Ownership interest

  
Since February 2018, multiple shareholder derivative lawsuits have been filed against current and former GE executive officers and members of GE’s Board of Directors and GE (as nominal defendant). These lawsuits have alleged violations of securities laws, breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control and gross mismanagement, although the specific matters underlying the allegations in the lawsuits have varied. Two shareholder derivative lawsuits are currently pending: the Lindsey and Priest/Tola cases, which were filed in New York state court. The allegations in these two cases relate to substantially the same facts as those underlying the Hachem case. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and improvements in GE’s corporate governance and internal procedures. The Lindsey case has been stayed by agreement of the parties, and GE filed a motion to dismiss the Priest/Tola complaint in March 2021.   
In July 2018, a putative class action (the Mahar case) was filed in New York state court naming as defendants GE, former GE executive officers, a former member of GE’s Board of Directors and KPMG. It alleged violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements related to insurance reserves and performance of GE’s business segments in GE Stock Direct Plan registration statements and documents incorporated therein by reference and seeks damages on behalf of shareholders who acquired GE stock between July 20, 2015 and July 19, 2018 through the GE Stock Direct Plan. In February 2019, this case was dismissed. In March 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended derivative complaint naming the same defendants. In April 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In October 2019, the court denied GE's motion to dismiss and stayed the case pending the outcome of the Hachem case. In November 2019, the plaintiffs moved to re-argue to challenge the stay, and GE cross-moved to re-argue the denial of the motion to dismiss and filed a notice of appeal. The court denied both motions for re-argument, and in November 2020, the Appellate Division First Department affirmed the court's denial of GE's motion to dismiss. In January 2021, GE filed a motion for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, and that motion was denied in March 2021.  
In February 2019, a securities action (the Touchstone case) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as defendants GE and current and former GE executive officers. It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 1707.43 of the Ohio Securities Act and common law fraud based on alleged misstatements regarding insurance reserves, GE Power’s revenue recognition practices related to long term service agreements, GE’s acquisition of Alstom, and the goodwill recognized in connection with that transaction. The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of six institutional investors who purchased GE common stock between August 1, 2014 and October 30, 2018 and rescission of those purchases. This case has been stayed pending resolution of the motion to dismiss the Hachem case. In May 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and GE in June 2021 filed a motion to dismiss that complaint.  
As previously reported by Baker Hughes, in March 2019, two derivative lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as defendants GE, directors of Baker Hughes (including former members of GE’s Board of Directors and current and former GE executive officers) and Baker Hughes (as nominal defendant), and the court issued an order consolidating these two actions (the Schippnick case). The complaint as amended in May 2019 alleges, among other things, that GE and the Baker Hughes directors breached their fiduciary duties, and that GE was unjustly enriched by entering into transactions and agreements related to GE's sales of approximately 12% of its ownership interest in Baker Hughes in November 2018. The complaint seeks declaratory relief, disgorgement of profits, an award of damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees and costs. In May 2019, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against the directors who were members of the Baker Hughes Conflicts Committee and a former Baker Hughes director. In October 2019, the Court denied the remaining defendants’ motions to dismiss, except with respect to the unjust enrichment claim against GE, which has been dismissed. In November 2019, the defendants filed their answer to the complaint, and a special litigation committee of the Baker Hughes Board of Directors moved for an order staying all proceedings in this action pending completion of the committee's investigation of the allegations and claims asserted in the complaint. In October 2020, the special litigation committee filed a report with the Court recommending that the derivative action be terminated. In January 2021, the special committee filed a motion to terminate the action.  
Other GE Retirement Savings Plan class actions. Four putative class action lawsuits have been filed regarding the oversight of the GE RSP, and those class actions have been consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The consolidated complaint names as defendants GE, GE Asset Management, current and former GE and GE Asset Management executive officers and employees who served on fiduciary bodies responsible for aspects of the GE RSP during the class period. Like similar lawsuits that have been brought against other companies in recent years, this action alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA in their oversight of the GE RSP, principally by retaining five proprietary funds that plaintiffs allege were underperforming as investment options for plan participants and by charging higher management fees than some alternative funds. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of GE RSP participants and beneficiaries from September 26, 2011 through the date of any judgment. In August and December 2018, the court issued orders dismissing one count of the complaint and denying GE's motion to dismiss the remaining counts. We believe we have defenses to the claims and are responding accordingly.  
Bank BPH. As previously reported, Bank BPH, along with other Polish banks, has been subject to ongoing litigation in Poland related to its portfolio of floating rate residential mortgage loans, with cases brought by individual borrowers seeking relief related to their foreign currency denominated mortgage loans in various courts throughout Poland. At December 31, 2021, approximately 87% of the Bank BPH portfolio is indexed to or denominated in foreign currencies (primarily Swiss francs), and the total portfolio had a carrying value, net of reserves, of $1,799 million. We continue to observe an increase in the number of lawsuits being brought against Bank BPH and other banks in Poland, and we expect this to continue in future reporting periods.  
2021 FORM 10-K 81
