Item 3. Legal Proceedings

handling of insurance claims or other allegedly unfair improper business practices. Like many other insurers, The Hartford also has been joined in actions by asbestos plaintiffs asserting, among other things, that insurers had a duty to protect the public from the dangers of asbestos and that insurers committed unfair trade practices by asserting defenses on behalf of their policyholders in the underlying asbestos cases. Management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to such lawsuits, after consideration of provisions made for estimated losses, will not be material to the consolidated financial condition of The Hartford. Nonetheless, given the large or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these actions, and the inherent unpredictability of litigation, the outcome 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 to the inherent difficulty of predicting litigation outcomes, the Mutual Funds Litigation identified below purports to seek substantial damages for unsubstantiated conduct spanning a multi-year period based on novel applications of complex legal theories. The alleged damages are not quantified or factually supported in the complaint, and, in any event, the Company's experience shows that demands for damages often bear little relation to a reasonable estimate of potential loss. The application of the legal standard identified by the court for assessing the potentially available damages, as described below, is inherently unpredictable, and no legal precedent has been identified that would aid in determining a reasonable estimate of potential loss. Accordingly, management cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any.

Mutual Funds Litigation

In February 2011, a derivative action was brought on behalf of six Hartford retail mutual funds in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that Hartford Investment Financial Services, LLC (“HIFSCO”), an indirect subsidiary of the Company, received excessive advisory and distribution fees in violation of its statutory fiduciary duty under Section 36(b) of the

Investment Company Act of 1940. HIFSCO moved to dismiss and, in September 2011, the motion was granted in part and denied in part, with leave to amend the complaint. In November 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on behalf of The Hartford Global Health Fund, The Hartford Conservative Allocation Fund, The Hartford Growth Opportunities Fund, The Hartford Inflation Plus Fund, The Hartford Advisors Fund, and The Hartford Capital Appreciation Fund. Plaintiffs seek to rescind the investment management agreements and distribution plans between HIFSCO and these funds and to recover the total fees charged thereunder or, in the alternative, to recover any improper compensation HIFSCO received, in addition to lost earnings. HIFSCO filed a partial motion to dismiss the amended complaint and, in December 2012, the court dismissed without prejudice the claims regarding distribution fees and denied the motion with respect to the advisory fees claims. In March 2014, the plaintiffs filed a new complaint that, among other things, added as new plaintiffs The Hartford Floating Rate Fund and The Hartford Small Company Fund and named as a defendant Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC (“HFMC”), an indirect subsidiary of the Company which assumed the role as advisor to the funds as of January 2013. In June 2015, HFMC and HIFSCO moved for summary judgment, and plaintiffs crossed-moved for partial summary judgment with respect to The Hartford Capital Appreciation Fund. In March 2016, the court, in large part, denied summary judgment for all parties. The court granted judgment for HFMC and HIFSCO with respect to all claims made by The Hartford Small Company Fund and certain claims made by The Hartford Floating Rate Fund. The court further ruled that the appropriate measure of damages on the surviving claims is the difference, if any, between the actual advisory fees paid through trial and those that could have been paid under the applicable legal standard. A bench trial on the issue of liability was held in November 2016, and a decision is expected in 2017.

Item 5. MARKET FOR THE HARTFORD’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

The Hartford’s common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the trading symbol “HIG”.