A reconciliation of the numerators and denominators of the basic and diluted per share computations of Common Stock based on the consolidated earnings of Prudential Financial for the years ended December 31, is as follows:
The Company acquired Assurance IQ on October 10, 2019. The terms of the Acquisition included compensation awards that involved share-based payment arrangements that are linked to retention and therefore fall under the reporting requirements of ASC 718, Stock Compensation. These compensation awards include stock options, restricted stock units and performance shares.
The weighted average grant date assumptions used in the binomial option valuation model are as follows:
Compensation costs related to stock-based compensation plans capitalized in deferred acquisition costs for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 were de minimis.
Each stock option granted under the Omnibus Incentive Plan has an exercise price at the fair market value of Prudential Financial’s Common Stock on the date of grant and has a maximum term of 10 years. Generally, one third of the option grant vests in each of the first three years. Options granted related to the Acquisition have an exercise price based on the original strike price of the Assurance IQ options that they replaced and have a maximum term of 10 years from the date the Assurance IQ options were originally granted. Options granted related to the Acquisition generally vest quarterly over three years.
The total intrinsic value (i.e., market price of the stock less the option exercise price) of employee stock options exercised during the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 was $21 million, $28 million, and $109 million, respectively. For the Acquisition related awards, the total intrinsic value of employee stock options exercised during the year ended December 31, 2019 was $3 million.
The weighted average remaining contractual term and the aggregate intrinsic value of stock options outstanding and exercisable as of December 31, 2019 is as follows:
A restricted stock unit is an unfunded, unsecured right to receive a share of Prudential Financial’s Common Stock at the end of a specified period of time, which is subject to forfeiture and transfer restrictions. Generally, the restrictions will lapse on the third anniversary of the date of grant. Performance shares and performance units are awards denominated in Prudential Financial’s Common Stock. The number of units is determined over the performance period and may be adjusted based on the satisfaction of certain performance goals for the Company. Performance share awards are payable in Prudential Financial’s Common Stock. Performance unit awards are payable in cash. Effective October 2019, the Company modified certain provisions of its long term compensation plan to settle the performance units component in Prudential Financial Common Stock. As a result, outstanding performance units were converted to performance shares except for certain employee directed deferrals in the deferred compensation plan which remain as performance units for the full life of the grant. Beginning in 2020, the Company will no longer grant performance unit awards.
Unrecognized compensation cost for stock options under the Omnibus Incentive Plan as of December 31, 2019 was $2 million with a weighted average recognition period of 1.46 years. Unrecognized compensation cost for restricted stock units, performance shares and performance units under the Omnibus Incentive Plan as of December 31, 2019 was $153 million with a weighted average recognition period of 1.72 years. Unrecognized compensation cost for stock options related to the Acquisition as of December 31, 2019 was $45 million with a weighted average recognition period of 3.13 years. Unrecognized compensation cost for restricted stock units and performance shares related to the Acquisition as of December 31, 2019 was $10 million with a weighted average recognition period of 4.17 years.
The Company’s tax benefit realized for exercises of stock options under the Omnibus Incentive Plan during the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 was $5 million, $7 million and $39 million, respectively. The tax benefit realized for exercises of stock options related to the Acquisition during the year ended December 31, 2019 was $2 million.
The International Businesses develops and distributes individual life insurance, retirement and related products to the mass affluent and affluent markets in Japan, Korea and other foreign countries through its Life Planner operations. In addition, similar products are offered to the broad middle income and mass affluent markets across Japan and the Company’s joint ventures in various foreign countries through Life Consultants, the proprietary distribution channel of the Company’s Gibraltar Life operation, as well as other channels, including banks and independent agencies.
The Closed Block division includes certain in-force participating insurance and annuity products and corresponding assets that are used for the payment of benefits, expenses and policyholders’ dividends related to these products, as well as certain related assets and liabilities. In connection with demutualization, the Company ceased offering these participating products. The Closed Block division is accounted for as a divested business that is reported separately from the Divested and Run-off Businesses that are included in the Company’s Corporate and Other operations. See Note 15 for additional information on the Closed Block.
Corporate Operations - consist primarily of: (1) capital that is not deployed in any business segment; (2) investments not allocated to business segments, including debt-financed investment portfolios, and tax credit and other tax-enhanced investments financed by business segments; (3) capital debt that is used or will be used to meet the capital requirements of the Company and the related interest expense; (4) our qualified and non-qualified pension and other employee benefit plans, after allocations to business segments; (5) corporate-level activities, after allocations to business segments, including strategic expenditures, acquisition costs, corporate governance, corporate advertising, philanthropic activities, deferred compensation, and costs related to certain contingencies and enhanced regulatory supervision; (6) expenses associated with the multi-year plan of programs that span across our businesses and the functional areas that support those businesses; (7) our ownership interest in a life insurance joint venture in China; (8) certain retained obligations relating to pre-demutualization policyholders; (9) our Risk Appetite Framework; (10) the foreign currency income hedging program used to hedge certain non-U.S. dollar denominated earnings in our International Businesses segment; (11) intercompany arrangements with our PGIM segment to translate certain non-U.S. dollar-denominated earnings at fixed currency exchange rates; and (12) transactions with and between other segments, including the elimination of intercompany transactions for consolidation purposes.
These items are important to an understanding of overall results of operations. Adjusted operating income is not a substitute for income determined in accordance with U.S. GAAP, and the Company’s definition of adjusted operating income may differ from that used by other companies. However, the Company believes that the presentation of adjusted operating income as measured for management purposes enhances the understanding of results of operations by highlighting the results from ongoing operations and the underlying profitability factors of its businesses.
Adjusted operating income excludes “Realized investment gains (losses), net,” except for certain items described below. Significant activity excluded from adjusted operating income includes impairments and credit-related gains (losses) from sales of securities, the timing of which depends largely on market credit cycles and can vary considerably across periods, and interest rate-related gains (losses) from sales of securities, which are largely subject to the Company’s discretion and influenced by market opportunities, as well as the Company’s tax and capital profile. Additionally, adjusted operating income generally excludes realized investment gains (losses) from products that contain embedded derivatives, and from associated derivative portfolios that are part of an asset/liability management program related to the risk of those products. However, the effectiveness of the hedging program will ultimately be reflected in adjusted operating income over time. Trends in the underlying profitability of the Company’s businesses can be more clearly identified without the fluctuating effects of these transactions.
In addition to the items in the table above, “Realized investment gains (losses), net, and related charges and adjustments” also includes an adjustment to reflect “Realized investment gains (losses), net” related to Divested and Run-off Businesses. See “Divested and Run-off Businesses” discussed below.
Current Period Yield Adjustments. The Company uses interest rate and currency swaps and other derivatives to manage interest and currency exchange rate exposures arising from mismatches between assets and liabilities, including duration mismatches. For derivative contracts that do not qualify for hedge accounting treatment, the periodic swap settlements, as well as certain other derivative related yield adjustments are recorded in “Realized investment gains (losses), net,” and are included in adjusted operating income to reflect the after-hedge yield of the underlying instruments. In certain instances, when these derivative contracts are terminated or offset before their final maturity, the resulting realized gains or losses are recognized in adjusted operating income over periods that generally approximate the expected terms of the derivatives or underlying instruments in order for adjusted operating income to reflect the after-hedge yield of the underlying instruments. Included in the amounts shown in the table above are gains (losses) on certain derivative contracts that were terminated or offset before their final maturity of $41 million, $19 million and $53 million for the years ended 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, there was a $222 million deferred net gain related to certain derivative contracts that were terminated or offset before their final maturity, primarily in the International Businesses. Also included in the amounts shown in the table above are fees related to synthetic GICs of $147 million, $146 million and $159 million for the years ended 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. Synthetic GICs are accounted for as derivatives under U.S. GAAP and, therefore, these fees are recorded in “Realized investment gains (losses), net.” See Note 5 for additional information on synthetic GICs.
Principal Source of Earnings. The Company conducts certain activities for which realized investment gains (losses) are a principal source of earnings for its businesses and are therefore included in adjusted operating income, particularly within the Company’s PGIM segment. For example, PGIM’s strategic investing business makes investments for sale or syndication to other investors or for placement or co-investment in the Company’s managed funds and structured products. The realized investment gains (losses) associated with the sale of these strategic investments, as well as the majority of derivative results, are a principal activity for this business and included in adjusted operating income. In addition, the realized investment gains (losses) associated with loans originated by the Company’s commercial mortgage operations, as well as related derivative results and retained mortgage servicing rights, are a principal activity for this business and are therefore included in adjusted operating income.
The Company had historically recognized the immediate impacts from changes in current market conditions on estimates of profitability in current period adjusted operating income. Beginning with the second quarter of 2019, these impacts are excluded from adjusted operating income which the Company believes enhances the understanding of underlying performance trends. These amounts represent the impact of those changes on DAC and other costs and reserves, primarily related to variable annuity and variable and universal life products.
The contribution to income (loss) of Divested and Run-off Businesses that have been or will be sold or exited, including businesses that have been placed in wind down, but that did not qualify for “discontinued operations” accounting treatment under U.S. GAAP, are excluded from adjusted operating income as the results of Divested and Run-off Businesses are not considered relevant to understanding the Company’s ongoing operating results.
The Closed Block division is accounted for as a divested business because it consists primarily of certain participating insurance and annuity products that the Company ceased selling at demutualization in 2001. See Note 15 for further information on the Closed Block.
Assurance IQ was acquired by the Company in October 2019. See Note 1 for additional information.
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. Included above are $12 million and $13 million as of December 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively, of yield maintenance guarantees related to certain investments the Company sold. The Company does not expect to make any payments on these guarantees and is not carrying any liabilities associated with these guarantees.
The Company establishes accruals for litigation and regulatory matters when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of that loss can be reasonably estimated. For litigation and regulatory matters where a loss may be reasonably possible, but not probable, or is probable but not reasonably estimable, no accrual is established but the matter, if potentially material, is disclosed, including matters discussed below. The Company estimates that as of December 31, 2019, the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of accruals established for those litigation and regulatory matters for which such an estimate currently can be made is less than $250 million. Any estimate is not an indication of expected loss, if any, or the Company’s maximum possible loss exposure on such matters. The Company reviews relevant information with respect to its litigation and regulatory matters on a quarterly and annual basis and updates its accruals, disclosures and estimates of reasonably possible loss based on such reviews.
Prudential of Brazil (“POB”) sells insurance products to consumers through life planner franchisees (“Life Planners”), who are engaged as independent life insurance brokers and not as employees. When a Life Planner’s contractual relationship with POB is terminated, in many cases the Life Planner commences a labor suit against POB alleging entitlement to employment related benefits. POB is a defendant in numerous such lawsuits in Brazil brought by former Life Planners and has been subject to regulatory
actions challenging the validity of POB’s franchise model. POB has continued to receive additional labor suits and regulatory actions involving the operation of its franchise model notwithstanding steps that POB has taken to attempt to mitigate the labor risk by modifying its franchise model. POB continues to evaluate changes to its franchise model to further mitigate this risk.
In December 2016, a complaint entitled Julie Han Broderick, Darron Smith and Thomas Schreck v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al., was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division - Essex County. The complaint: (i) alleges that defendants terminated plaintiffs’ employment for engaging in whistleblowing conduct involving the sale of MyTerm policies through Wells Fargo and violated New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act; and (ii) seeks back and front pay, compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. In January 2017, defendants filed an answer to the complaint. In December 2019, the court granted the Company’s summary judgment motion and dismissed the complaint.
In September 2010, Huffman v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, a purported nationwide class action brought on behalf of beneficiaries of group life insurance contracts owned by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”)-governed employee welfare benefit plans was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, challenging the use of retained asset accounts in employee welfare benefit plans to settle death benefit claims as a violation of ERISA and seeking injunctive relief and disgorgement of profits. In July 2011, Prudential Insurance’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied. In February 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class. In April 2012, the court stayed the case pending the outcome of a case involving another insurer that is before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In August 2014, the court lifted the stay, and in September 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to amend the complaint. In July 2015, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint added two new class representatives, a new common law breach of fiduciary duty claim, and a prohibited transactions claim under Section 406(a)(1)(C) of ERISA. In August 2015, Prudential Insurance filed its answer to the first amended complaint. In February 2016, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion. In September 2016, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was denied, and in October 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. In December 2016, the motion for reconsideration was denied. In February 2017, all parties filed motions for summary judgment. In December 2017, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to their breach of fiduciary duty claims under ERISA, dismissed plaintiffs’ state law claim, and denied the motions for summary judgment on the prohibited transaction claim. In December 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the prior orders denying class certification. In January 2018, the court denied in part, and granted in part, plaintiffs’ class certification motion and certified a class limited to participants in the two employer plans involving the named plaintiffs. In February 2018, Prudential Insurance filed a petition with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the class certification decision. In April 2018, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied Prudential Insurance’s request for leave to appeal the class certification decision. In November 2018, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of plaintiffs’ proposed Settlement and Distribution Plan. In April 2019, the court entered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal. This matter is now closed.
In December 2017, Total Asset Recovery Services, LLC, on behalf of the State of New York, filed a Second Amended Complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against, among other 19 defendants, Prudential Financial, Inc., The Prudential Insurance Company of America and Prudential Insurance Agency, LLC, alleging that the Company failed to escheat life insurance proceeds in violation of the New York False Claims Act. The second amended complaint seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, civil penalties, treble damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. In May 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. In April 2019, defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was granted and plaintiff subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal with the New York State Supreme Court, First Department.
In November 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Prudential Financial, Inc., Charles F. Lowrey and Kenneth Y. Tanji, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint asserts claims for federal securities law violations against PFI, and Charles Lowrey, PFI’s chief executive officer, and Kenneth Tanji, PFI’s chief financial officer, individually, and alleges that: (i) the Company's reserve assumptions failed to account for adversely developing mortality experience in the Individual Life business segment; (ii) the Company's reserves were insufficient to satisfy its future policy benefit liabilities; and (iii) the Company materially understated its liabilities and overstated net income due to flawed assumptions in calculating mortality experience. The putative class includes all purchasers of PFI common stock between February 15, 2019 and August 2, 2019.
In January 2020, a putative class action complaint entitled David P. Crawford v. Prudential Financial, Charles F. Lowrey and Kenneth Tanji, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint asserts claims for federal securities law violations against PFI, and Charles Lowrey and Kenneth Tanji, individually, and alleges that: (i) the Company’s reserve assumptions failed to account for adversely developing mortality experience in the Individual Life business segment; (ii) the Company’s reserves were insufficient to satisfy its future policy benefit liabilities; and (iii) the Company materially understated its liabilities and overstated net income due to flawed assumptions in calculating mortality experience. The putative class includes all purchasers of PFI common stock between February 15, 2019 and August 2, 2019.
In January 2020, the Board of Directors received a shareholder demand letter containing allegations: (i) of wrongdoing similar to those alleged in the City of Warren and Crawford complaints; and (ii) that certain of the Company’s current and former directors and executive officers breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care and candor. The demand letter requests that the Board of Directors investigate and commence legal proceedings against the named individuals to recover for the Company’s benefit the damages purportedly sustained by the Company as a result of the alleged breaches. The Company may become subject to additional actions related to this matter.
In November 2019, a putative class action complaint entitled Cho v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et. al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Complaint purports to be brought on behalf of participants in the Prudential Employee Savings Plan (the “Plan”) and (i) alleges that Defendants failed to fulfill their fiduciary obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, in the administration, management and operation of the Plan, including engaging in prohibited transactions; and (ii) seeks declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief, and unspecified damages including interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. In January 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
In February 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In September 2015, the court issued a decision involving Citibank's motion to dismiss: (i) with respect to the PSA trusts, granting the motion and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; (ii) with respect to the Indenture trusts, denying the motion regarding claims for breach of contract, violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty concerning the duty to avoid conflicts of interest; and (iii) with respect to the Indenture trusts, granting the motion to dismiss claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty concerning the duty of care. In November 2015, the Company, together with other institutional investors, filed a complaint in New York State Supreme Court, captioned Fixed Income Shares: Series M, et al. v. Citibank N.A., asserting claims relating to the PSA trusts. In February 2016, Citibank filed a motion to dismiss the state court complaint. In August 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in state court, and in September 2016, Citibank filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and plaintiffs filed in federal court a motion for class certification. In April 2017, Citibank filed a motion for summary judgment in the federal court action. In June 2017, the state court issued a decision regarding defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint: (i) sustaining plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims concerning Citibank’s pre-Event of Default obligations; (ii) dismissing plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims concerning Citibank’s post-Event of Default obligations; (iii) sustaining plaintiffs’ implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim; (iv) dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty; and (v) dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. In July 2017, Citibank filed an appeal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, from the June 2017 decision denying, in part, its motion to dismiss. In January 2018, the First Department: (i) affirmed the trial court’s ruling upholding the breach of contract claim based on the trustee’s failure to give written notice of breaches of representations and warranties; and (ii) reversed the trial court’s order that sustained plaintiffs’ breach of contract and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims concerning servicing violations. In March 2018, the federal court granted Citibank’s motion for summary judgment. In April 2018, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the March 2018 decision granting summary judgment. In June 2019, the federal court action was dismissed with prejudice, and in September 2019, the state court action was also dismissed with prejudice. This matter is now closed.
actions. In May 2018, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was denied in the state court action. In June 2018, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the California Court of Appeal of the denial of their class certification motion. In December 2018, the California Court of Appeal entered the parties’ stipulation dismissing plaintiffs’ appeal of the class certification decision. In December 2018, the federal court action was dismissed with prejudice. In January 2019, the state court action was dismissed with prejudice. This matter is now closed.
In January 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In June 2015, the court granted in part, and denied in part, defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and granted leave to file an amended complaint. In July 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In January 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification and appointing class representatives and class counsel. In February 2018, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and plaintiffs filed a petition with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the class certification decision. In May 2018, the Second Circuit denied plaintiffs’ request for permission to appeal the denial of their class certification motion. In May 2019, the court dismissed the case with prejudice. This matter is now closed.
In February 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In May 2015, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss: (i) declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction regarding claims involving the PSA trusts; and (ii) granting leave for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint asserting direct claims involving the Indenture trusts. In June 2015, the Company, together with other institutional investors, filed a complaint in New York State Supreme court, captioned BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI), et al. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, asserting claims relating to the PSA trusts. In July 2015, plaintiffs filed with the court an amended complaint asserting direct claims relating to the Indenture trusts. In August 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint in the federal court action. In September 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the class action complaint in the state court action. In February 2016, the federal district court issued a decision involving U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss: (i) upholding the breach of contract and Trust Indenture Act claims; and (ii) dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty and extra-contractual claims. In September 2016, the Company together with other institutional investor plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in state court. In October 2016, U.S. Bank filed a motion to dismiss the amended state court complaint. In November 2016, plaintiffs filed in federal court motions seeking class certification and appointing class representatives and class counsel. In January 2018, the state court issued a decision on U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint: (i) upholding the representation and warranty breach of contract claims for all 770 trusts; (ii) upholding the breach of contract claims related to servicer violations for 77 trusts; and (iii) dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. In January 2018, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in the federal court action. In February 2018, the federal court entered a stipulated order: (i) dismissing all claims involving three trusts with prejudice; (ii) with respect to twenty trusts, dismissing with prejudice the Trust Indenture Act (“TIA”) claims for lack of standing, and the breach of contract claims without prejudice; and (iii) dismissing without prejudice the TIA and breach of contract claims concerning the four remaining trusts. In February 2018, U.S. Bank filed an appeal from the state court’s order concerning U.S. Bank’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In March 2018, plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal of the state court’s order concerning the motion to dismiss. In August 2018, plaintiffs filed a second class action complaint in New York state court against U.S. Bank, as trustee, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breach of duty of care. In October 2018, the New York State Supreme Court, First Department, modified the lower court’s January 2018 order, by dismissing plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims for servicer violations involving 56 of 77 trusts, and otherwise affirmed the remainder of the lower court’s January 2018 order. In April 2019, a decision and order were issued dismissing plaintiffs’ state court action with prejudice. This matter is now closed.
prejudice Prudential’s claims against HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC Finance Corp., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., and HSBC USA Inc.
In 2016, the Company self-reported to the SEC and the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”), and notified other regulators, that in some cases it failed to maximize securities lending income for the benefit of certain separate account investments due to a long-standing restriction benefiting the Company that limited the availability of loanable securities. The Company has removed the restriction and implemented a remediation plan for the benefit of customers. As part of the Company’s review of this matter, in 2018 it further self-reported to the SEC, and notified other regulators, that in some cases it failed to timely process foreign tax reclaims for the separate account investments. The Company has corrected the foreign tax reclaim process and has implemented a remediation plan for the benefit of customers.
The DOL’s review of the securities lending matter is closed. In September 2019, the Company reached a settlement of these matters with the SEC. As part of the settlement the Company agreed to pay a fine of $5 million and disgorgement of $27.6 million, and consented to the entry of an Administrative Order containing findings that two subsidiaries of the Company violated certain sections of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Investment Advisers Act Rules and ordering the subsidiaries to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and any future violations of those provisions. In reaching this settlement, the Company neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s findings.
Basic and Diluted earnings per share of Common Stock for the second quarter of 2018 reflected a net charge in the Long-Term Care business as a result of the Company’s annual reviews and update of assumptions and other refinements.