| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Indemnification Agreements Willis Towers Watson has various agreements which provide that it may be obligated to indemnify the other party to the agreement with respect to certain matters. Generally, these indemnification provisions are included in contracts arising in the normal course of business and in connection with the purchase and sale of certain businesses. Although it is not possible to predict the maximum potential amount of future payments that may become due under these indemnification agreements because of the conditional nature of Willis Towers Watson’s obligations and the unique facts of each particular agreement, the Company does not believe that any potential liability that might arise from such indemnity provisions is probable or material. There are no provisions for recourse to third parties, nor are any assets held by any third parties that any guarantor can liquidate to recover amounts paid under such indemnities. Legal Proceedings In the ordinary course of business, the Company is subject to various actual and potential claims, lawsuits and other proceedings. Some of the claims, lawsuits and other proceedings seek damages in amounts which could, if assessed, be significant. We do not expect the impact of claims or demands not described below to be material to the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements. The Company also receives subpoenas in the ordinary course of business and, from time to time, receives requests for information in connection with governmental investigations. Errors and omissions claims, lawsuits, and other proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business are covered in part by professional indemnity or other appropriate insurance. See Note 13 for the amounts accrued at June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017 in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. The terms of this insurance vary by policy year. Regarding self-insured risks, the Company has established provisions which are believed to be adequate in light of current information and legal advice, or, in certain cases, where a range of loss exists, the Company accrues the minimum amount in the range if no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount. The Company adjusts such provisions from time to time according to developments. On the basis of current information, the Company does not expect that the actual claims, lawsuits and other proceedings to which the Company is subject, or potential claims, lawsuits, and other proceedings relating to matters of which it is aware, will ultimately have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. Nonetheless, given the large or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these actions, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation and disputes with insurance companies, it is possible that an adverse outcome or settlement in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods. In addition, given the early stages of some litigation or regulatory proceedings described below, it is not possible to predict their outcome or resolution, and it is possible that these events may have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company provides for contingent liabilities based on ASC 450, Contingencies, when it is determined that a liability, inclusive of defense costs, is probable and reasonably estimable. The contingent liabilities recorded are primarily developed actuarially. Litigation is subject to many factors which are difficult to predict so there can be no assurance that in the event of a material unfavorable result in one or more claims, we will not incur material costs. Merger-Related Securities Litigation On November 21, 2017, a purported former stockholder of Legacy Towers Watson filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of a putative class consisting of all Legacy Towers Watson stockholders as of October 2, 2015 against the Company, Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy Willis, ValueAct Capital Management (‘ValueAct’), and certain current and former directors and officers of Legacy Towers Watson and Legacy Willis (John Haley, Dominic Casserley, and Jeffrey Ubben), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint asserted claims against certain defendants under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ‘Exchange Act’) for allegedly false and misleading statements in the proxy statement for the Merger; and against other defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged “control person” liability with respect to such allegedly false and misleading statements. The complaint further contended that the allegedly false and misleading statements caused stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson to accept inadequate Merger consideration. The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount. On February 20, 2018, the court appointed the Regents of the University of California (‘Regents’) as Lead Plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP (‘Bernstein’) as Lead Counsel for the putative class, consolidated all subsequently filed, removed, or transferred actions, and captioned the consolidated action “In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy Litigation,” Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA. On March 9, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On April 13, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and, on July 11, 2018, following briefing and argument, the court granted the motions and dismissed the Amended Complaint in its entirety. On July 30, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the court’s July 11, 2018 dismissal order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On February 27, 2018 and March 8, 2018, two additional purported former stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson, City of Fort Myers General Employees’ Pension Fund (‘Fort Myers’) and Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust (‘Alaska’), filed putative class action complaints on behalf of a putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders against the former members of the Legacy Towers Watson board of directors, Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy Willis and ValueAct, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned City of Fort Myers General Employees’ Pension Fund v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0132, and Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust v. Victor F. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0155, respectively. Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia action described above, the complaints assert claims against the former directors of Legacy Towers Watson for breach of fiduciary duty and against Legacy Willis and ValueAct for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. On March 9, 2018, Regents filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of a putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders against the Company, Legacy Willis, ValueAct, and Messrs. Haley, Casserley, and Ubben, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned The Regents of the University of California v. John J. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0166. Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia action described above, the complaint asserts claims against Mr. Haley for breach of fiduciary duty and against all other defendants for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. Also on March 9, 2018, Regents filed a motion for consolidation of all pending and subsequently filed Delaware Court of Chancery actions, and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for the appointment of Bernstein as Lead Counsel for the putative class. On March 29, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska responded to Regents’ motion and cross-moved for appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and for the appointment of their counsel, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel. On April 2, 2018, the court consolidated the Delaware Court of Chancery actions and all related actions subsequently filed in or transferred to the Delaware Court of Chancery. On June 5, 2018, the court denied Regents’ motion for appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel and granted Fort Myers’ and Alaska’s cross-motion. On June 20, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska designated the complaint previously filed by Alaska (the ‘Alaska Complaint’) as the operative complaint in the consolidated action. The defendants have not yet responded to the Alaska Complaint. The defendants dispute the allegations in these actions and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Given the stage of the proceedings, the Company is unable to provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss in respect of the complaints. Stanford Financial Group The Company has been named as a defendant in 15 similar lawsuits relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group (‘Stanford’), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these actions generally allege that the defendants actively and materially aided Stanford’s alleged fraud by providing Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford client investors. The complaints further allege that these letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit. The 15 actions are as follows: • Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. , C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion , punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia , that the plaintiffs’ claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (‘SLUSA’). On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green , Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N (‘Roland’). On August 31, 2011, the court issued its decision in Roland , dismissing that action with prejudice under SLUSA. On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i) dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011, the court entered a final judgment in the action. On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Subsequently, Troice , Roland and a third action captioned Troice, et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N, which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants-appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc . On April 19, 2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18, 2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit’s reversal in Troice . On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted our petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s decision. On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order. On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court ‘so ordered’ that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs’ request to defer resolution of the defendants’ motions to dismiss, but granted the plaintiffs’ request to enter a scheduling order; (b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all parties on the defendants’ motions to dismiss, which the parties submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on April 20, 2015. On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third Amended Class Action Complaint. On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs’ motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion. On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions entered into a settlement in principle that is described in more detail below. • Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085, was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred, for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related actions (including Troice ), to the Northern District of Texas by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the ‘JPML’). The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni . On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice. • Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate named as a defendant in Troice , among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed individually and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and common law and sought damages in excess of $1 billion , punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice. • Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300 million , attorneys’ fees and costs. On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which motion was denied by the court on September 16, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court’s denial of their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action discussed below, and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert . • Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million , punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion to dismiss decisions in the Troice action discussed above and the Janvey action discussed below. Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion. • Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585, was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors, individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million and attorneys’ fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the court’s stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the court remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of the court and denied the plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court’s denial of their motion to lift the stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague . • MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately $4 million and attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the parties stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County)) and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in accordance with the court’s September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague (discussed above)), which stipulation was ‘so ordered’ by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur . • Florida suits : On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) alleging violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1) Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al. , Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million ; (2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al. , Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5 million ; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al. , Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $3 million ; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al. , Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of 11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $6.5 million ; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al. , Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $12.5 million . On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases to the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified the JPML of the pendency of these related actions. On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying and administratively closing that action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four actions pending the JPML’s transfer decision. On June 20, 2013, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer of the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go forward. On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand in Zacarias , and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria . On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni , respectively, remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and Ranni , respectively, appealed the court’s December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015 and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or Barbar . On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias , Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria . On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias , Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15, 2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its entirety with leave to replead within 21 days . On July 21, 2015, the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21 days . On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias , Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by the court. • Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. , Case No. 3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S. Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors Committee (the ‘OSIC’) against all defendants and (ii) on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege claims under Texas common law and the court’s Amended Order Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in excess of $1 billion , punitive damages and costs. As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of collective losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion . On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court’s December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court’s December 5 order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis’s motion to amend the court’s December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the court granted Willis’s motion to amend and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the December 5 order. As discussed above, on March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014, the Court ‘so ordered’ that stipulation and, thus, consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a). On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the submission of the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery) on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015, the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in Troice and Janvey , providing for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20, 2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey scheduling order. On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions entered into a settlement in principle that is described in more detail below. • Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. , Case No. 201652115, was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford investor against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate in Texas state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages of less than $100,000 , exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks damages in excess of $1 million . The defendants have not yet responded to the amended complaint in Martin . • Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al ., C.A. No. 3:16-cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more than 300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate, also in the Northern District of Texas. The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $135 million , exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On November 10, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which, among other things, added several more Stanford investors as plaintiffs. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Abel . The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit. In the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of factors as required by accounting standards. On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in principle for $120 million relating to this litigation, and increased its provisions by $50 million during that quarter. Further details on this settlement in principle are gi |
