Terminated Hedges of Foreign Currency Earnings. The amounts shown in the table above primarily reflect the impact of an intercompany arrangement between Corporate and Other operations and the International Insurance segment, pursuant to which the non-U.S. dollar-denominated earnings in all countries for a particular year, including its interim reporting periods, are translated at fixed currency exchange rates. The fixed rates are determined in connection with a currency hedging program designed to mitigate the risk that unfavorable rate changes will reduce the segment’s U.S. dollar-equivalent earnings. Pursuant to this program, the Company’s Corporate and Other operations may execute forward currency contracts with third-parties to sell the net exposure of projected earnings from the hedged currency in exchange for U.S. dollars at a specified exchange rate. The maturities of these contracts correspond with the future periods in which the identified non-U.S. dollar-denominated earnings are expected to be generated. These contracts do not qualify for hedge accounting under U.S. GAAP, so the resulting profits or losses are recorded in “Realized investment gains (losses), net.” When the contracts are terminated in the same period that the expected earnings emerge, the resulting positive or negative cash flow effect is included in adjusted operating income.
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 $19 million, $53 million and $49 million for the years ended 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively. As of December 31, 2018, there was a $212 million deferred net gain related to certain derivative contracts that were terminated or offset before their final maturity, primarily in the International Insurance segment. Also included in the amounts shown in the table above are fees related to synthetic GICs of $146 million, $159 million and $158 million for the years ended 2018, 2017 and 2016, 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.
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, which is comprised of the Closed Block segment 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 14 for further information on the Closed Block.
Revenues, calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP, for the years ended December 31, include the following associated with the Company’s foreign and domestic operations:
The Company occupies leased office space in many locations under various long-term leases and has entered into numerous leases covering the long-term use of computers and other equipment. Rental expense, net of sub-lease income, incurred for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016 was $265 million, $258 million and $252 million, respectively.
The following table presents, at December 31, 2018, the Company’s future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating and capital leases along with associated sub-lease income:
In the normal course of business, the Company may facilitate securities lending transactions on behalf of certain client accounts (collectively, “the accounts”). In certain of these arrangements, the Company has provided an indemnification to the accounts to hold them harmless against losses caused by counterparty (i.e., borrower) defaults associated with the securities lending activity facilitated by the Company. Collateral is provided by the counterparty to the accounts at the inception of the loan equal to or greater than 102% of the fair value of the loaned securities and the collateral is maintained daily at 102% or greater of the fair value of the loaned securities. The Company is only at risk if the counterparty to the securities lending transaction defaults and the value of the collateral held is less than the value of the securities loaned to such counterparty. The Company believes the possibility of any payments under these indemnities is remote.
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 $13 million and $31 million as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, 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, 2018, 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.
In September 2012, the State of West Virginia, through its State Treasurer, filed a lawsuit against Prudential Insurance in the Circuit Court of Putnam County, West Virginia. The complaint alleges violations of the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Fund Act by failing to properly identify and report all unclaimed insurance policy proceeds which should either be paid to beneficiaries or escheated to West Virginia. The complaint seeks to examine the records of Prudential Insurance to determine compliance with the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Fund Act, and to assess penalties and costs in an undetermined amount. In June 2015, the West Virginia Supreme Court issued a decision: (i) reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the West Virginia Treasurer’s complaint alleging violations of West Virginia’s unclaimed property law; and (ii) remanding the case to the Circuit Court of Putnam County for proceedings consistent with its decision. In July 2015, a petition for rehearing was filed with the West Virginia Supreme Court. In September 2015, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals denied Prudential Insurance’s rehearing petition. In November 2015, Prudential Insurance filed its answer. In September 2018, the case was dismissed with prejudice. This matter is now closed.
In October 2012, the State of West Virginia commenced a second action against Pruco Life making the same allegations stated in the action against Prudential Insurance. In April 2013, Pruco Life filed motions to dismiss the complaints in both of the West Virginia actions. In December 2013, the court granted Pruco Life’s motions and dismissed the complaints with prejudice. In January 2014, the State of West Virginia appealed the decisions. In June 2015, the West Virginia Supreme Court issued a decision: (i) reversing the trial court’s dismissal of the West Virginia Treasurer’s complaint alleging violations of West Virginia’s unclaimed property law; and (ii) remanding the case to the Circuit Court of Putnam County for proceedings consistent with its decision. In July 2015, a petition for rehearing was filed with the West Virginia Supreme Court. In September 2015, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals denied Pruco Life’s rehearing petition. In November 2015, Pruco Life filed its answer. In September 2018, the case was dismissed with prejudice. This matter is now closed.
Total Asset Recovery Services, LLC v. MetLife, Inc., et al., Prudential Financial, Inc., The Prudential Insurance Company of America, and Prudential Insurance Agency, LLC
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
In March 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In March 2016, the court issued a decision involving BONYM’s motion to dismiss: (i) denying the motion to dismiss the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) trust claims for lack of jurisdiction; (ii) denying the motion regarding claims for violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 and breach of contract; and (iii) granting the motion regarding claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.
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 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.
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 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In January 2016, the court issued a decision involving Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss: (i) with respect to the PSA trusts, granting the motion and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; and (ii) with respect to the Indenture trusts, granting leave for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. In February 2016, the Company, together with other institutional investor plaintiffs, filed an amended complaint in federal court. In March 2016, the Company, together with other institutional investors, filed a complaint in California State Superior court, captioned BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI), et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n., asserting claims relating to the PSA trusts. In May 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or to stay the state court action. In July 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed previously in federal court. In October 2016, the court dismissed the state court complaint. In December 2016, the Company, together with other institutional investors, filed a complaint in New York State Court, captioned BlackRock Core Bond Portfolio, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n., asserting claims related to the PSA trusts. In March 2017, the federal court issued an order concerning defendant’s motion to dismiss as to the Indenture trusts: (i) sustaining plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims; plaintiffs’ claims for violations of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939; and plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest; and (ii) dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for breach of fiduciary duty as duplicative of the sustained contract claims. In May 2017, Wells Fargo filed a third-party complaint for contribution against PGIM, Inc., alleging that, in the event the Prudential plaintiff Funds prevail on their claims for damages against Wells Fargo, PGIM must contribute to the award due to PGIM’s alleged breach of fiduciary duties owed to the Funds in managing the Funds’ RMBS investments. In June 2017, Wells Fargo filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in New York State Court. In October 2017, PGIM filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint filed by Wells Fargo seeking contribution. In January 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the federal court action. In November 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in New York state court against Wells Fargo, as trustee, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of duty of due care, and violation of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939.
In May 2014, Prudential Investment Portfolios 2, on behalf of the Prudential Core Short-Term Bond Fund and the Prudential Core Taxable Money Market Fund (the “Funds”), filed an action against ten banks in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting that the banks participated in the setting of LIBOR, a major benchmark interest rate. The complaint alleges that the defendant banks manipulated LIBOR, and asserts, among other things, claims for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, intentional interference with contract and with prospective economic relations, unjust enrichment, breaches of the New Jersey Civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) statute, and violations of the Sherman Act. In June 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where it has been consolidated for pre-trial purposes with other pending LIBOR-related actions. In October 2014, the Funds filed an amended complaint. In November 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In August 2015, the court issued a decision granting in part, and denying in part, defendants' motions to dismiss. The court dismissed certain of the Funds' claims, including those alleging fraud based on offering material
statements; New Jersey RICO; and express breach of contract. The court upheld certain of the Funds' claims, including those alleging fraud based on false LIBOR submissions to the British Bankers’ Association; negligent misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Following the August 2015 decision, granting in part defendants' motions to dismiss, in September 2015, Prudential filed the following LIBOR complaints: (i) in the Southern District of New York, captioned Prudential Investment Portfolios 2 et al. v. Barclays Bank PLC, et al. (the “New York Complaint”), naming as defendants Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Barclays PLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Funding Inc., Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse (USA) Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Holdings PLC, JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Royal Bank of Canada, and The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC. These defendants were dismissed from the original LIBOR action on jurisdictional grounds. The New York complaint reasserts the causes of action brought in the original LIBOR action; and (ii) in the Western district of North Carolina, captioned Prudential Investment Portfolios 2 et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al. (the “North Carolina Complaint”), naming as defendants Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A. These defendants were dismissed from the original LIBOR action on jurisdictional grounds. The North Carolina Complaint reasserts the causes of action brought in the original LIBOR action. Both the New York Complaint and the North Carolina Complaint have been transferred for pre-trial purposes to the LIBOR multi-district litigation presided over by Judge Buchwald in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In May 2016, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s dismissal of the LIBOR plaintiffs’ antitrust claims and remanded to the district court the question of whether plaintiffs possess standing as “efficient enforcers” of applicable antitrust laws. In July 2016, defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss all antitrust claims based on lack of standing and lack of personal jurisdiction. In December 2016, the motion was granted in part and denied in part. In January 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied defendants’ petition for certiorari. In February 2017, the court clarified its December 2016 order, holding that antitrust claims only exist against panel banks, not their affiliates. This clarification resulted in the Funds’ New Jersey antitrust claims being dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Funds antitrust claims in the New York and North Carolina actions remain pending. In July 2017, the Funds obtained an entry of judgment on the New Jersey antitrust claims dismissed on personal jurisdiction grounds. In July 2017, the Funds filed with the Second Circuit Court an appeal from the dismissal of their New Jersey anti-trust claims.
after consideration of applicable reserves and rights to indemnification, is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position.