Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	(16) Commitments and Contingencies (a)Litigation and Regulatory Matters We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations or other actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including the risk of class action lawsuits. Our pending legal and regulatory actions include proceedings specific to us and others generally applicable to business practices in the industries in which we operate. In our insurance operations, we are, have been, or may become subject to class actions and individual suits alleging, among other things, issues relating to sales or underwriting practices, increases to in-force long-term care insurance premiums, payment of contingent or other sales commissions, claims payments and procedures, product design, product disclosure, product administration, additional premium charges for premiums paid on a periodic basis, denial or delay of benefits, charging excessive or impermissible fees on products, recommending unsuitable products to customers, our pricing structures and business practices in our mortgage insurance subsidiaries, such as captive reinsurance arrangements with lenders and contract underwriting services, violations of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act of 1974 or related state anti-inducement laws, and mortgage insurance policy rescissions and curtailments, and breaching fiduciary or other duties to customers, including but not limited to cybersecurity breaches of customer information. We also from time to time have had, and may in the future have, disputes with reinsurance partners relating to the parties’ rights and obligations under reinsurance treaties and/or related administration agreements. In our investment-related operations, we are subject to litigation involving commercial disputes with counterparties. We are also subject to litigation arising out of our general business activities such as our contractual and employment relationships, including claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), post-closing obligations associated with previous dispositions and securities lawsuits. In addition, we are also subject to various regulatory inquiries, such as information requests, subpoenas, books and record examinations and market conduct and financial examinations from state, federal and international regulators and other authorities. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us have sought and/or may seek very large or indeterminate amounts which may remain unknown for substantial periods of time. A substantial legal liability or a significant regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Moreover, even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, we could suffer significant reputational harm, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. We record an accrual in our consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when we determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. At this time, while it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome in a case may occur, except to the extent discussed below, management has concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending cases, and management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in any of the pending cases. Therefore, we have not recorded any amounts in our condensed consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any. TVPX ARS, INC. v. GLAIC In September 2018, Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company (“GLAIC”), our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned TVPX ARS, INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company. The plaintiff alleges unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges were imposed on policyholders. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, alleging that Genworth improperly considered non-mortality factors when calculating cost of insurance rates and failed to decrease cost of insurance charges in light of improved expectations of future mortality, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs and equitable relief. On October 29, 2018, we filed a motion to enjoin the case in the Middle District of Georgia, and a motion to dismiss and motion to stay in the Eastern District of Virginia. We moved to enjoin the prosecution of the Eastern District of Virginia action on the basis that it involves claims released in a prior nationwide class action settlement (the “McBride settlement”) that was approved by the Middle District of Georgia. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2018. On December 6, 2018, we moved the Middle District of Georgia for leave to file our counterclaim, which alleges that the plaintiff breached the covenant not to sue contained in the prior settlement agreement by filing its current action. On March 15, 2019, the Middle District of Georgia granted our motion to enjoin and denied our motion for leave to file our counterclaim. As such, the plaintiff is enjoined from pursuing its class action in the Eastern District of Virginia. On March 29, 2019, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the order granting our motion to enjoin. On March 29, 2019, we filed our notice of cross-appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of our cross-appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from the portion of the order denying our motion for leave to file our counterclaim. On April 8, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case without prejudice, with leave for the plaintiff to refile an amended complaint only if a final appellate Court decision vacates the injunction and reverses the Middle District of Georgia’s opinion. On May 21, 2019, the plaintiff filed its appeal and memorandum in support in the Eleventh Circuit. We filed our response to the plaintiff’s appeal memorandum on July 3, 2019. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the plaintiff’s appeal and our cross-appeal on April 21, 2020. On May 26, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Middle District of Georgia’s order enjoining the plaintiff’s class action and remanded the case back to the Middle District of Georgia for further factual development as to whether Genworth has altered how it calculates or charges cost of insurance since the McBride settlement. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did not reach a decision on Genworth’s counterclaim. On June 30, 2021, we filed in the Middle District of Georgia our renewed motion to enforce the class action settlement and release and renewed our motion for leave to file a counterclaim. The briefing on both motions concluded in October 2021. On March 24, 2022, the Court denied our motions. On April 11, 2022, we filed an appeal of the Court’s denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On June 22, 2022, we filed our opening brief in support of the appeal. The plaintiff filed its respondent’s brief on September 20, 2022, and we filed our reply brief on November 10, 2022. The appeal was orally argued on August 17, 2023, and on January 8, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit entered an order affirming the district court’s order. On January 29, 2025, we moved for rehearing by the panel and by the full court. On March 4, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit denied our motion for rehearing. On March 7, 2025, the plaintiff refiled its complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On May 9, 2025, we moved to dismiss the refiled complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 24, 2025 and a second amended complaint on July 14, 2025. On July 28, 2025, we moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff opposed our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 25, 2025, and the court denied our motion to dismiss on November 18, 2025. On February 13, 2026, we moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiff moved for class certification. The trial date of April 2026 was cancelled and has not yet been rescheduled. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. Burkhart et al. v. Genworth Financial et al. In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth North America Corporation, Genworth Financial International Holdings, LLC (“GFIH”) and GLIC were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Richard F. Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth et al. The plaintiffs allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and engaged in certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain inadequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC policyholders and agents. The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer and seeks injunctive relief. We moved to dismiss this action in December 2018. On January 29, 2019, the plaintiffs exercised their right to amend their complaint. On March 12, 2019, we moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to our motion to dismiss, which we replied to on June 14, 2019. On August 7, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to prevent proceeds that GFIH expected to receive from the then planned sale of its shares in Genworth MI Canada Inc. (“Genworth Canada”) from being transferred out of GFIH. On September 11, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking the same relief as their August 7, 2019 motion with an exception that allowed GFIH to transfer $450 million of expected proceeds from the sale of Genworth Canada through a dividend to Genworth Holdings to allow the pay-off of a senior secured term loan facility dated March 7, 2018 among Genworth Holdings as the borrower, GFIH as the limited guarantor and the lending parties thereto. Oral arguments on our motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ motion occurred on October 21, 2019, and the plaintiffs’ motion was denied. On January 31, 2020, the Court granted in part our motion to dismiss, dismissing claims relating to $395 million in dividends GLIC paid to its parent from 2012 to 2014 (out of the $410 million in total dividends subject to the plaintiffs’ claims). The Court denied the balance of the motion to dismiss leaving a claim relating to $15 million in dividends and unquantified claims relating to the 2016 termination of a reinsurance transaction. On March 27, 2020, we filed our answer to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On May 26, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended and supplemental class action complaint adding additional factual allegations and three new causes of action. On July 26, 2021, we moved to dismiss the three new causes of action and answered the balance of the second amended and supplemental class action complaint. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss on September 30, 2021. The Court heard oral arguments on the motion on December 7, 2021 and ordered each party to file supplemental submissions, which were filed on January 28, 2022. On May 10, 2022, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the three new causes of action. On January 27, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin GFIH from transferring any assets to any affiliate, including paying any dividends to Genworth Holdings, and to enjoin Genworth Holdings and Genworth Financial from transferring or distributing any value to Genworth Financial’s shareholders. On June 2, 2022, the plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction. On January 12, 2024, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. We filed our opposition papers on February 23, 2024. On March 25, 2025, we filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint, and the plaintiffs filed opposition papers as well as a motion for Rule 56(d) relief on May 14, 2025. On June 18, 2025, we filed reply papers in further support of our motion for summary judgment and moved separately to strike the plaintiffs’ motion. The plaintiffs opposed our motion to strike on July 11, 2025. On January 21, 2026, the court heard oral argument on our summary judgment motion, the plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) motion and our motion to strike. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. Trauernicht et al v. Genworth Financial On August 1, 2022, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by two former Genworth employees against Genworth Financial, its Board of Directors and the Fiduciary and Investments Committee of Genworth Financial’s Retirement and Savings Plan (“Savings Plan”). The plaintiffs purport to act on behalf of the Savings Plan and all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan. The complaint asserts that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by imprudently offering and inadequately monitoring a suite of BlackRock Target Date Funds as a retirement investment option for Genworth employees. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages and attorney’s fees. By stipulation entered September 6, 2022, the complaint was dismissed, without prejudice, against the Board of Directors and the Fiduciary and Investments Committee of Genworth Financial’s Savings Plan. On October 17, 2022, we moved to dismiss the complaint against the sole remaining defendant, Genworth Financial. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on November 10, 2022, and we filed our reply papers on November 16, 2022. By order dated January 20, 2023, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to serve an amended complaint, rendering our initial motion to dismiss moot. On January 20, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on February 2, 2023, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 16, 2023, the Court directed the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint and denied our motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on April 17, 2023. On May 15, 2023, we answered and moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On September 13, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The plaintiffs moved for class certification on October 16, 2023, and we filed opposition papers on December 4, 2023. Oral argument on the plaintiffs’ class certification motion was heard on February 12, 2024. On February 20, 2024, we moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims, and the plaintiffs filed opposition papers on March 5, 2024. Oral argument was conducted on our summary judgment motion on March 25, 2024. On August 15, 2024, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion and certified the case as a class action. On August 29, 2024, the Court denied our motion for summary judgment. We filed a motion for leave to appeal from the trial court’s class certification order, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted leave to appeal on September 13, 2024. On March 7, 2025, we filed our opening appellate brief in the Fourth Circuit, and the plaintiffs filed their responding brief on April 7, 2025. The case was stayed in trial court pending the determination of our appeal to the Fourth Circuit, oral argument of which occurred on October 21, 2025. On March 10, 2026, the Fourth Circuit reversed the trial court’s class certification order. On March 24, 2026, the plaintiffs moved for rehearing by the full court. We filed opposition papers on April 27, 2026. The case remains stayed in trial court pending issuance of the Fourth Circuit’s mandate. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. In Re MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation Starting in June 2023, various Genworth entities (including Genworth Financial, GLIC and GLAIC) have been named as defendants in certain putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Massachusetts. These cases are captioned as follows: Anastasio v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al; Hauser v. Genworth Life Insurance Company; Smith v. Genworth Financial, Inc.; Behrens v. Genworth Life Insurance Company; Hale et al v. Genworth Financial, Inc.; Burkett, Jr. v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company; Manar v. Genworth Financial, Inc.; Romine et al. v. Progress Software Corporation et al.; Schwarz et al. v. Progress Software Corporation et al.; Casey et al. v. Genworth Life & Annuity Insurance Company; and Bailey v. Genworth Financial, Inc. The actions relate to the data security events involving the MOVEit file transfer system, which PBI Research Services (“PBI”), a third-party vendor, uses in the performance of its services (“MOVEit Cybersecurity Incident”). Our legacy insurance subsidiaries previously used PBI to, among other things, satisfy applicable regulatory obligations to search various databases to identify the deaths of insured persons under life insurance policies, and to identify deaths under long-term care insurance and annuity policies which can impact premium payment obligations and benefit eligibility. The plaintiffs seek to represent various classes and subclasses of Genworth long-term care insurance policyholders and agents whose data was accessed or potentially accessed by the MOVEit Cybersecurity Incident, alleging that Genworth breached its purported duty to safeguard their sensitive data from cybercriminals. The complaints assert claims for, inter alia, negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of various consumer protection and privacy statutes, and they seek, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 4, 2023, the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order consolidating all actions relating to the MOVEit Cybersecurity Incident before a single federal judge in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. All defendants, including the Genworth entities, filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaints on July 23, 2024. Oral argument on this motion occurred on October 9, 2024. On December 12, 2024, as relevant to Genworth, the court denied the motion. On February 4, 2025, several defendants, including the Genworth entities, filed a second motion to dismiss the complaints, and the plaintiffs filed opposition papers on April 7, 2025. Oral argument was conducted on the second motion to dismiss on May 12, 2025. On July 31, 2025, the court granted the second motion to dismiss in part and dismissed most of the causes of action against Genworth, retaining only the claims for common law negligence, breach of implied contract and a Massachusetts statutory violation. On September 9, 2025, we moved for partial reconsideration of certain aspects of the July 31, 2025 decision, and the plaintiffs opposed that motion on September 23, 2025. On January 9, 2026, the court granted in part our motion for partial reconsideration by dismissing a certain negligence claim under California law and by confirming the dismissal of an Illinois statutory claim. We intend to continue to vigorously defend these actions. Fox v. GLAIC In March 2024, GLAIC was served with a putative class action lawsuit venued in the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County, captioned James Fox, individually and on behalf of the class v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Co. The plaintiff, the holder of a lapsed California GLAIC life insurance policy, seeks to represent a class of current and former California GLAIC policyholders and beneficiaries whose policies were allegedly wrongfully terminated. The complaint alleges that GLAIC wrongfully terminated hundreds of California life insurance policies by failing to provide the policyholders with the notices and grace periods mandated by the contract and by the California Insurance Code as interpreted by the California Supreme Court in McHugh v. Protective Life Ins. Co. The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of contract, violation of the California Insurance Code, unfair competition and bad faith, and it seeks, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs. The action was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 3, 2024. On May 8, 2024, we answered the complaint. On October 15, 2024, the court granted our motion to stay the action pending final determination of an appeal in a related case. On March 4, 2025, the court lifted the stay, and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 21, 2025. On June 2, 2025, we answered the complaint and moved to strike its class action allegations. The plaintiff filed opposition papers to our motion to strike on June 16, 2025. The plaintiff moved to remand the matter to state court on June 30, 2025, and we opposed that motion on July 22, 2025. On August 19, 2025, the court denied both our motion to strike the class allegations and the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from that order on September 18, 2025, but the appeal was dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on October 1, 2025. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. Kaplan v. GLIC On January 17, 2025, GLIC, Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York and various AARP entities were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia captioned Sharon R. Kaplan and Richard A. Kaplan on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Co. et al. The complaint alleges that the Genworth and AARP defendants violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act by affirmatively misrepresenting and failing to adequately disclose information regarding the pricing structure and likelihood of rate increases for the My Future My Plan 2 series of long-term care insurance policies. The complaint further alleges that the Genworth defendants breached the terms of the relevant insurance contracts by increasing premiums because of the policies’ inflation protection component and by acting unreasonably in violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and civil penalties. We removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 17, 2025. We moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action on May 15, 2025, and the plaintiff opposed that motion on July 7, 2025. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. At this time, except to the extent discussed above, we cannot determine or predict the ultimate outcome of any of the pending legal and regulatory matters specifically identified above or the likelihood of potential future legal and regulatory matters against us. It is possible that related investigations and proceedings may be commenced in the future, and we could become subject to additional unrelated investigations and lawsuits. Increased regulatory scrutiny and any resulting investigations or proceedings could result in new legal precedents and industry-wide regulations or practices that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. (b)Commitments See note 6 for amounts we were committed to fund related to our investments as of March 31, 2026.

We face the risk of litigation and regulatory investigations or other actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including the risk of class action lawsuits. Our pending legal and regulatory actions include proceedings specific to us and others generally applicable to business practices in the industries in which we operate. In our insurance operations, we are, have been, or may become subject to class actions and individual suits alleging, among other things, issues relating to sales or underwriting practices, increases to in-force long-term care insurance premiums, payment of contingent or other sales commissions, claims payments and procedures, product design, product disclosure, product administration, additional premium charges for premiums paid on a periodic basis, denial or delay of benefits, charging excessive or impermissible fees on products, recommending unsuitable products to customers, our pricing structures and business practices in our mortgage insurance subsidiaries, such as captive reinsurance arrangements with lenders and contract underwriting services, violations of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act of 1974 or related state anti-inducement laws, and mortgage insurance policy rescissions and curtailments, and breaching fiduciary or other duties to customers, including but not limited to cybersecurity breaches of customer information. We also from time to time have had, and may in the future have, disputes with reinsurance partners relating to the parties’ rights and obligations under reinsurance treaties and/or related administration agreements. In our investment-related operations, we are subject to litigation involving commercial disputes with counterparties. We are also subject to litigation arising out of our general business activities such as our contractual and employment relationships, including claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), post-closing obligations associated with previous dispositions and securities lawsuits. In addition, we are also subject to various regulatory inquiries, such as information requests, subpoenas, books and record examinations and market conduct and financial examinations from state, federal and international regulators and other authorities.

We record an accrual in our consolidated financial statements for pending litigation when we determine that an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. At this time, while it is reasonably possible that an unfavorable outcome in a case may occur, except to the extent discussed below, management has concluded that it is not probable that a loss has been incurred in any of the pending cases, and management is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in any of the pending cases. Therefore, we have not recorded any amounts in our condensed consolidated financial statements for unfavorable outcomes, if any.

In September 2018, Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company (“GLAIC”), our indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned TVPX ARS, INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company. The plaintiff alleges unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges were imposed on policyholders. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, alleging that Genworth improperly considered non-mortality factors when calculating cost of insurance rates and failed to decrease cost of insurance charges in light of improved expectations of future mortality, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, costs and equitable relief. On October 29, 2018, we filed a motion to enjoin the case in the Middle District of Georgia, and a motion to dismiss and motion to stay in the Eastern District of Virginia. We moved to enjoin the prosecution of the Eastern District of Virginia action on the basis that it involves claims released in a prior nationwide class action settlement (the “McBride settlement”) that was approved by the Middle District of Georgia. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 13, 2018. On December 6, 2018, we moved the Middle District of Georgia for leave to file our counterclaim, which alleges that the plaintiff breached the covenant not to sue contained in the prior settlement agreement by filing its current action. On March 15, 2019, the Middle District of Georgia granted our motion to enjoin and denied our motion for leave to file our counterclaim. As such, the plaintiff is enjoined from pursuing its class action in the Eastern District of Virginia. On March 29, 2019, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the order granting our motion to enjoin. On March 29, 2019, we filed our notice of cross-appeal in the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of our cross-appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from the portion of the order denying our motion for leave to file our counterclaim. On April 8, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case without prejudice, with leave for the plaintiff to refile an amended complaint only if a final appellate Court decision vacates the injunction and reverses the Middle District of Georgia’s opinion. On May 21, 2019, the plaintiff filed its appeal and memorandum in support in the Eleventh Circuit. We filed our response to the plaintiff’s appeal memorandum on July 3, 2019. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the plaintiff’s appeal and our cross-appeal on April 21, 2020. On May 26, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the Middle District of Georgia’s order enjoining the plaintiff’s class action and remanded the case back to the Middle District of Georgia for further factual development as to whether Genworth has altered how it calculates or charges cost of insurance since the McBride settlement. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals did not reach a decision on Genworth’s counterclaim.

On June 30, 2021, we filed in the Middle District of Georgia our renewed motion to enforce the class action settlement and release and renewed our motion for leave to file a counterclaim. The briefing on both motions concluded in October 2021. On March 24, 2022, the Court denied our motions. On April 11, 2022, we filed an appeal of the Court’s denial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On June 22, 2022, we filed our opening brief in support of the appeal. The plaintiff filed its respondent’s brief on September 20, 2022, and we filed our reply brief on November 10, 2022. The appeal was orally argued on August 17, 2023, and on January 8, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit entered an order affirming the district court’s order. On January 29, 2025, we moved for rehearing by the panel and by the full court. On March 4, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit denied our motion for rehearing. On March 7, 2025, the plaintiff refiled its complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On May 9, 2025, we moved to dismiss

the refiled complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 24, 2025 and a second amended complaint on July 14, 2025. On July 28, 2025, we moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff opposed our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 25, 2025, and the court denied our motion to dismiss on November 18, 2025. On February 13, 2026, we moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiff moved for class certification. The trial date of April 2026 was cancelled and has not yet been rescheduled. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth North America Corporation, Genworth Financial International Holdings, LLC (“GFIH”) and GLIC were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Richard F. Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Genworth et al. The plaintiffs allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and engaged in certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain inadequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC policyholders and agents. The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer and seeks injunctive relief. We moved to dismiss this action in December 2018. On January 29, 2019, the plaintiffs exercised their right to amend their complaint. On March 12, 2019, we moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to our motion to dismiss, which we replied to on June 14, 2019. On August 7, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to prevent proceeds that GFIH expected to receive from the then planned sale of its shares in Genworth MI Canada Inc. (“Genworth Canada”) from being transferred out of GFIH. On September 11, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion seeking the same relief as their August 7, 2019 motion with an exception that allowed GFIH to transfer $450 million of expected proceeds from the sale of Genworth Canada through a dividend to Genworth Holdings to allow the pay-off of a senior secured term loan facility dated March 7, 2018 among Genworth Holdings as the borrower, GFIH as the limited guarantor and the lending parties thereto. Oral arguments on our motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ motion occurred on October 21, 2019, and the plaintiffs’ motion was denied. On January 31, 2020, the Court granted in part our motion to dismiss, dismissing claims relating to $395 million in dividends GLIC paid to its parent from 2012 to 2014 (out of the $410 million in total dividends subject to the plaintiffs’ claims). The Court denied the balance of the motion to dismiss leaving a claim relating to $15 million in dividends and unquantified claims relating to the 2016 termination of a reinsurance transaction. On March 27, 2020, we filed our answer to the plaintiffs’ amended complaint.

On May 26, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended and supplemental class action complaint adding additional factual allegations and three new causes of action. On July 26, 2021, we moved to dismiss the three new causes of action and answered the balance of the second amended and supplemental class action complaint. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss on September 30, 2021. The Court heard oral arguments on the motion on December 7, 2021 and ordered each party to file supplemental submissions, which were filed on January 28, 2022. On May 10, 2022, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the three new causes of action. On January 27, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin GFIH from transferring any assets to any affiliate, including paying any dividends to Genworth Holdings, and to enjoin Genworth Holdings and Genworth Financial from transferring or distributing any value to Genworth Financial’s shareholders. On June 2, 2022, the plaintiffs withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction. On January 12, 2024, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. We filed our opposition papers on February 23, 2024. On March 25, 2025, we filed a motion for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint, and the plaintiffs filed opposition papers as well as a motion for Rule 56(d) relief on May 14, 2025. On June 18, 2025, we filed reply papers in further support of our motion for summary judgment and moved separately to strike the plaintiffs’ motion. The plaintiffs opposed our motion to strike on July 11, 2025. On January 21, 2026, the court heard oral argument on our summary judgment motion, the plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) motion and our motion to strike. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

asserts that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by imprudently offering and inadequately monitoring a suite of BlackRock Target Date Funds as a retirement investment option for Genworth employees. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages and attorney’s fees. By stipulation entered September 6, 2022, the complaint was dismissed, without prejudice, against the Board of Directors and the Fiduciary and Investments Committee of Genworth Financial’s Savings Plan. On October 17, 2022, we moved to dismiss the complaint against the sole remaining defendant, Genworth Financial. The plaintiffs filed opposition papers on November 10, 2022, and we filed our reply papers on November 16, 2022. By order dated January 20, 2023, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to serve an amended complaint, rendering our initial motion to dismiss moot. On January 20, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on February 2, 2023, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 16, 2023, the Court directed the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint and denied our motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on April 17, 2023. On May 15, 2023, we answered and moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On September 13, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

The plaintiffs moved for class certification on October 16, 2023, and we filed opposition papers on December 4, 2023. Oral argument on the plaintiffs’ class certification motion was heard on February 12, 2024. On February 20, 2024, we moved for summary judgment dismissing the claims, and the plaintiffs filed opposition papers on March 5, 2024. Oral argument was conducted on our summary judgment motion on March 25, 2024. On August 15, 2024, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion and certified the case as a class action. On August 29, 2024, the Court denied our motion for summary judgment. We filed a motion for leave to appeal from the trial court’s class certification order, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted leave to appeal on September 13, 2024. On March 7, 2025, we filed our opening appellate brief in the Fourth Circuit, and the plaintiffs filed their responding brief on April 7, 2025. The case was stayed in trial court pending the determination of our appeal to the Fourth Circuit, oral argument of which occurred on October 21, 2025. On March 10, 2026, the Fourth Circuit reversed the trial court’s class certification order. On March 24, 2026, the plaintiffs moved for rehearing by the full court. We filed opposition papers on April 27, 2026. The case remains stayed in trial court pending issuance of the Fourth Circuit’s mandate. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

Starting in June 2023, various Genworth entities (including Genworth Financial, GLIC and GLAIC) have been named as defendants in certain putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Courts for the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Massachusetts. These cases are captioned as follows: Anastasio v. Genworth Financial, Inc. et al; Hauser v. Genworth Life Insurance Company; Smith v. Genworth Financial, Inc.; Behrens v. Genworth Life Insurance Company; Hale et al v. Genworth Financial, Inc.; Burkett, Jr. v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company; Manar v. Genworth Financial, Inc.; Romine et al. v. Progress Software Corporation et al.; Schwarz et al. v. Progress Software Corporation et al.; Casey et al. v. Genworth Life & Annuity Insurance Company; and Bailey v. Genworth Financial, Inc. The actions relate to the data security events involving the MOVEit file transfer system, which PBI Research Services (“PBI”), a third-party vendor, uses in the performance of its services (“MOVEit Cybersecurity Incident”). Our legacy insurance subsidiaries previously used PBI to, among other things, satisfy applicable regulatory obligations to search various databases to identify the deaths of insured persons under life insurance policies, and to identify deaths under long-term care insurance and annuity policies which can impact premium payment obligations and benefit eligibility.

The plaintiffs seek to represent various classes and subclasses of Genworth long-term care insurance policyholders and agents whose data was accessed or potentially accessed by the MOVEit Cybersecurity Incident, alleging that Genworth breached its purported duty to safeguard their sensitive data from cybercriminals. The complaints assert claims for, inter alia, negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of various consumer protection and privacy statutes, and they seek, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 4, 2023, the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order consolidating all actions relating to the MOVEit Cybersecurity Incident before a single federal judge in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. All defendants, including the Genworth entities, filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaints on July 23, 2024. Oral argument on this motion occurred on October 9, 2024. On December 12, 2024, as relevant to Genworth, the court denied the motion. On February 4, 2025, several defendants, including the Genworth entities, filed a second motion to dismiss the complaints, and the plaintiffs filed opposition papers on April 7, 2025. Oral argument was conducted on the second motion to dismiss on May 12, 2025. On July 31, 2025, the court granted

In March 2024, GLAIC was served with a putative class action lawsuit venued in the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County, captioned James Fox, individually and on behalf of the class v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Co. The plaintiff, the holder of a lapsed California GLAIC life insurance policy, seeks to represent a class of current and former California GLAIC policyholders and beneficiaries whose policies were allegedly wrongfully terminated. The complaint alleges that GLAIC wrongfully terminated hundreds of California life insurance policies by failing to provide the policyholders with the notices and grace periods mandated by the contract and by the California Insurance Code as interpreted by the California Supreme Court in McHugh v. Protective Life Ins. Co. The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of contract, violation of the California Insurance Code, unfair competition and bad faith, and it seeks, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs. The action was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 3, 2024. On May 8, 2024, we answered the complaint. On October 15, 2024, the court granted our motion to stay the action pending final determination of an appeal in a related case. On March 4, 2025, the court lifted the stay, and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 21, 2025. On June 2, 2025, we answered the complaint and moved to strike its class action allegations. The plaintiff filed opposition papers to our motion to strike on June 16, 2025. The plaintiff moved to remand the matter to state court on June 30, 2025, and we opposed that motion on July 22, 2025. On August 19, 2025, the court denied both our motion to strike the class allegations and the plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from that order on September 18, 2025, but the appeal was dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on October 1, 2025. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

On January 17, 2025, GLIC, Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York and various AARP entities were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia captioned Sharon R. Kaplan and Richard A. Kaplan on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Co. et al. The complaint alleges that the Genworth and AARP defendants violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act by affirmatively misrepresenting and failing to adequately disclose information regarding the pricing structure and likelihood of rate increases for the My Future My Plan 2 series of long-term care insurance policies. The complaint further alleges that the Genworth defendants breached the terms of the relevant insurance contracts by increasing premiums because of the policies’ inflation protection component and by acting unreasonably in violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and civil penalties. We removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 17, 2025. We moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action on May 15, 2025, and the plaintiff opposed that motion on July 7, 2025. We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

At this time, except to the extent discussed above, we cannot determine or predict the ultimate outcome of any of the pending legal and regulatory matters specifically identified above or the likelihood of potential future legal and regulatory matters against us. It is possible that related investigations and proceedings may be commenced in the future, and we could become subject to additional unrelated investigations and lawsuits. Increased regulatory scrutiny and any resulting investigations or proceedings could result in new legal precedents and industry-wide regulations or practices that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.