SEC Filings
 |
| 10-Q | |
| HRG GROUP, INC. filed this Form 10-Q on 08/09/2016 | |
| Entire Document | |
| << Previous Page | Next Page >> | |
Legal and Environmental Matters HRG HRG was named as a nominal defendant, and members of its Board were named as defendants in a purported class and derivative action filed in March 2014 by Haverhill Retirement System (“Plaintiff”) in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Court”). Harbinger Capital Partners LLC and certain of its affiliated funds (“HCP”) and Leucadia National Corporation (“Leucadia”), each a stockholder of HRG, were also named as defendants in the complaint. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with transactions involving Leucadia. On January 7, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation under which the Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the action. HRG has paid the Plaintiff’s counsel $0.2 in attorney’s fees and expenses and the Plaintiff has dismissed its action against the defendants. HRG was named as a nominal defendant, and members of its Board were named as defendants, in a derivative action filed in December 2010 by Alan R. Kahn in the Court. HCP was also named as a defendant. The plaintiff alleged that HRG’s acquisition of HCP’s shares of Spectrum Brands in exchange for shares of common stock of HRG from HRG was financially unfair to HRG and its public stockholders, and sought unspecified damages and the rescission of the transaction. On November 24, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement with the Court (“Settlement”). The Settlement was approved by the court on February 4, 2016, and the action was dismissed. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, HCP and the Company’s insurer paid a total of $3.8 into a settlement fund that will, net of distribution and notice costs and the fee and expense award to plaintiff's counsel, be distributed to stockholders of the Company other than stockholders affiliated with HCP, the members of the Company’s board of directors at the time of the challenged transaction and certain other persons. HRG will not contribute any payment to the settlement fund. Spectrum Brands Spectrum Brands is a defendant in various other matters of litigation generally arising out of the ordinary course of business. Spectrum Brands does not believe that the resolution of any other matters or proceedings presently pending will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition, liquidity or cash flows. Spectrum Brands has accrued approximately $4.3 for the estimated costs associated with environmental remediation activities at some of its current and former manufacturing sites. Spectrum Brands believes that any additional liability that may result from resolution of these matters in excess of the amounts provided for will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of Spectrum Brands. Spectrum Brands is subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations. Spectrum Brands believes it is in substantial compliance with all such environmental laws that are applicable to its operations. FGL (business held for sale) FGL is involved in various pending or threatened legal proceedings, including purported class actions, arising in the ordinary course of business. In some instances, these proceedings include claims for unspecified or substantial punitive damages and similar types of relief in addition to amounts for alleged contractual liability or requests for equitable relief. In the opinion of FGL’s management and in light of existing insurance and other potential indemnification, reinsurance and established accruals, such litigation is not expected to have a material adverse effect on FGL’s financial position, although it is possible that the results of operations and cash flows could be materially affected by an unfavorable outcome in any one period. FGL is assessed amounts by the state guaranty funds to cover losses to policyholders of insolvent or rehabilitated insurance companies. Those mandatory assessments may be partially recovered through a reduction in future premium taxes in certain states. At June 30, 2016, FGL has accrued $3.0 for guaranty fund assessments that is expected to be offset by estimated future premium tax deductions of $2.9. FGL has received inquiries from a number of state regulatory authorities regarding its use of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File (the “Death Master File”) and compliance with state claims practices regulation. Legislation requiring insurance companies to use the Death Master File to identify potential claims has been enacted in a number of states. As a result of these legislative and regulatory developments, in May 2012, FGL undertook an initiative to use the Death Master File and other publicly available databases to identify persons potentially entitled to benefits under life insurance policies, annuities and retained asset accounts. In addition, FGL has received audit and examination notices from several state agencies responsible for escheatment and unclaimed property regulation in those states and in some cases has challenged the audits including litigation against the Controller for the State of California which is subject to a stay. FGL believes its current accrual will cover the reasonably estimated liability arising out of these developments, however costs that cannot be reasonably estimated as of the date of this filing are possible as a result of ongoing regulatory developments and other future requirements related to these matters. On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff Eddie L. Cressy filed a putative class complaint captioned Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life Insurance Company, et. al. (“Cressy”) in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the “LA Court”), Case No. BC-514340. The complaint was filed after the Plaintiff was unable to maintain an action in federal court. The complaint asserts, inter alia, that 35 | |
| << Previous Page | Next Page >> | |