other litigation. The MetLife Bank Divestiture may not relieve MetLife from complying with the consent decrees, or protect it from the inquiries and investigations relating to residential mortgage servicing and foreclosure activities, or any fines, penalties, equitable remedies or enforcement actions that may result, the costs of responding to any such governmental investigations, or other litigation. Management believes that the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole will not be materially affected by the MetLife Bank regulatory matters. On January 4, 2011, the U.S. commenced a civil action in United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against EME Homer City Generation L.P. (“EME Homer City”), Homer City OL6 LLC, and other defendants regarding the operations of the Homer City Generating Station, an electricity generating facility. At the time the action was commenced, Homer City OL6 LLC, an entity owned by MLIC, was a passive investor with a non- controlling interest in the electricity generating facility, which was solely operated by the lessee, EME Homer City. In a 2012 transaction, ownership of the electricity generating facility was transferred to Homer City Generation, LP., and Homer City OL6 LLC was merged into Homer City Generation, L.P. MLIC is a limited partner in Homer City Generation, LP. The complaint sought injunctive relief and assessment of civil penalties for alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act and Pennsylvania’s State Implementation Plan. The alleged violations were the subject of Notices of Violations (“NOVs”) that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued to EME Homer City, Homer City OL6 LLC, and others in June 2008 and May 2010. On January 7, 2011, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted the motion by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the State of New York to intervene in the lawsuit as additional plaintiffs. On February 16, 2011, the State of New Jersey filed an Intervenor’s Complaint in the lawsuit. On October 12, 2011, the court issued an order dismissing the U.S.’s lawsuit with prejudice. The Government entities have appealed from the order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. EME Homer City acknowledged its obligation to indemnify the owners of the electricity generating facility for any claims relating to the NOVs. The Sierra Club, which, in a February 13, 2012 letter to the operator and ownersof the electricity generating facility had stated its intent to sue for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, subsequently indicated that it does not intend to commence suit. As a result of the change in the ownership structure, the parties to the proceeding no longer include a subsidiary of MetLife. United States of America v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., et al. (W.D. Pa., filed January 4, 2011) In the Matter of Chemform, Inc. Site, Pompano Beach, Broward County, Florida In July 2010, the EPA advised MLIC that it believed payments were due under two settlement agreements, known as “Administrative Orders on Consent,” that New England Mutual Life Insurance Company (“New England Mutual”) signed in 1989 and 1992 with respect to the cleanup of a Superfund site in Florida (the “Chemform Site”). The EPA originally contacted MLIC (as successor to New England Mutual) and a third party in 2001, and advised that they owed additional clean-up costs for the Chemform Site. The matter was not resolved at that time. The EPA is requesting payment of an amount under $1 million from MLIC and such third party for past costs and an additional amount for future environmental testing costs at the Chemform Site. In June 2012, the EPA, MLIC and the third party executed an Administrative Order on Consent under which MLIC and the third party have agreed to be responsible for certain environmental testing at the Chemform site. The Company estimates that its costs for the environmental testing will not exceed $100,000. The June 2012 Administrative Order on Consent does not resolve the EPA’s claim for past clean-up costs. The EPA may seek additional costs if the environmental testing identifies issues. The Company estimates that the aggregate cost to resolve this matter will not exceed $1 million. Metco Site, Hicksville, Nassau County, New York Sales Practices Regulatory Matters On February 22, 2012, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“Department of Environmental Conservation”) issued a notice to MLIC, as purported successor in interest to New England Mutual, that it is a potentially responsible party with respect to hazardous substances and hazardous waste located on a property that New England Mutual owned for a time in 1978. MLIC has responded to the Department of Environmental Conservation and asserted that it is not a potentially responsible party under the law. Regulatory authorities in a small number of states and FINRA, and occasionally the SEC, have had investigations or inquiries relating to sales of individual life insurance policies or annuities or other products by MLIC, MICC, New England Life Insurance Company and General American Life Insurance Company (“GALIC”), and four Company broker-dealers, which are MetLife Securities, Inc., New England Securities Corporation, Walnut Street Securities, Inc. and Tower Square Securities, Inc. These investigations often focus on the conduct of particular financial services representatives and the sale of unregistered or unsuitable products or the misuse of client assets. Over the past several years, these and a number of investigations by other regulatory authorities were resolved for monetary payments and certain other relief, including restitution payments. The Company may continue to resolve investigations in a similar manner. The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for these sales practices-related investigations or inquiries. Unclaimed Property Inquiries and Related Litigation In April 2012, the Company reached agreements with representatives of the U.S. jurisdictions that were conducting audits of MetLife, Inc. and certain of its affiliates for compliance with unclaimed property laws, and with state insurance regulators directly involved in a multistate targeted market conduct examination relating to claim-payment practices and compliance with unclaimed property laws. At December 31, 2012, the unclaimed property regulators of 39 states and the District of Columbia, and the insurance regulators of 48 states and the District of Columbia have accepted the respective agreements. Pursuant to the agreements, the Company will, among other things, take specified action to identify liabilities under life insurance, annuity, and retained asset contracts, to adopt specified procedures for seeking to contact and pay owners of the identified liabilities, and, to the extent that it is unable to locate such owners, to escheat these amounts with interest at a specified rate to the appropriate states. Additionally, the Company has agreed to accelerate the final date of certain industrial life policies and to escheat unclaimed benefits of such policies. Pursuant to the agreement to resolve the market conduct examination, MetLife, Inc. made a $40 million multi-state examination payment, to be allocated among the settling states.In the third quarter of 2011, the Company incurred a $117 million after tax charge to increase reserves in connection with the Company’s use of the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File and similar databases to identify potential life insurance claims that had not been presented to the Company. In the first quarter of 2012, the Company recorded a $52 million after tax charge for the multistate examination payment and the expected acceleration of benefit payments to policyholders under the settlements. On September 20, 2012, the West Virginia Treasurer filed an action against MLIC in West Virginia state court ( West Virginia ex rel. John D. Perdue v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Circuit Court of Putnam County, Civil Action No. 12-C-295 ) alleging that the Company violated the West Virginia Uniform Unclaimed Property Act, seeking to compel compliance with the Act, and seeking payment of unclaimed property, interest, and penalties. On November 14, 2012, November 21, 2012, December 28, 2012, and 199 MetLife, Inc. MetLife, Inc. Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements — (Continued)