Commitments, contingencies and guarantees

6 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2014

Commitments, contingencies and guarantees

Commitments, contingencies and guarantees

15. Commitments, contingencies and guarantees:

Commitments—

Credit and investment commitments

In connection with its banking and financing activities, Nomura provides commitments to extend credit which generally have fixed expiration dates. In connection with its investment banking activities, Nomura enters into agreements with clients under which Nomura commits to underwrite notes that may be issued by clients. The outstanding commitments under these agreements are included in below commitments to extend credit.

Nomura has commitments to invest in various partnerships and other entities, primarily in connection with its merchant banking activities, and also has commitments to provide financing for investments related to these partnerships. The outstanding commitments under these agreements are included in below commitments to invest in partnerships.

Certain consolidated VIEs which are engaged in the aircraft leasing business have commitments to purchase aircraft. The outstanding commitments under these agreements are included in below commitments to purchase aircraft.

These commitments outstanding were as follows:

	Millions of yen
	March 31, 2014		September 30, 2014
Commitments to extend credit	¥	479,634	¥	514,715
Commitments to invest in partnerships		18,460		24,864
Commitments to purchase aircraft		4,409		—

As of September 30, 2014, these commitments had the following maturities:

	Millions of yen
			Years to Maturity
	Total contractual amount		Less than 1 year		1 to 3 years		3 to 5 years		More than 5 years
Commitments to extend credit	¥	514,715	¥	82,500	¥	64,065	¥	173,498	¥	194,652
Commitments to invest in partnerships		24,864		6,990		1,085		—		16,789
Commitments to purchase aircraft		—		—		—		—		—

The contractual amounts of these commitments to extend credit represent the amounts at risk but only if the contracts are fully drawn upon, should the counterparties default, and assuming the value of any existing collateral becomes worthless. The total contractual amount of these commitments may not represent future credit exposure or cash requirements since the commitments may expire without being drawn upon. The credit risk associated with these commitments varies depending on the clients’ creditworthiness and the value of collateral held. Nomura evaluates each client’s creditworthiness on a case-by-case basis. The amount of collateral obtained, if deemed necessary by Nomura upon extension of credit, is based on credit evaluation of the counterparty.

Contingencies—

Investigations, lawsuits and other legal proceedings

In the normal course of business as a global financial services entity, Nomura is involved in investigations, lawsuits and other legal proceedings and, as a result, may suffer loss from any fines, penalties or damages awarded against Nomura, any settlements Nomura chooses to make to resolve a matter, and legal and other advisory costs incurred to support and formulate a defense.

The ability to predict the outcome of these actions and proceedings is inherently difficult, particularly where claimants are seeking substantial or indeterminate damages, where investigations and legal proceedings are at an early stage, where the matters present novel legal theories or involve a large number of parties, or which take place in foreign jurisdictions with complex or unclear laws.

The Company regularly evaluates each legal proceeding and claim on a case-by-case basis in consultation with external legal counsel to assess whether an estimate of possible loss or range of loss can be made, if recognition of a liability is not appropriate. In accordance with ASC 450 “Contingencies” (“ASC 450”), the Company recognizes a liability for this risk of loss arising on each individual matter when a loss is probable and the amount of such loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated. The amount recognized as a liability is reviewed at least quarterly and is revised when further information becomes available. If these criteria are not met for an individual matter, such as if an estimated loss is only reasonably possible rather than probable, no liability is recognized. However, where a material loss is reasonably possible, the Company will disclose details of the legal proceeding or claim below. Under ASC 450 an event is defined as reasonably possible if the chance of the loss to the Company is more than remote but less than probable.

The most significant actions and proceedings against Nomura are summarized below. The Company believes that, based on current information available as of the date of these consolidated financial statements, the ultimate resolution of these actions and proceedings will not be material to the Company’s financial condition. However, an adverse outcome in certain of these matters could have a material adverse effect on the consolidated statements of income or cash flows in a particular quarter or annual period.

For those significant actions and proceedings described below where the counterparty has alleged a specific amount of damages, the Company currently estimates that the reasonably possible loss for the matter would not exceed the amount specified in each case. For each of these matters, the specific amount alleged (which is the Company’s current estimate of the maximum reasonably possible loss) is indicated in the description of the matter below. For certain other significant actions and proceedings, the Company is unable to provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses because, among other reasons, (i) the proceedings are at such an early stage there is not enough information available to assess whether the stated grounds for the claim are viable; (ii) damages have not been identified by the claimant; (iii) damages are unsupported and/or exaggerated; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (v) there are significant legal issues to be resolved that may be dispositive, such as the applicability of statutes of limitations; and/or (vi) there are novel or unsettled legal theories underlying the claims.

In January 2008, Nomura International plc (“NIP”) was served with a tax notice issued by the tax authorities in Pescara, Italy alleging breaches by NIP of the U.K.-Italy Double Taxation Treaty of 1998 (the “Tax Notice”). The alleged breaches relate to payments to NIP of tax credits on dividends on Italian shares. The Tax Notice not only denies certain payments to which NIP claims to be entitled but also seeks reimbursement of approximately EUR 33.8 million, plus interest, already refunded. NIP continues vigorously to challenge the Pescara Tax Court’s decisions in favor of the local tax authorities. The specified amount alleged is the Company’s current estimate of the maximum reasonably possible loss from this matter.

In October 2010 and June 2012, two actions were brought against NIP, seeking recovery of payments allegedly made to NIP by Fairfield Sentry Ltd. and Fairfield Sigma Ltd. (collectively, the “Fairfield Funds”), which are now in liquidation and were feeder funds to Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (in liquidation pursuant to the Securities Investor Protection Act in the U.S. since December 2008) (“BLMIS”). The first suit was brought by the liquidators of the Fairfield Funds. It was filed on October 5, 2010 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, but was subsequently removed to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, where it is presently pending. The second suit was brought by the Trustee for the liquidation of BLMIS (the “Madoff Trustee”). NIP was added as a defendant in June 2012 when the Madoff Trustee filed an amended complaint in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Both actions seek to recover approximately $35 million. The $35 million amount is the Company’s current estimate of the maximum reasonably possible loss from this matter.

In March 2011, PT Bank Mutiara Tbk. (“Bank Mutiara”) commenced proceedings in the Commercial Court of the Canton of Zurich against a special purpose entity (“SPE”) established at the request of NIP. These are proceedings to challenge the SPE’s rights over approximately $156 million in an account held in Switzerland. The SPE, which is consolidated by NIP, has a security interest over the money pursuant to a loan facility with Telltop Holdings Limited, a third party company. Telltop Holdings Limited is currently in liquidation. The SPE does not believe that Bank Mutiara has any enforceable security interest over the funds and is seeking release of the monies. NIP was notified on October 2, 2014 that the court has found that the SPE alone is entitled to the funds. Bank Mutiara has appealed this decision. NIP will vigorously contest the appeal. Due to the uncertainties involved, the Company cannot currently estimate the maximum reasonably possible loss from this matter but believes it is significantly less than the amount referred to above, as supported by the court’s conclusion.

In April 2011, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston (“FHLB-Boston”) commenced proceedings in the Superior Court of Massachusetts against numerous issuers, sponsors and underwriters of residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”), and their controlling persons, including Nomura Asset Acceptance Corporation (“NAAC”), Nomura Credit & Capital, Inc. (“NCCI”), Nomura Securities International, Inc. (“NSI”) and Nomura Holding America Inc. (“NHA”). The action alleges that FHLB-Boston purchased RMBS issued by NAAC for which the offering materials contained untrue statements or omitted material facts concerning the underwriting standards used by the original lenders and the characteristics of the loans underlying the securities. FHLB-Boston seeks rescission of its purchases or compensatory damages pursuant to state law. FHLB-Boston alleges that it purchased certificates in four offerings issued by NAAC in the original principal amount of approximately $406 million. Due to the legal and factual uncertainties involved, the Company cannot provide an estimate of reasonably possible loss related to this matter at this time.

In July 2011, the National Credit Union Administration Board (“NCUA”) commenced proceedings in the United States District Court for the Central District of California as liquidating agent of Western Corporate Federal Credit Union (“WesCorp”) against various issuers, sponsors and underwriters of RMBS purchased by WesCorp. The complaint alleges that WesCorp purchased RMBS issued by NAAC and Nomura Home Equity Loan Inc. (“NHEL”), among others, for which the offering materials contained untrue statements or omitted material facts concerning the underwriting standards used by the original lenders. The complaint alleges that WesCorp purchased certificates in two offerings in the original principal amount of approximately $83 million and seeks rescission of its purchases or compensatory damages. The court has dismissed NCUA’s claims against NHEL and NCUA has appealed to the Ninth Circuit and the appeal is pending. NCUA’s claim against NAAC is proceeding. Due to the legal and factual uncertainties involved, the Company cannot provide an estimate of reasonably possible loss related to this matter at this time.

In September 2011, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”), as conservator for the government sponsored enterprises, Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (the “GSEs”), commenced proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against numerous issuers, sponsors and underwriters of RMBS, and their controlling persons, including NAAC, NHEL, NCCI, NSI and NHA, (the Company’s U.S. subsidiaries). The action alleges that the GSEs purchased RMBS issued by NAAC and NHEL for which the offering materials contained untrue statements or omitted material facts concerning the underwriting standards used by the original lenders and the characteristics of the loans underlying the securities. FHFA alleges that the GSEs purchased certificates in seven offerings in the original principal amount of approximately $2,046 million and seeks rescission of its purchases or compensatory damages. The court has denied the motion to dismiss filed by the Company’s U.S. subsidiaries and the parties are involved in expert discovery. Due to certain legal uncertainties, the Company cannot provide an estimate of reasonably possible loss related to this matter at this time.

In October 2011, the NCUA commenced proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas as liquidating agent of U.S. Central Federal Credit Union (“U.S. Central”) against various issuers, sponsors and underwriters of RMBS purchased by U.S. Central, including NHEL. The complaint alleges that U.S. Central purchased RMBS issued by NHEL, among others, for which the offering materials contained untrue statements or omitted material facts concerning the underwriting standards used by the original lenders. The complaint alleges that U.S. Central purchased a certificate in one offering in the original principal amount of approximately $50 million and seeks rescission of its purchase or compensatory damages. The court denied, in part, motions to dismiss filed by the defendants, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s holding; the Supreme Court vacated that decision and remanded the matter to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court authority. Upon remand, the Tenth Circuit reinstated its decision and NHEL has filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. Due to the legal uncertainties involved, the Company cannot provide an estimate of reasonably possible loss related to this matter at this time.

In November 2011, NIP was served with a claim filed by the Madoff Trustee appointed for the liquidation of BLMIS in the United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of New York. This is a clawback action similar to claims filed by the Madoff Trustee against numerous other institutions. The Madoff Trustee alleges that NIP received redemptions from the BLMIS feeder fund, Harley International (Cayman) Limited in the six years prior to December 11, 2008 (the date proceedings were commenced against BLMIS) and that these are avoidable and recoverable under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and New York law. The amount that the Madoff Trustee is currently seeking to recover from NIP is approximately $21 million. The specified amount alleged is the Company’s current estimate of the maximum reasonably possible loss from this matter.

In August 2012, The Prudential Insurance Company of America and certain of its affiliates filed several complaints in the Superior Court of New Jersey against various issuers, sponsors and underwriters of RMBS, including an action against NHEL, NCCI and NSI. The action against these Nomura subsidiaries has been removed to federal court. The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs purchased over $183 million in RMBS from five different offerings. The plaintiffs allege that the offering materials contained fraudulent misrepresentations regarding the underwriting practices and quality of the loans underlying the securities. The plaintiffs allege causes of action for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and New Jersey Civil RICO, and seek to recover, among other things, compensatory and treble damages. NHEL, NCCI and NSI have filed a motion to dismiss the action which is pending before the court. Due to the lack of factual information at this early stage of the litigation and the legal uncertainties involved, the Company cannot provide an estimate of reasonably possible loss related to this matter at this time.

In March 2013, Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA (“MPS”) issued a claim in the Italian Courts against two former directors of MPS and NIP. MPS alleges that the former directors improperly caused MPS to enter into certain structured financial transactions with NIP in 2009 (the “Transactions”) and alleges that NIP is jointly liable for the unlawful conduct of MPS’s former directors. MPS is claiming damages of not less than EUR700 million. In July 2013, a claim was also issued against the same former directors of MPS, and NIP, by the shareholder group Fondazione Monte dei Paschi di Siena (“FMPS”). The grounds of the FMPS claim are similar to those on which the MPS claim is founded. The level of damages sought by FMPS is not specified. An investigation has also been commenced by the Public Prosecutor’s office in Siena, Italy into various allegations against MPS and certain of its former directors, including in relation to the Transactions. Starting on April 15, 2013, the Public Prosecutor in Siena issued seizure orders in relation to the Transactions seeking to seize the Transactions and approximately EUR 1.9 billion of assets said to be held or receivable in various NIP and Nomura Bank International plc (“NBI”) accounts in, or managed through, Italy and alleging that the Transactions involved offenses under Italian law. To date, these seizure orders have not been validated by the Italian Courts. The Public Prosecutor lodged an appeal against the Italian Courts’ decisions, which was heard at the Supreme Court in Rome on March 25, 2014. The Supreme Court determined that the appeal should be denied in part, but that the case should be sent back to the lower court for further consideration in relation to one element of the case. At a hearing on September 17, 2014 where the seizure order was to be reconsidered, the Public Prosecutor’s office withdrew its seizure order appeal. This means that the seizure order proceedings in Siena have now concluded with no seizure order in place against NIP or NBI. However, the investigation file has now been transferred to the Public Prosecutor’s office in Milan which will continue the criminal investigation going forward. The extent or scope of that investigation is not currently clear. Additionally, NIP commenced a claim against MPS in the English Courts in March 2013. The claim is for declaratory relief confirming that the Transactions remain valid and contractually binding. MPS filed and served its Defence and Counterclaim to these proceedings in March 2014. MPS alleges in its Counterclaim that NIP is liable to make restitution of a net amount of approximately EUR 1.5 billion, and seeks declarations regarding the illegality and invalidity of the Transactions. NIP filed and served its Reply and Defence to Counterclaim in June 2014 and continues to vigorously defend its position in each of the aforementioned proceedings. It is not possible for the Company to estimate the amount of reasonably possible loss in these proceedings. Numerous legal and factual issues may need to be resolved, including through potentially lengthy discovery and determination of important factual matters, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings in question, before the amount of any potential liability can be reasonably estimated for these claims. The Company cannot predict if, how, or when the claims will be resolved or what any eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief may be, particularly since the claims are at an early stage in their development and the claimants are seeking substantial damages.

On July 15, 2014, NIP received, with no advance notice, a seizure order dated July 7, 2014 from the Court in Palermo, Sicily (the “Court”) which has restricted receipt of a coupon payment of EUR 6.9 million that was due from the Region of Sicily (“Sicily”) to NIP in connection with certain interest rate derivatives transactions entered into in 2005 and 2006. On July 25, 2014, NIP also received, also with no advance notice, a seizure order dated July 23, 2014 from the Court which has placed restrictions on a further EUR 98.3 million of cash and other financial assets, said to be the alleged profit made by NIP in connection with certain transactions entered between 2001 and 2006. NIP successfully appealed the seizure order dated July 23, 2014, which has therefore been annulled by the Court in Palermo. The Public Prosecutor’s office in Palermo has appealed the annulment. NIP has also filed a separate appeal of the seizure order dated July 7, 2014. Both orders were limited to Nomura’s Italian operations and therefore not expected to have an impact on Nomura’s operation or activities outside of Italy. NIP continues to investigate the position. The current transaction with Sicily remains in force. No civil proceedings have been served on NIP. Given the lack of information available at the present time, and that numerous legal and factual issues may need to be investigated, it is not possible for the Company to estimate the amount of reasonably possible loss in this matter.

Nomura Securities Co., Ltd. (“NSC”) is the leading securities firm in Japan with approximately 5.21 million client accounts. Accordingly, with a significant number of client transactions, NSC is from time to time party to various Japanese civil litigation and other dispute resolution proceedings with clients relating to investment losses. These include an action commenced against NSC in April 2012 by a corporate client seeking ¥5,102 million in damages for losses on the pre-maturity cash out of 16 series of currency-linked structured notes purchased from NSC between 2003 and 2008, and an action commenced against NSC in April 2013 by a corporate client seeking ¥10,247 million in damages for losses on currency derivative transactions and the pre-maturity cash out or redemption of 11 series of equity-linked structured notes purchased from NSC between 2005 and 2011. Although the allegations of the clients involved in such actions include the allegation that NSC’s explanation was insufficient at the time the contracts were entered into, NSC believes these allegations are without merit. The specified amounts alleged are the Company’s current estimate of the maximum reasonably possible loss from these matters.

Subsequent Events

In October 2014, another action in relation to investment losses was commenced against NSC by a corporate client seeking ¥2,143 million in damages for losses on currency derivative transactions conducted between 2006 and 2012. Although the allegations of the client include the allegation that NSC’s explanation was insufficient at the time the contracts were entered into, NSC believes these allegations are without merit. The specified amounts alleged are the Company’s current estimate of the maximum reasonably possible loss from this matter.

The Company supports the position of its subsidiaries in each of these claims.

Other mortgage-related contingencies in the U.S.

Certain of the Company’s subsidiaries in the U.S. securitized residential mortgage loans in the form of RMBS. These subsidiaries did not generally originate mortgage loans, but purchased mortgage loans from third-party loan originators (the “originators”). In connection with such purchases, these subsidiaries received loan level representations from the originators. In connection with the securitizations, the relevant subsidiaries provided loan level representations and warranties of the type generally described below, which mirror the representations the subsidiaries received from the originators.

The loan level representations made in connection with the securitization of mortgage loans were generally detailed representations applicable to each loan and addressed characteristics of the borrowers and properties. The representations included, but were not limited to, information concerning the borrower’s credit status, the loan-to-value ratio, the owner occupancy status of the property, the lien position, the fact that the loan was originated in accordance with the originator’s guidelines, and the fact that the loan was originated in compliance with applicable laws. Certain of the RMBS issued by the subsidiaries were structured with credit protection provided to specified classes of certificates by monoline insurers.

The relevant subsidiaries have received claims demanding the repurchase of certain loans from trustees of various securitization trusts, made at the instance of one or more investors, or from certificate insurers. The Company’s policy called for review of each claim received, and its subsidiaries have contested those claims believed to be without merit or have agreed to repurchase certain loans for those claims that the subsidiaries have determined to have merit. In several instances, following the rejection of repurchase demands, investors have instituted actions through the trustee alleging breach of contract. These breach of contract claims are at early stages and involve substantial legal uncertainty.

As at December 5, 2014, the total original principal amount of loans that are the subject of repurchase claims against the relevant subsidiaries is $3,203 million, including claims that are the subject of pending breach of contract actions. It should be noted, however, that the above amount does not include loans with a total original principal balance of $1,818 million that are the subject of repurchase claims rejected by the relevant subsidiaries as time-barred based on current law including a decision by the intermediate appellate court of New York State that claims alleging breach of representation must be brought within six years of the time the representation was made. The decision is currently being appealed by plaintiff, but the Company believes the decision will stand. Due to the many legal and factual uncertainties involved, the Company cannot provide an estimate of reasonably possible loss for repurchase claims that relevant subsidiaries have decided to reject.

Guarantees—

ASC 460 “Guarantees” specifies the disclosures to be made in regards to obligations under certain issued guarantees and requires a liability to be recognized for the fair value of a guarantee obligation at inception.

In the normal course of business, Nomura enters into various guarantee arrangements with counterparties in the form of standby letters of credit and other guarantees, which generally have a fixed expiration date.

In addition, Nomura enters into certain derivative contracts that meet the accounting definition of a guarantee, namely derivative contracts that contingently require a guarantor to make payment to a guaranteed party based on changes in an underlying that relate to an asset, liability or equity security held by a guaranteed party. Since Nomura does not track whether its clients enter into these derivative contracts for speculative or hedging purposes, Nomura has disclosed below information about derivative contracts that could meet the accounting definition of guarantees.

For information about the maximum potential amount of future payments that Nomura could be required to make under certain derivatives, the notional amount of contracts has been disclosed. However, the maximum potential payout for certain derivative contracts, such as written interest rate caps and written currency options, cannot be estimated, as increases in interest or foreign exchange rates in the future could be theoretically unlimited.

Nomura records all derivative contracts at fair value on its consolidated balance sheets. Nomura believes the notional amounts generally overstate its risk exposure. Since the derivative contracts are accounted for at fair value, carrying value is considered the best indication of payment and performance risk for individual contracts.

The following table presents information on Nomura’s derivative contracts that could meet the accounting definition of a guarantee and standby letters of credit and other guarantees.

	Millions of yen
	March 31, 2014				September 30, 2014
	Carrying value		Maximum Potential Payout/ Notional Total		Carrying value		Maximum Potential Payout/ Notional Total
Derivative contracts(1)(2)	¥	5,155,198	¥	195,466,506	¥	5,954,567	¥	255,694,644
Standby letters of credit and other guarantees(3)		276		11,509		279		11,783

(1) Credit derivatives are disclosed in Note 3 “Derivative instruments and hedging activities” and are excluded from derivative contracts.

(2) Derivative contracts primarily consist of equity, interest rate and foreign exchange contracts.

(3) Collateral held in connection with standby letters of credit and other guarantees as of March 31, 2014 is ¥6,487 million and as of September 30, 2014 is ¥6,898 million.

The following table presents maturity information on Nomura’s derivative contracts that could meet the accounting definition of a guarantee and standby letters of credit and other guarantees as of September 30, 2014.

	Millions of yen
			Maximum Potential Payout/Notional
					Years to Maturity
	Carrying value		Total		Less than 1 year		1 to 3 years		3 to 5 years		More than 5 years
Derivative contracts	¥	5,954,567	¥	255,694,644	¥	98,585,363	¥	70,409,375	¥	24,316,831	¥	62,383,075
Standby letters of credit and other guarantees		279		11,783		338		113		2,499		8,833