arrangements. The Company has provided indemnities and guarantees related to acquisitions, dispositions, investments and other transactions that are triggered by, among other things, breaches of representations, warranties or covenants provided by the Company. 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 obligation is subject to contractual limitations, while in other cases such limitations are not specified or applicable. Since certain of these obligations are not subject to limitations, it is not possible to determine the maximum potential amount due under these guarantees. At December 31, 2006, the Company has accrued liabilities of $8 million associated with all other financial guarantees and indemnity arrangements, which does not include retained liabilities associated with sold businesses.
In 2003, the Company sold its property and casualty insurance companies that operated nationally in 48 states outside of New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, to Liberty Mutual. In connection with that sale, the Company reinsured Liberty Mutual for certain losses including any adverse loss development on losses occurring prior to the sale that arise from insurance contracts generated through certain “discontinued” distribution channels or due to certain loss events and stop-loss protection on losses occurring after the sale and arising from those same distribution channels of up to $95 million, in excess of related premiums and other adjustments. The reinsurance covering the losses associated with the discontinued distribution channels will be settled based upon loss experience through December 31, 2008, with a provision that profits on the insurance business from these channels will be shared, with Liberty Mutual receiving up to $20 million of the first $50 million.
21. COMMITMENTS AND GUARANTEES, CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND LITIGATION AND REGULATORY MATTERS (continued)
The Company is subject to legal and regulatory actions in the ordinary course of its businesses. Pending legal and regulatory actions include proceedings relating to aspects of our businesses and operations that are specific to the Company and proceedings that are typical of the businesses in which the Company operates, including in both cases businesses that have either been divested or placed in wind-down status. Some of these proceedings have been brought on behalf of various alleged classes of complainants. In certain of these matters, the plaintiffs are seeking large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive or exemplary damages.
In August 2000, plaintiffs filed a purported national class action in the District Court of Valencia County, New Mexico, Azar, et al. v. Prudential Insurance, based upon the alleged failure to adequately disclose the increased costs associated with payment of life insurance premiums on a “modal” basis, i.e., more frequently than once a year. Similar actions have been filed in New Mexico against over a dozen other insurance companies. The complaint asserts claims for breach of the common law duty to disclose material information, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment and seeks injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, both in unspecified amounts, restitution, treble damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. In March 2001, the court entered an order granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs as to liability. In January 2003, the New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed this finding and dismissed the claims for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary duty. The case was remanded to the trial court and in November 2004, it held that, as to the named plaintiffs, the non-disclosure was material. In July 2005, the court certified a class of New Mexico only policyholders denying plaintiffs’ motion to include purchasers from 35 additional states. In September 2005, plaintiffs sought to amend the court’s order on class certification with respect to eight additional states. In March 2006, the court reiterated its denial of a multi-state class and maintained the certification of a class of New Mexico resident purchasers of Prudential life insurance. The court also indicated it would enter judgment on liability against Prudential for the New Mexico class.
From November 2002 to March 2005, eleven separate complaints were filed against the Company and the law firm of Leeds Morelli & Brown in New Jersey state court. The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in New Jersey Superior Court, Essex County and captioned Lederman v. Prudential Financial, Inc., et al. The complaints allege that an alternative dispute resolution agreement entered into among Prudential Insurance, over 350 claimants who are current and former Prudential Insurance employees, and Leeds Morelli & Brown (the law firm representing the claimants) was illegal and that Prudential Insurance conspired with Leeds
Morelli & Brown to commit fraud, malpractice, breach of contract, and violate federal racketeering laws by advancing legal fees to the law firm with the purpose of limiting Prudential’s liability to the claimants. In 2004, the Superior Court sealed these lawsuits and compelled them to arbitration. In May 2006, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s decisions, held that the cases were improperly sealed, and should be heard in court rather than arbitrated. In November 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to permit over 200 individuals to join the cases as additional plaintiffs, to authorize a joint trial on liability issues for all plaintiffs, and to add a claim under the New Jersey discrimination law. The motion is pending decision.
The Company, along with a number of other insurance companies, received formal requests for information from the State of New York Attorney General’s Office (“NYAG”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office, the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Labor, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of California, the District Attorney of the County of San Diego, and various state insurance departments relating to payments to insurance intermediaries and certain other practices that may be viewed as anti-competitive. The Company may receive additional requests from these and other regulators and governmental authorities concerning these and related subjects. The Company is cooperating with these inquiries and has had discussions with certain authorities in an effort to resolve the inquiries into this matter. In December 2006, Prudential Insurance reached a resolution of the NYAG investigation. Under the terms of the settlement, Prudential Insurance paid a $2.5 million penalty and established a $16.5 million fund for policyholders, adopted business reforms and agreed, among other things, to continue to cooperate with the NYAG in any litigation, ongoing investigations or other proceedings. Prudential Insurance also settled the litigation brought by the California Department of Insurance and agreed to business reforms and disclosures as to group insurance contracts insuring customers or residents in California and to pay certain costs of investigation. These matters are also the subject of litigation brought by private plaintiffs, including purported class actions that have been consolidated in the multidistrict litigation in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, In re Employee Benefit Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, and two shareholder derivative actions, Gillespie v. Ryan and Kahn v. Agnew. Both derivative actions were dismissed without prejudice. In Gillespie, the plaintiff entered into a tolling agreement with the Company to permit a Special Evaluation Committee of the Board of Directors to investigate and evaluate his demand that the Company take action regarding these matters. The Committee has completed its investigation and has informed counsel for Mr. Gillespie that it has determined to refuse his demand. The regulatory settlement may adversely affect the existing litigation or cause additional litigation and result in adverse publicity and other potentially adverse impacts to the Company’s business.
The Company’s subsidiary, American Skandia Life Assurance Corporation, has commenced a remediation program to correct errors in the administration of approximately 11,000 annuity contracts issued by that company. The owners of these contracts did not receive notification that the contracts were approaching or past their designated annuitization date or default annuitization date (both dates referred to as the “contractual annuity date”) and the contracts were not annuitized at their contractual annuity dates. Some of these contracts also were
Prudential Securities has been named as a defendant in a number of industry-wide purported class actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to its former securities underwriting business. Plaintiffs in one consolidated proceeding, captioned In re: Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, allege, among other things, that the underwriters engaged in a scheme involving tying agreements, undisclosed compensation arrangements and research analyst conflicts to manipulate and inflate the prices of shares sold in initial public offerings in violation of the federal securities laws. Certain issuers of these securities and their current and former officers and directors have also been named as defendants. In October 2004, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in six “focus cases.” In December 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated that decision. Plaintiffs have petitioned the Court of Appeals for rehearing and rehearing en banc. In June 2004, plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with the issuers, officers and directors named as defendants in the lawsuits, which the district court preliminarily approved in February 2005. In August 2000, Prudential Securities was named as a defendant, along with other underwriters, in a purported class action, captioned CHS Electronics Inc. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. et al., which alleges on behalf of issuers of securities in initial public offerings that the defendants conspired to fix at 7% the discount that underwriting syndicates receive from issuers in violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs moved for class certification in September 2004 and for partial summary judgment in November 2005. The summary judgment motion has been deferred pending disposition of the class certification motion. In April 2006, the court denied class certification. In August 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted plaintiffs’ petition for review of that decision. In a related action, captioned Gillet v. Goldman Sachs et al., plaintiffs allege substantially the same antitrust claims on behalf of investors, though only injunctive relief is currently being sought.
In August 2006, Prudential Equity Group, LLC (“PEG”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, reached a resolution of the previously disclosed regulatory and criminal investigations into deceptive market related activities involving PEG’s former Prudential Securities operations. The settlements relate to conduct that generally occurred between 1999 and 2003 involving certain former Prudential Securities brokers in Boston and certain other branch offices in the U.S., their supervisors, and other members of the Prudential Securities control structure with responsibilities that related to the market timing activities, including certain former members of Prudential Securities senior management. The Prudential Securities operations were contributed to a joint venture with Wachovia Corporation in July 2003, but PEG retained liability for the market timing related activities. In connection with the resolution of the investigations, PEG entered into separate settlements with each of the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts (“USAO”), the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Securities Division, SEC, the National Association of Securities Dealers, the New York Stock Exchange, the New Jersey Bureau of Securities and the New York Attorney Generals Office. These settlements resolve the investigations by the above named authorities into these matters as to all Prudential entities without further regulatory proceedings or filing of charges so long as the terms of the settlement are followed and
In addition to the regulatory proceedings described above that were settled in 2006, in October 2004, the Company and Prudential Securities were named as defendants in several class actions brought on behalf of purchasers and holders of shares in a number of mutual fund complexes. The actions are consolidated as part of a multi-district proceeding, In re: Mutual Fund Investment Litigation, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The complaints allege that the purchasers and holders were harmed by dilution of the funds’ values and excessive fees, caused by market timing and late trading, and seek unspecified damages. In August 2005, the Company was dismissed from several of the actions, without prejudice to repleading the state claims, but remains a defendant in other actions in the consolidated proceeding. In July 2006, in one of the consolidated mutual fund actions, Saunders v. Putnam American Government Income Fund, et al., the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted plaintiffs leave to refile their federal securities law claims against Prudential Securities. In August 2006, the second amended complaint was filed alleging federal securities law claims on behalf of a purported nationwide class of mutual fund investors seeking compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts. Motions to dismiss the other actions are pending.
In November 2003, an action was commenced in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Enron Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., et al., against approximately 100 defendants, including Prudential Insurance and related entities, which invested in Enron’s commercial paper. The complaint alleges that Enron’s October 2001 prepayment of its commercial paper is a voidable preference under the bankruptcy laws and constitutes a fraudulent conveyance and that the Company and related entities received prepayment of $125 million. A motion by all defendants to dismiss the complaint was denied in June 2005. Defendants’ motions for leave to appeal are pending.
In September and October 2005, five purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, PSI and PEG claiming that stockbrokers were improperly classified as exempt employees under state and federal wage and hour laws, were improperly denied overtime pay and that improper deductions were made from the stockbrokers’ wages. Two of the stockbrokers’ complaints, Janowsky v. Wachovia Securities, LLC and Prudential Securities Incorporated and Goldstein v. Prudential Financial, Inc., were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Goldstein complaint purports to have been filed on behalf of a nationwide class. The Janowsky complaint alleges a class of New York brokers. Motions to dismiss and compel arbitration were filed in the Janowsky and Goldstein matters, which have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes. The three stockbrokers complaints filed in California Superior Court, Dewane v. Prudential Equity Group, Prudential Securities Incorporated, and Wachovia Securities LLC; DiLustro v. Prudential Securities Incorporated, Prudential Equity Group Inc. and Wachovia Securities; and Carayanis v. Prudential Equity Group LLC and Prudential Securities Inc., purport to have been brought on behalf of classes of California brokers. The Carayanis complaint was subsequently withdrawn without prejudice in May 2006. In June 2006, a purported New York state class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Panesenko v. Wachovia Securities, et al., alleging that the Company failed to pay overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal law and that improper deductions were made from the stockbrokers’ wages in violation of state law. In September 2006, Prudential Securities was sued in Badain v. Wachovia Securities, et al., a purported nationwide class action filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The complaint alleges that Prudential Securities failed to pay overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal law and that improper deductions were made from the stockbrokers’ wages in violation of state law. In October 2006, a purported class action lawsuit, Bouder v. Prudential Financial, Inc. and Prudential Insurance Company of America, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, claiming that the Company failed to pay overtime to insurance agents who were registered representatives in violation of federal and state law, and that improper deductions were made from these agents’ wages in violation of state law. In December 2006, these cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. The complaints seek back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys’ fees.