Contingencies | Contingencies We are involved in legal proceedings, claims and litigation arising in the ordinary course of business for which we believe that we have adequate reserves, and such reserves are not material to the consolidated financial statements. We record a liability when management believes that it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and we can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss. For such matters where management believes a liability is not probable but is reasonably possible, a liability is not recorded; instead, an estimate of loss or range of loss, if material individually or in the aggregate, is disclosed if reasonably estimable, or a statement will be made that an estimate of loss cannot be made. Once we have disclosed a matter that we believe is or could be material to us, we continue to report on such matter until there is finality of outcome or until we determine that disclosure is no longer warranted. Further, other than specifically stated below to the contrary, we believe our estimate of the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses, in excess of established reserves, for our legal proceedings was not material at September 30, 2017 . In addition, from time to time, we may be involved in additional matters, which could become material and for which we may also establish reserve amounts, as discussed below. In accordance with ASC 450, “Contingencies,” or “ASC 450,” as of September 30, 2017, we have accrued approximately $12 million with respect to the matters set forth below. China Operations On March 18, 2012, we announced we had temporarily suspended our Shanghai Roadway D&B Marketing Services Co. Ltd. (“Roadway”) operations in China, pending an investigation into allegations that its data collection practices may have violated local Chinese consumer data privacy laws. Thereafter, the Company decided to permanently cease the operations of Roadway. In addition, we have been reviewing certain allegations that we may have violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and certain other laws in our China operations. As previously reported, we have voluntarily contacted the SEC and the DOJ to advise both agencies of our investigation, which has now ended, although we are continuing to meet with representatives of both the SEC and DOJ to fully resolve the matter. On September 28, 2012, Roadway was charged in a Bill of Prosecution, along with five former employees, by the Shanghai District Prosecutor with illegally obtaining private information of Chinese citizens. On December 28, 2012, the Chinese court imposed a monetary fine on Roadway and fines and imprisonment on four former Roadway employees. A fifth former Roadway employee was separated from the case. Although our discussions with both the SEC and DOJ are ongoing, we do not believe that the ultimate outcome will be material to our business, financial condition or results of operations. Based on our discussions with the SEC and DOJ, including indications from the SEC of its estimate of the amount of net benefit potentially earned by the Company as a result of the challenged activities, we continue to believe that it is probable that the Company will incur a loss related to the government’s investigation. We continue to have follow-up meetings with the SEC and DOJ, most recently meeting with the SEC in October 2017 and separately with the DOJ in July 2017. The factual investigation into this matter has concluded. The parties are discussing the potential resolution of this matter, which is expected to be limited to the preparation of related documentation. In accordance with ASC 450, during the second quarter of 2017 we adjusted the amount in respect of this matter that has been accrued in the consolidated financial statements. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp. Class Action Litigations In May 2015, the Company acquired the parent company of DBCC pursuant to a merger transaction and, as a result, assumed all of DBCC’s obligations in the class action litigation matters described below. As described in Note 18 to our consolidated financial statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, a part of the merger consideration was placed in escrow to indemnify the Company against a portion of the losses, if any, arising out of such class action litigation matters, subject to a cap and other conditions. In June 2016, we agreed to release the escrows after the Company was indemnified for $2.0 million out of such escrow accounts. O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company and DBCC. In May 2015, the Company acquired the parent company of DBCC, Credibility. The complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and allegedly misrepresented the nature, need and value of the products. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages and equitable relief. DBCC was served with the complaint on December 14, 2012. The Company was served with the complaint on December 17, 2012. On February 18, 2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in lieu of responding to the motion. The amended complaint dropped the antitrust claims and retained the deceptive practices allegations. The defendants filed new motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May 3, 2013. On August 23, 2013, the Court heard the motions and denied DBCC’s motion but granted the Company’s motion. Specifically, the Court dismissed the contract claim against the Company with prejudice, and dismissed all the remaining claims against the Company without prejudice. On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). The SAC alleges claims for negligence, defamation and unfair business practices under Washington state law against the Company for alleged inaccuracies in small business credit reports. The SAC also alleges liability against the Company under a joint venture or agency theory for practices relating to CreditBuilder®. As against DBCC, the SAC alleges claims for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unfair and deceptive acts, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. DBCC filed a motion to dismiss the claims that were based on a joint venture or agency liability theory. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On January 9, 2014, the Court heard argument on the defendants’ motions. It dismissed with prejudice the claims against the defendants based on a joint venture or agency liability theory. The Court denied the Company’s motion with respect to the negligence, defamation and unfair practices claims. On January 23, 2014, the defendants answered the SAC. At a court conference on December 17, 2014, plaintiff informed the Court that it would not be seeking to certify a nationwide class, but instead limit the class to CreditBuilder purchasers in Washington. On May 29, 2015, plaintiff filed motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On July 29, 2015, Defendants filed oppositions to the motions for class certification. On September 16, 2015, plaintiff filed reply briefs in support of the motions for class certification. At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking plaintiff’s class certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiated a written settlement agreement. On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016 the parties executed a settlement agreement, which was subject to Court approval. On May 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion without prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report. On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-monetary terms of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed with the Court the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement. On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff’s renewed motion and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report within 70 days. On March 2, 2017, the parties entered into a second amended settlement agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed the second amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the second amended settlement. On May 5, 2017, the Court entered an order preliminarily certifying the class for settlement; approving the settlement, including the settlement amount, subject to certain changes to the settlement’s notice and administration provisions; and directing Plaintiffs to file supplemental papers addressing the notice and administration issues the Court identified. On August 25, 2017, the parties entered into a third amended stipulation of settlement, and plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief seeking approval of the third amended stipulation of settlement and addressing the issues identified in the Court’s May 5, 2017 order. On October 13, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice and directed the parties to file within 60 days either a joint status report or a renewed motion for preliminary approval addressing issues identified by the Court regarding the settlement class definition and the allocation of the settlement proceeds. Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be material to our financial results (see further discussion of Sentry matter below). Die-Mension Corporation v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00855 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.)) On February 20, 2014, plaintiff Die-Mension Corporation (“Die-Mension”) filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company and DBCC, purporting to sue on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of a CreditBuilder product in the United States or in such state(s) as the Court may certify. The complaint alleged that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products. As against the Company, the complaint alleged a violation of Ohio’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”), defamation, and negligence. As against DBCC, the complaint alleged violations of the DTPA, negligent misrepresentation and concealment. On March 4, 2014, in response to a direction from the Ohio court, Die-Mension withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint contains the same substantive allegations as the original complaint, but limits the purported class to small businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder product. On March 12, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the amended complaint and on March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On June 9, 2014, the Ohio court issued an order granting the Defendants’ Joint Motion to Transfer. On June 22, 2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In response, Die-Mension filed a second amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Die-Mension filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Die-Mension filed motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order denying the Company’s motion to dismiss, and on September 10, 2015, it entered an order granting DBCC’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking plaintiff’s class certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiated a written settlement agreement. On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which was subject to Court approval. On May 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion without prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report. On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-monetary terms of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed with the Court the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement. On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff’s renewed motion and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report within 70 days. On March 2, 2017, the parties entered into a second amended settlement agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed the second amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the second amended settlement. On May 5, 2017, the Court entered an order preliminarily certifying the class for settlement; approving the settlement, including the settlement amount, subject to certain changes to the settlement’s notice and administration provisions; and directing Plaintiffs to file supplemental papers addressing the notice and administration issues the Court identified. On August 25, 2017, the parties entered into a third amended stipulation of settlement, and plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief seeking approval of the third amended stipulation of settlement and addressing the issues identified in the Court’s May 5, 2017 order. On October 13, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice and directed the parties to file within 60 days either a joint status report or a renewed motion for preliminary approval addressing issues identified by the Court regarding the settlement class definition and the allocation of the settlement proceeds. Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be material to our financial results (see further discussion of Sentry matter below). Vinotemp International Corporation and CPrint®, Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01021 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 8:14-cv-00451 (C.D. Cal.)) On March 24, 2014, plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation (“Vinotemp”) and CPrint®, Inc. (“CPrint”) filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and DBCC. Vinotemp and CPrint purport to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC’s CreditBuilder product in the state of California. The complaint alleges that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of §17200 and §17500 of the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. As against the Company, the complaint alleges that the Company entered false and inaccurate information on credit reports in violation of §17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, and also alleges negligence and defamation claims. On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint and on April 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On July 2, 2014, the California court granted the Defendants’ Joint Motion to Transfer, and on July 8, 2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, plaintiffs filed their oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order denying the Company’s motion to dismiss. At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking plaintiff’s class certification motions and DBCC’s motion to dismiss without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiated a written settlement agreement. On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which was subject to Court approval. On May 17, 2016, plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report. On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-monetary terms of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiffs filed with the Court the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement. On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiffs’ renewed motion and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report within 70 days. On March 2, 2017, the parties entered into a second amended settlement agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed the second amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the second amended settlement. On May 5, 2017, the Court entered an order preliminarily certifying the class for settlement; approving the settlement, including the settlement amount, subject to certain changes to the settlement’s notice and administration provisions; and directing Plaintiffs to file supplemental papers addressing the notice and administration issues the Court identified. On August 25, 2017, the parties entered into a third amended stipulation of settlement, and plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief seeking approval of the third amended stipulation of settlement and addressing the issues identified in the Court’s May 5, 2017 order. On October 13, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice and directed the parties to file within 60 days either a joint status report or a renewed motion for preliminary approval addressing issues identified by the Court regarding the settlement class definition and the allocation of the settlement proceeds. Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be material to our financial results (see further discussion of Sentry matter below). Flow Sciences Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01404 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 7:14-cv-128 (E.D.N.C.)) On June 13, 2014, plaintiff Flow Sciences Inc. (“Flow Sciences”) filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against the Company and DBCC. Flow Sciences purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC’s CreditBuilder product in the state of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices in connection with DBCC’s sale of the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of North Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1 et seq. In addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. On June 18, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the complaint and on June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint. On August 4, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On September 8, 2014, the North Carolina court granted the motion to transfer, and on September 9, 2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response, Flow Sciences filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Flow Science filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Flow Sciences filed motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order denying the Company’s motion to dismiss and on October 19, 2015, it entered an order denying DBCC’s motion to dismiss. At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking plaintiff’s class certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiated a written settlement agreement. On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which was subject to Court approval. On May 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion without prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report. On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-monetary terms of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed with the Court the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement. On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff’s renewed motion and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report within 70 days. On March 2, 2017, the parties entered into a second amended settlement agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed the second amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the second amended settlement. On May 5, 2017, the Court entered an order preliminarily certifying the class for settlement; approving the settlement, including the settlement amount, subject to certain changes to the settlement’s notice and administration provisions; and directing Plaintiffs to file supplemental papers addressing the notice and administration issues the Court identified. On August 25, 2017, the parties entered into a third amended stipulation of settlement, and plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief seeking approval of the third amended stipulation of settlement and addressing the issues identified in the Court’s May 5, 2017 order. On October 13, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice and directed the parties to file within 60 days either a joint status report or a renewed motion for preliminary approval addressing issues identified by the Court regarding the settlement class definition and the allocation of the settlement proceeds. Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be material to our financial results (see further discussion of Sentry matter below). Altaflo, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01288 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 2:14-cv-03961 (D.N.J.)) On June 20, 2014, plaintiff Altaflo, LLC (“Altaflo”) filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and DBCC. Altaflo purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC’s CreditBuilder product in the state of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices in connection with DBCC’s sale of the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. § 56:8-1 et seq. In addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint, and on July 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On July 29, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On July 31, 2014, the New Jersey court granted the Defendants’ Joint Motion to Transfer, and the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington on August 20, 2014. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response, Altaflo filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Altaflo filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Altaflo filed motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order denying the Company’s motion to dismiss, and on October 19, 2015, it entered an order granting DBCC’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order striking plaintiff’s class certification motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiated a written settlement agreement. On February 11, 2016, the parties entered into a written settlement term sheet, and on May 16, 2016, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which was subject to Court approval. On May 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. On August 9, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion without prejudice and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report. On October 14, 2016, the parties entered into an amended settlement agreement, which amended some of the non-monetary terms of the agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed with the Court the amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the amended settlement. On December 22, 2016, the Court denied plaintiff’s renewed motion and directed the parties to file either a renewed motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement or a joint status report within 70 days. On March 2, 2017, the parties entered into a second amended settlement agreement. On the same day, plaintiff filed the second amended settlement agreement together with an unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of the second amended settlement. On May 5, 2017, the Court entered an order preliminarily certifying the class for settlement; approving the settlement, including the settlement amount, subject to certain changes to the settlement’s notice and administration provisions; and directing Plaintiffs to file supplemental papers addressing the notice and administration issues the Court identified. On August 25, 2017, the parties entered into a third amended stipulation of settlement, and plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief seeking approval of the third amended stipulation of settlement and addressing the issues identified in the Court’s May 5, 2017 order. On October 13, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice and directed the parties to file within 60 days either a joint status report or a renewed motion for preliminary approval addressing issues identified by the Court regarding the settlement class definition and the allocation of the settlement proceeds. Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be material to our financial results (see further discussion of Sentry matter below). Sentry Insurance, a Mutual Company v. The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation and Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01952 (SRC) (D.N.J.) On March 17, 2015, Sentry Insurance filed a Declaratory Judgment Action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation and Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. (collectively, “Dun & Bradstreet”). The Complaint seeks a judicial declaration that Sentry, which issued a General Commercial Liability insurance policy (the “CGL Policy”), to Dun & Bradstreet, does not have a duty under the CGL Policy to provide Dun & Bradstreet with a defense or indemnification in connection with five putative class action complaints (the “Class Actions”) filed against Dun & Bradstreet and DBCC. Against Dun & Bradstreet, the Class Actions complaints allege negligence, defamation and violations of state laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive practices in connection with DBCC’s marketing and sale of credit monitoring products. Sentry’s Complaint alleges that Dun & Bradstreet is not entitled to a defense or indemnification for any losses it sustains in the Class Actions because the underlying claims in the Class Actions fall within various exceptions in the CGL policy, including exclusions for claims: (i) that arise from Dun and Bradstreet’s provision of “professional services”; (ii) that are based on intentional or fraudulent acts; and (iii) that are based on conduct that took place prior to the beginning of the CGL Policy periods. We do not believe the exclusions are applicable under governing law interpreting similar provisions. On March 26, 2015, Sentry filed and served an Amended Complaint which added several exhibits but did not otherwise materially differ from the original Complaint. Dun & Bradstreet filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint on April 16, 2015 and also asserted counterclaims. The coverage litigation was then temporarily stayed while the parties engaged in informal settlement discussions which did not resolve the matter. On June 30, 2016, Dun & Bradstreet filed a motion to join National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh (“National Union”) as an additional party due to National Union |