Legal Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings The firm is involved in a number of judicial, regulatory and arbitration proceedings (including those described below) concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of the firm’s businesses. Many of these proceedings are in early stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. Under ASC 450, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight.” Thus, references to the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss for cases in which the firm is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss mean the upper end of the range of loss for cases for which the firm believes the risk of loss is more than slight. With respect to matters described below for which management has been able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss where (i) actual or potential plaintiffs have claimed an amount of money damages, (ii) the firm is being, or threatened to be, sued by purchasers in a securities offering and is not being indemnified by a party that the firm believes will pay the full amount of any judgment, or (iii) the purchasers are demanding that the firm repurchase securities, management has estimated the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss based on (a) in the case of (i), the amount of money damages claimed, (b) in the case of (ii), the difference between the initial sales price of the securities that the firm sold in such offering and the estimated lowest subsequent price of such securities prior to the action being commenced and (c) in the case of (iii), the price that purchasers paid for the securities less the estimated value, if any, as of September 2022 of the relevant securities, in each of cases (i), (ii) and (iii), taking into account any other factors believed to be relevant to the particular matter or matters of that type. As of the date hereof, the firm has estimated the upper end of the range of reasonably possible aggregate loss for such matters and for any other matters described below where management has been able to estimate a range of reasonably possible aggregate loss to be approximately $2.3 billion in excess of the aggregate reserves for such matters. Management is generally unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for matters other than those included in the estimate above, including where (i) actual or potential plaintiffs have not claimed an amount of money damages, except in those instances where management can otherwise determine an appropriate amount, (ii) matters are in early stages, (iii) matters relate to regulatory investigations or reviews, except in those instances where management can otherwise determine an appropriate amount, (iv) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class, (v) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, (vi) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (vii) there are novel legal issues presented. For example, the firm’s potential liabilities with respect to the investigations and reviews described below in “Regulatory Investigations and Reviews and Related Litigation” generally are not included in management’s estimate of reasonably possible loss. However, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of such other matters will have a material adverse effect on the firm’s financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to the firm’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. 1MDB-Related Matters Between 2012 and 2013, subsidiaries of the firm acted as arrangers or purchasers of approximately $6.5 billion of debt securities of 1MDB. On November 1, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) unsealed a criminal information and guilty plea by Tim Leissner, a former participating managing director of the firm, and an indictment against Ng Chong Hwa, a former managing director of the firm. On August 28, 2018, Leissner was adjudicated guilty by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York of conspiring to launder money and to violate the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act’s (FCPA) anti-bribery and internal accounting controls provisions. Ng was charged with conspiring to launder money and to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery and internal accounting controls provisions. On April 8, 2022, Ng was found guilty on all counts following a trial. On August 18, 2020, the firm announced that it entered into a settlement agreement with the Government of Malaysia to resolve the criminal and regulatory proceedings in Malaysia involving the firm, which includes a guarantee that the Government of Malaysia receives at least $1.4 billion in assets and proceeds from assets seized by governmental authorities around the world related to 1MDB. See Note 18 for further information about this guarantee. On October 22, 2020, the firm announced that it reached settlements of governmental and regulatory investigations relating to 1MDB with the DOJ, the SEC, the FRB, the NYDFS, the FCA, the PRA, the Singapore Attorney General’s Chambers, the Singapore Commercial Affairs Department, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission. Group Inc. entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement with the DOJ, in which a charge against the firm, one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA, was filed and will later be dismissed if the firm abides by the terms of the agreement. In addition, GS Malaysia pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA, and was sentenced on June 9, 2021. In May 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor granted the firm a five-year exemption to maintain its status as a qualified professional asset manager (QPAM). The firm has received multiple demands, beginning in November 2018, from alleged shareholders under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law for books and records relating to, among other things, the firm’s involvement with 1MDB and the firm’s compliance procedures. On February 19, 2019, a purported shareholder derivative action relating to 1MDB was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Group Inc. and the directors at the time and a former chairman and chief executive officer of the firm. The second amended complaint filed on November 13, 2020, alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, including in connection with alleged insider trading by certain current and former directors, unjust enrichment and violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act, including in connection with Group Inc.’s common stock repurchases and solicitation of proxies, and seeks unspecified damages, disgorgement and injunctive relief. On September 16, 2022, the court preliminarily approved a settlement among the parties pursuant to which the firm agreed to a payment of $79.5 million to be made to the firm by its insurers, which the firm has agreed to use for compliance purposes after payment of any attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses awarded to plaintiffs. In January and February 2021, respectively, the firm received two demands (in addition to three demands that the Board had previously rejected and were subsequently settled) from alleged shareholders to investigate and pursue claims related to 1MDB (and, for one of the demands, other matters) against other parties, including certain current and former directors and executive officers of the firm. In December 2021, the Board voted to reject the two demands. On December 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Group Inc. and certain former officers of the firm alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act with respect to Group Inc.’s disclosures and public statements concerning 1MDB and seeking unspecified damages. The plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on October 28, 2019. On June 28, 2021, the court dismissed the claims against one of the individual defendants but denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the firm and the remaining individual defendants. On November 12, 2021, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. Mortgage-Related Matters Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.’s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm’s activities in the collateralized debt obligation market, and the firm’s conflict of interest management. The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which named as defendants Group Inc. and certain current and former officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks monetary damages. The defendants have moved for summary judgment. On April 7, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s August 14, 2018 grant of class certification. On June 21, 2021, the United States Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Second Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings, and on August 26, 2021, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of class certification and remanded the case for further proceedings. On December 8, 2021, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On March 9, 2022, the Second Circuit granted defendants’ petition seeking interlocutory review of the district court’s grant of class certification. Complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 25, 2019 and May 29, 2020 against Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and GS Mortgage Securities Corp. by U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for two residential mortgage-backed securitization trusts that issued $1.7 billion of securities. The complaints generally allege that mortgage loans in the trusts failed to conform to applicable representations and warranties and seek specific performance or, alternatively, compensatory damages and other relief. On November 23, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in the first action and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in the second action. On January 14, 2021, amended complaints were filed in both actions. Currencies-Related Litigation GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 7, 2018, and GSI, GSIB, Goldman Sachs Group UK Limited and GS Bank USA are among the defendants in an action filed in the High Court of England and Wales on November 11, 2020 and subsequently transferred to the U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal, in each case by certain direct purchasers of foreign exchange instruments that opted out of a class settlement reached with, among others, GS&Co. and Group Inc. The third amended complaint in the U.S. district court action, filed on August 3, 2020, generally alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive, treble and other damages. The claim in the English action is for breaches of English and E.U. competition rules from 2003 to 2013 and alleges manipulation of foreign exchange rates and bid/offer spreads, the exchange of commercially sensitive information among defendants and collusive trading. GS&Co. is among the defendants named in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 4, 2021. The amended complaint, filed on January 6, 2022, generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate auctions for foreign exchange transactions on an electronic trading platform, as well as claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of treble and other damages. On March 18, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Banco Espirito Santo S.A. and Oak Finance Beginning in February 2015, GSI commenced actions against Novo Banco S.A. (Novo Banco) in the English Commercial Court and the Bank of Portugal (BoP) in Portuguese Administrative Court in response to BoP’s decisions in December 2014, September 2015 and December 2015 to reverse an earlier transfer to Novo Banco of an $835 million facility agreement (the Facility), structured by GSI, between Oak Finance Luxembourg S.A. (Oak Finance), a special purpose vehicle formed in connection with the Facility, and Banco Espirito Santo S.A. (BES) prior to the failure of BES. In July 2018, the English Supreme Court found that the English courts will not have jurisdiction over GSI’s action unless and until the Portuguese Administrative Court finds against BoP in GSI’s parallel action. In July 2018, the Liquidation Committee for BES issued a decision seeking to claw back from GSI $54 million paid to GSI and $50 million allegedly paid to Oak Finance in connection with the Facility, alleging that GSI acted in bad faith in extending the Facility, including because GSI allegedly knew that BES was at risk of imminent failure. In October 2018, GSI commenced an action in Lisbon Commercial Court challenging the Liquidation Committee’s decision and has since also issued a claim against the Portuguese State seeking compensation for losses of approximately $222 million related to the failure of BES, together with a contingent claim for the $104 million sought by the Liquidation Committee. Financial Advisory Services Group Inc. and certain of its affiliates are from time to time parties to various civil litigation and arbitration proceedings and other disputes with clients and third parties relating to the firm’s financial advisory activities. These claims generally seek, among other things, compensatory damages and, in some cases, punitive damages, and in certain cases allege that the firm did not appropriately disclose or deal with conflicts of interest. Archegos-Related Matters GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on August 13, 2021 in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to ViacomCBS Inc.’s (ViacomCBS) March 2021 public offerings of $1.7 billion of common stock and $1.0 billion of preferred stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include ViacomCBS and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 646,154 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $55 million and 323,077 shares of preferred stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $32 million. The complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws and alleges that the offering documents contained material misstatements and omissions, including, among other things, that the offering documents failed to disclose that Archegos Capital Management (Archegos) had substantial exposure to ViacomCBS, including through total return swaps to which certain of the underwriters, including GS&Co., were allegedly counterparties, and that such underwriters failed to disclose their exposure to Archegos. The complaint seeks rescission and compensatory damages in unspecified amounts. On November 5, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, on December 22, 2021, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 4, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. Group Inc. is also a defendant in putative securities class actions filed beginning in October 2021 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints allege that Group Inc., along with another financial institution, sold shares in Baidu Inc. (Baidu), Discovery Inc. (Discovery), GSX Techedu Inc. (Gaotu), iQIYI Inc. (iQIYI), Tencent Music Entertainment Group (Tencent), ViacomCBS, and Vipshop Holdings Ltd. (Vipshop) based on material nonpublic information regarding the liquidation of Archegos’ position in Baidu, Discovery, Gaotu, iQIYI, Tencent, ViacomCBS and Vipshop, respectively. The complaints generally assert violations of Sections 10(b), 20A and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seek unspecified damages. On June 13, 2022, the plaintiffs in the class actions filed amended complaints. On August 12, 2022, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints. On January 24, 2022, the firm received a demand from an alleged shareholder under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law for books and records relating to, among other things, the firm’s involvement with Archegos and the firm’s controls with respect to insider trading. Underwriting Litigation Firm affiliates are among the defendants in a number of proceedings in connection with securities offerings. In these proceedings, including those described below, the plaintiffs assert class action or individual claims under federal and state securities laws and in some cases other applicable laws, allege that the offering documents for the securities that they purchased contained material misstatements and omissions, and generally seek compensatory and rescissory damages in unspecified amounts, as well as rescission. Certain of these proceedings involve additional allegations. Uber Technologies, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative securities class actions filed beginning in September 2019 in California Superior Court, County of San Francisco and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, relating to Uber Technologies, Inc.’s (Uber) $8.1 billion May 2019 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Uber and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 35,864,408 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.6 billion. On November 16, 2020, the court in the state court action granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed on February 11, 2020, and on December 16, 2020, plaintiffs appealed. On August 7, 2020, defendants’ motion to dismiss the district court action was denied. On September 25, 2020, the plaintiffs in the district court action moved for class certification. On December 5, 2020, the plaintiffs in the state court action filed a complaint in the district court, which was consolidated with the existing district court action on January 25, 2021. On May 14, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the district court, purporting to add the plaintiffs from the state court action as additional class representatives. On October 1, 2021, defendants’ motion to dismiss the additional class representatives from the second amended complaint was denied, and on July 26, 2022, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On August 9, 2022, defendants filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking interlocutory review of the district court’s grant of class certification. Venator Materials PLC. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions in Texas District Court, Dallas County, New York Supreme Court, New York County, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, filed beginning in February 2019, relating to Venator Materials PLC’s (Venator) $522 million August 2017 initial public offering and $534 million December 2017 secondary equity offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Venator, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 6,351,347 shares of common stock in the August 2017 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $127 million and 5,625,768 shares of common stock in the December 2017 secondary equity offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $127 million. On January 21, 2020, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the Texas District Court and dismissed the claims against the underwriter defendants, including GS&Co., in the Texas state court action for lack of personal jurisdiction. On March 22, 2021, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the New York state court action was granted and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On July 7, 2021, the court in the federal action granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On August 16, 2021, the plaintiffs in the federal action filed an amended consolidated complaint. On November 19, 2021, the plaintiffs in the federal action moved for class certification. On February 28, 2022, the plaintiffs stipulated to withdraw the appeal in the New York state court action after the parties reached a settlement, and on March 29, 2022, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the First Department deemed the appeal withdrawn. On September 15, 2022, the federal court approved a settlement among the parties. Under the terms of the settlement, the firm is not required to contribute to the settlement. GoHealth, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed beginning on September 21, 2020 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois relating to GoHealth, Inc.’s (GoHealth) $914 million July 2020 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include GoHealth, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 11,540,550 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $242 million. On February 25, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On April 5, 2022, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was denied. On September 23, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. Array Technologies, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on May 14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Array Technologies, Inc.’s (Array) $1.2 billion October 2020 initial public offering of common stock, $1.3 billion December 2020 offering of common stock and $993 million March 2021 offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Array and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote an aggregate of 31,912,213 shares of common stock in the three offerings representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $877 million. On December 7, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. On October 17, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. Skillz Inc. GS&Co. was among the underwriters named as defendants in an amended consolidated complaint for a putative securities class action filed on October 8, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to Skillz Inc.’s (Skillz) approximately $883 million March 2021 public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants included Skillz and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 8,832,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $212 million. On July 5, 2022, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint was granted with leave to replead. On August 4, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint naming only Skillz and certain of its officers as defendants. ContextLogic Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed beginning on May 17, 2021 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, relating to ContextLogic Inc.’s (ContextLogic) $1.1 billion December 2020 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include ContextLogic and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 16,169,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $388 million. On July 15, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. On September 16, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. DiDi Global Inc. Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C. (GS Asia) is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed beginning on July 6, 2021 in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Central District of California and New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to DiDi Global Inc.’s (DiDi) $4.4 billion June 2021 initial public offering of American Depositary Shares (ADS). In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include DiDi and certain of its officers and directors. GS Asia underwrote 104,554,000 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.5 billion. On September 22, 2021, plaintiffs in the California action voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice. On May 5, 2022, plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which includes allegations of violations of Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act against the underwriter defendants. On June 3, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint. Vroom Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in an amended complaint for a putative securities class action filed on October 4, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Vroom Inc.’s (Vroom) approximately $589 million September 2020 public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Vroom and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 3,886,819 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $212 million. On December 20, 2021, the defendants served a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Zymergen Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on August 4, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to Zymergen Inc.’s (Zymergen) $575 million April 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Zymergen and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 5,750,345 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $178 million. On February 24, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on April 25, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Waterdrop Inc. GS Asia is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on September 14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Waterdrop Inc.’s (Waterdrop) $360 million May 2021 initial public offering of ADS. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Waterdrop and certain of its officers and directors. GS Asia underwrote 15,300,000 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $184 million. On February 21, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on April 22, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Sea Limited. GS Asia is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed on February 11, 2022 and June 17, 2022, respectively, in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to Sea Limited’s approximately $4.0 billion September 2021 public offering of ADS and approximately $2.9 billion September 2021 public offering of convertible senior notes, respectively. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Sea Limited, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS Asia underwrote 8,222,500 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $2.6 billion and convertible senior notes representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.9 billion. On August 3, 2022, the actions were consolidated, and on August 9, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The defendants had previously moved to dismiss the action on July 15, 2022, with the parties stipulating that the motion would apply to the consolidated amended complaint. Rivian Automotive Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on March 7, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California relating to Rivian Automotive Inc.’s (Rivian) approximately $13.7 billion November 2021 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Rivian and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 44,733,050 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $3.5 billion. On July 22, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, and on August 29, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Natera Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions in New York Supreme Court, County of New York and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas filed on March 10, 2022 and October 7, 2022, respectively, relating to Natera Inc.’s (Natera) approximately $585 million July 2021 public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Natera and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 1,449,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $164 million. On July 15, 2022, the parties in the state court action filed a stipulation and proposed order approving the discontinuance of the action without prejudice. Robinhood Markets, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on December 17, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to Robinhood Markets, Inc.’s (Robinhood) approximately $2.2 billion July 2021 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Robinhood and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 18,039,706 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $686 million. On June 20, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On August 18, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. ON24, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November 3, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to ON24, Inc.’s (ON24) approximately $492 million February 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include ON24 and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 3,616,785 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $181 million. On March 18, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On May 2, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Riskified Ltd. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on May 2, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Riskified Ltd.’s (Riskified) approximately $423 million July 2021 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Riskified and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 6,981,128 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $147 million. On September 15, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On October 28, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Oscar Health, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on May 12, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Oscar Health, Inc.’s (Oscar Health) approximately $1.4 billion March 2021 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Oscar Health and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 12,760,633 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $498 million. Oak Street Health, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in an amended complaint for a putative securities class action filed on May 25, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois relating to Oak Street Health, Inc.’s (Oak Street) $377 million August 2020 initial public offering, $298 million December 2020 secondary equity offering, $691 million February 2021 secondary equity offering and $747 million May 2021 secondary equity offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Oak Street, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 4,157,103 shares of common stock in the August 2020 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $87 million, 1,503,944 shares of common stock in the December 2020 secondary equity offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $69 million, 3,083,098 shares of common stock in the February 2021 secondary equity offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $173 million and 3,013,065 shares of common stock in the May 2021 secondary equity offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $187 million. On July 25, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a consolidated amended complaint for a putative securities class action filed on June 21, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (Reata) approximately $282 million December 2020 public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Reata and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 1,000,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $141 million. On September 7, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Bright Health Group, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in an amended complaint for a putative securities class action filed on June 24, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York relating to Bright Health Group, Inc.’s (Bright Health) approximately $924 million June 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Bright Health and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 11,297,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $203 million. On October 12, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. 17 Education & Technology Group Inc. GS Asia is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on July 19, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California relating to 17 Education & Technology Group Inc.’s (17EdTech) approximately $331 million December 2020 initial public offering of ADS. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include 17EdTech and certain of its officers and directors. GS Asia underwrote 12,604,000 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $132 million. LifeStance Health Group, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on August 10, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to LifeStance Health Group, Inc.’s (LifeStance) approximately $828 million June 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include LifeStance and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 10,580,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $190 million. MINISO Group Holding Limited. GS Asia is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on August 17, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California relating to MINISO Group Holding Limited’s (MINISO) approximately $656 million October 2020 initial public offering of ADS. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include MINISO and certain of its officers and directors. GS Asia underwrote 16,408,093 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $328 million. Coupang, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on August 26, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Coupang, Inc.’s (Coupang) approximately $4.6 billion March 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Coupang and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 42,900,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.5 billion. Yatsen Holding Limited. GS Asia is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on September 23, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Yatsen Holding Limited’s (Yatsen) approximately $617 million November 2020 initial public offering of ADS. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Yatsen, certain of its officers and directors and one of its shareholders. GS Asia underwrote 22,912,500 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $241 million. Investment Management Services Group Inc. and certain of its affiliates are parties to various civil litigation and arbitration proceedings and other disputes with clients relating to losses allegedly sustained as a result of the firm’s investment management services. These claims generally seek, among other things, restitution or other compensatory damages and, in some cases, punitive damages. Securities Lending Antitrust Litigation Group Inc. and GS&Co. were among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action and three individual actions relating to securities lending practices filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in August 2017. The complaints generally assert claims under federal and state antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development of electronic platforms for securities lending transactions. The individual complaints also assert claims for tortious interference with business relations and under state trade practices law and, in the second and third individual actions, unjust enrichment under state common law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble, punitive and other damages. Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative class action on January 26, 2018. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the class action complaint was denied on September 27, 2018. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the first individual action was granted on August 7, 2019. On September 30, 2021, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second and third individual actions, which were consolidated in June 2019, was granted. On October 25, 2021, the plaintiff in the second individual action appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 30, 2022, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in the putative class action be granted in part and denied in part. Variable Rate Demand Obligations Antitrust Litigation GS&Co. is among the defendants named in a putative class action relating to variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs), filed beginning in February 2019 under separate complaints and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 31, 2019, generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate the market for VRDOs. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages. On November 2, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing the state common law claims against GS&Co., but denying dismissal of the federal antitrust law claims. GS&Co. is also among the defendants named in a related putative class action filed on June 2, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges the same conspiracy in the market for VRDOs as that alleged in the consolidated amended complaint filed on May 31, 2019, and asserts federal antitrust law, state law and state common law claims against the defendants. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages. On August 6, 2021, plaintiffs in the May 31, 2019 action filed an amended complaint consolidating the June 2, 2021 action with the May 31, 2019 action. On September 14, 2021, defendants filed a joint partial motion to dismiss the August 6, 2021 amended consolidated complaint. On June 28, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing the state breach of fiduciary duty claim against GS&Co., but declining to dismiss any portion of the federal antitrust law claims. On October 27, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation Group Inc., GS&Co., GSI, GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The same Goldman Sachs entities are also among the defendants named in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, commenced in April 2016 and June 2018, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their affiliates. These actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under state antitrust law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss the class and the first individual action and the district court dismissed the state common law claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and otherwise limited the state common law claim in the putative class action and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from 2013 to 2016. On November 20, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second individual action, dismissing the state common law claims for unjust enrichment and tortious interference, but denying dismissal of the federal and state antitrust claims. On March 13, 2019, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion in the putative class action to amend their complaint to add allegations related to conduct from 2008 to 2012, but granted the motion to add limited allegations from 2013 to 2016, which the plaintiffs added in a fourth consolidated amended complaint filed on March 22, 2019. The plaintiffs in the putative class action moved for class certification on March 7, 2019. Commodities-Related Litigation GSI is among the defendants named in putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently amended on May 15, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On March 29, 2020, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for reconsideration, resulting in the dismissal of all claims. On April 27, 2020, plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. GS&Co., GSI, J. Aron & Company and Metro International Trade Services (Metro), a previously consolidated subsidiary of Group Inc. that was sold in the fourth quarter of 2014, are among the defendants in a number of putative class and individual actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege violations of federal antitrust laws and state laws in connection with the storage of aluminum and aluminum trading. The complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief, as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages. In December 2016, the district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and on August 27, 2019, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissals and remanded the case to district court for further proceedings. On July 23, 2020, the district court denied the class plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and on December 16, 2020 the Second Circuit denied leave to appeal the denial. On February 17, 2021, the district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the claims of most of the individual plaintiffs. On April 14, 2021, the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On May 31, 2022, the two remaining individual plaintiffs entered into a settlement with the defendants. The firm has paid the full amount of its contribution to the settlement. In connection with the sale of Metro, the firm agreed to provide indemnities to the buyer, including for any potential liabilities for legal or regulatory proceedings arising out of the conduct of Metro’s business while the firm owned it. U.S. Treasury Securities Litigation GS&Co. is among the primary dealers named as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017. The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29, 2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms in order to impede competition in the bidding process. The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages in an unspecified amount and restitution. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted on March 31, 2021. On May 14, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted on March 31, 2022. On April 28, 2022, plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Corporate Bonds Antitrust Litigation Group Inc. and GS&Co. are among the dealers named as defendants in a putative class action relating to the secondary market for odd-lot corporate bonds, filed on April 21, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The amended consolidated complaint, filed on October 29, 2020, asserts claims under federal antitrust law in connection with alleged anti-competitive conduct by the defendants in the secondary market for odd-lots of corporate bonds, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble and punitive damages and restitution. On October 25, 2021, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. On November 23, 2021, plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On March 30, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an indicative ruling in the district court that the judgment should be vacated because the wife of the district judge owned stock in one of the defendants and the district judge did not recuse himself. Credit Default Swap Antitrust Litigation Group Inc., GS&Co. and GSI were among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action relating to the settlement of credit default swaps, filed on June 30, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The complaint generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate the benchmark price used to value credit default swaps for settlement. The complaint also asserts a claim for unjust enrichment under state common law. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of treble and other damages. On November 15, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 4, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and voluntarily dismissed Group Inc. from the action. On April 5, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Employment-Related Matters On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three female former employees. The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges that Group Inc. and GS&Co. have systematically discriminated against female employees in respect of compensation, promotion and performance evaluations. The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages. On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as to the plaintiffs’ disparate impact and treatment claims. On September 4, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied defendants’ petition for interlocutory review of the district court’s class certification decision and subsequently denied defendants’ petition for rehearing. On September 27, 2018, plaintiffs advised the district court that they would not seek to certify a class for injunctive and declaratory relief. On March 26, 2020, the Magistrate Judge in the district court granted in part a motion to compel arbitration as to class members who are parties to certain agreements with Group Inc. and/or GS&Co. in which they agreed to arbitrate employment-related disputes. On April 16, 2020, plaintiffs submitted objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order and defendants submitted conditional objections in the event that the district judge overturned any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order. On July 22, 2021, defendants filed a motion to decertify the class. On September 15, 2021, the district court affirmed the decision of the Magistrate Judge to compel arbitration. On March 17, 2022, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to a portion of the disparate impact claim, granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ disparate impact and treatment claims, denied the defendants’ motion to decertify the class, and granted in part and denied in part the parties’ respective motions to preclude certain expert testimony. On August 22, 2022, the district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the portion of its March 17, 2022 decision that denied the defendants’ motion to decertify the class, denying the defendants’ motion to decertify the class but narrowing the class definition. Communications Recordkeeping Investigation and Review On September 27, 2022, the firm entered into settlements with the SEC and CFTC to resolve investigations of the firm’s compliance with records preservation requirements relating to business communications sent over electronic messaging channels that have not been approved by the firm. Under the terms of the settlements, the firm paid $125 million to the SEC and $75 million to the CFTC and has agreed to cease and desist from further violations of certain records preservation requirements, to retain a compliance consultant and to implement improvements to its related compliance policies and procedures. Consumer Investigation and Review The firm is cooperating with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in connection with an investigation of GS Bank USA’s credit card account management practices, including with respect to the application of refunds, crediting of nonconforming payments, billing error resolution, advertisements, and reporting to credit bureaus. Regulatory Investigations and Reviews and Related Litigation Group Inc. and certain of its affiliates are subject to a number of other investigations and reviews by, and in some cases have received subpoenas and requests for documents and information from, various governmental and regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations and litigation and shareholder requests relating to various matters relating to the firm’s businesses and operations, including: •The securities offering process and underwriting practices; •The firm’s investment management and financial advisory services; •Conflicts of interest; •Research practices, including research independence and interactions between research analysts and other firm personnel, including investment banking personnel, as well as third parties; •Transactions involving government-related financings and other matters, municipal securities, including wall-cross procedures and conflict of interest disclosure with respect to state and municipal clients, the trading and structuring of municipal derivative instruments in connection with municipal offerings, political contribution rules, municipal advisory services and the possible impact of credit default swap transactions on municipal issuers; •Consumer lending, as well as residential mortgage lending, servicing and securitization, and compliance with related consumer laws; •The offering, auction, sales, trading and clearance of corporate and government securities, currencies, commodities and other financial products and related sales and other communications and activities, as well as the firm’s supervision and controls relating to such activities, including compliance with applicable short sale rules, algorithmic, high-frequency and quantitative trading, the firm’s U.S. alternative trading system (dark pool), futures trading, options trading, when-issued trading, transaction reporting, technology systems and controls, communications recordkeeping and recording, securities lending practices, prime brokerage activities, trading and clearance of credit derivative instruments and interest rate swaps, commodities activities and metals storage, private placement practices, allocations of and trading in securities, and trading activities and communications in connection with the establishment of benchmark rates, such as currency rates; • Compliance with the FCPA; •The firm’s hiring and compensation practices; •The firm’s system of risk management and controls; and •Insider trading, the potential misuse and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding corporate and governmental developments and the effectiveness of the firm’s insider trading controls and information barriers. The firm is cooperating with all such governmental and regulatory investigations and reviews.

The firm has received multiple demands, beginning in November 2018, from alleged shareholders under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law for books and records relating to, among other things, the firm’s involvement with 1MDB and the firm’s compliance procedures.

On February 19, 2019, a purported shareholder derivative action relating to 1MDB was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Group Inc. and the directors at the time and a former chairman and chief executive officer of the firm. The second amended complaint filed on November 13, 2020, alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, including in connection with alleged insider trading by certain current and former directors, unjust enrichment and violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act, including in connection with Group Inc.’s common stock repurchases and solicitation of proxies, and seeks unspecified damages, disgorgement and injunctive relief. On September 16, 2022, the court preliminarily approved a settlement among the parties pursuant to which the firm agreed to a payment of $79.5 million to be made to the firm by its insurers, which the firm has agreed to use for compliance purposes after payment of any attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses awarded to plaintiffs.

In January and February 2021, respectively, the firm received two demands (in addition to three demands that the Board had previously rejected and were subsequently settled) from alleged shareholders to investigate and pursue claims related to 1MDB (and, for one of the demands, other matters) against other parties, including certain current and former directors and executive officers of the firm. In December 2021, the Board voted to reject the two demands.

On December 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Group Inc. and certain former officers of the firm alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act with respect to Group Inc.’s disclosures and public statements concerning 1MDB and seeking unspecified damages. The plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on October 28, 2019. On June 28, 2021, the court dismissed the claims against one of the individual defendants but denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the firm and the remaining individual defendants. On November 12, 2021, the plaintiffs moved for class certification.

Mortgage-Related Matters

Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.’s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm’s activities in the collateralized debt obligation market, and the firm’s conflict of interest management.

The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which named as defendants Group Inc. and certain current and former officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks monetary damages. The defendants have moved for summary judgment. On April 7, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s August 14, 2018 grant of class certification. On June 21, 2021, the United States Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Second Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings, and on August 26, 2021, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of class certification and remanded the case for further proceedings. On December 8, 2021, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On March 9, 2022, the Second Circuit granted defendants’ petition seeking interlocutory review of the district court’s grant of class certification.

Complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 25, 2019 and May 29, 2020 against Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and GS Mortgage Securities Corp. by U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for two residential mortgage-backed securitization trusts that issued $1.7 billion of securities. The complaints generally allege that mortgage loans in the trusts failed to conform to applicable representations and warranties and seek specific performance or, alternatively, compensatory damages and other relief. On November 23, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in the first action and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in the second action. On January 14, 2021, amended complaints were filed in both actions.

Currencies-Related Litigation

GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 7, 2018, and GSI, GSIB, Goldman Sachs Group UK Limited and GS Bank USA are among the defendants in an action filed in the High Court of England and Wales on November 11, 2020 and subsequently transferred to the U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal, in each case by certain direct purchasers of foreign exchange instruments that opted out of a class settlement reached with, among others, GS&Co. and Group Inc. The third amended complaint in the U.S. district court action, filed on August 3, 2020, generally alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive, treble and other damages. The claim in the English action is for breaches of English and E.U. competition rules from 2003 to 2013 and alleges manipulation of foreign exchange rates and bid/offer spreads, the exchange of commercially sensitive information among defendants and collusive trading.

GS&Co. is among the defendants named in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 4, 2021. The amended complaint, filed on January 6, 2022, generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate auctions for foreign exchange transactions on an electronic trading platform, as well as claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of treble and other damages. On March 18, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

Banco Espirito Santo S.A. and Oak Finance

Beginning in February 2015, GSI commenced actions against Novo Banco S.A. (Novo Banco) in the English Commercial Court and the Bank of Portugal (BoP) in Portuguese Administrative Court in response to BoP’s decisions in December 2014, September 2015 and December 2015 to reverse an earlier transfer to Novo Banco of an $835 million facility agreement (the Facility), structured by GSI, between Oak Finance Luxembourg S.A. (Oak Finance), a special purpose vehicle formed in connection with the Facility, and Banco Espirito Santo S.A. (BES) prior to the failure of BES. In July 2018, the English Supreme Court found that the English courts will not have jurisdiction over GSI’s action unless and until the Portuguese Administrative Court finds against BoP in GSI’s parallel action. In July 2018, the Liquidation Committee for BES issued a decision seeking to claw back from GSI $54 million paid to GSI and $50 million allegedly paid to Oak Finance in connection with the Facility, alleging that GSI acted in bad faith in extending the Facility, including because GSI allegedly knew that BES was at risk of imminent failure. In October 2018, GSI commenced an action in Lisbon Commercial Court challenging the Liquidation Committee’s decision and has since also issued a claim against the Portuguese State seeking compensation for losses of approximately $222 million related to the failure of BES, together with a contingent claim for the $104 million sought by the Liquidation Committee.

Financial Advisory Services

Group Inc. and certain of its affiliates are from time to time parties to various civil litigation and arbitration proceedings and other disputes with clients and third parties relating to the firm’s financial advisory activities. These claims generally seek, among other things, compensatory damages and, in some cases, punitive damages, and in certain cases allege that the firm did not appropriately disclose or deal with conflicts of interest.

Archegos-Related Matters

GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on August 13, 2021 in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to ViacomCBS Inc.’s (ViacomCBS) March 2021 public offerings of $1.7 billion of common stock and $1.0 billion of preferred stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include ViacomCBS and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 646,154 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $55 million and 323,077 shares of preferred stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $32 million. The complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws and alleges that the offering documents contained material misstatements and omissions, including, among other things, that the offering documents failed to disclose that Archegos Capital Management (Archegos) had substantial exposure to ViacomCBS, including through total return swaps to which certain of the underwriters, including GS&Co., were allegedly counterparties, and that such underwriters failed to disclose their exposure to Archegos. The complaint seeks rescission and compensatory damages in unspecified amounts. On November 5, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, on December 22, 2021, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 4, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for class certification.

Group Inc. is also a defendant in putative securities class actions filed beginning in October 2021 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints allege that Group Inc., along with another financial institution, sold shares in Baidu Inc. (Baidu), Discovery Inc. (Discovery), GSX Techedu Inc. (Gaotu), iQIYI Inc. (iQIYI), Tencent Music Entertainment Group (Tencent), ViacomCBS, and Vipshop Holdings Ltd. (Vipshop) based on material nonpublic information regarding the liquidation of Archegos’ position in Baidu, Discovery, Gaotu, iQIYI, Tencent, ViacomCBS and Vipshop, respectively. The complaints generally assert violations of Sections 10(b), 20A and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seek unspecified damages. On June 13, 2022, the plaintiffs in the class actions filed amended complaints. On August 12, 2022, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints.

On January 24, 2022, the firm received a demand from an alleged shareholder under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law for books and records relating to, among other things, the firm’s involvement with Archegos and the firm’s controls with respect to insider trading.

Underwriting Litigation

Firm affiliates are among the defendants in a number of proceedings in connection with securities offerings. In these proceedings, including those described below, the plaintiffs assert class action or individual claims under federal and state securities laws and in some cases other applicable laws, allege that the offering documents for the securities that they purchased contained material misstatements and omissions, and generally seek compensatory and rescissory damages in unspecified amounts, as well as rescission. Certain of these proceedings involve additional allegations.

Uber Technologies, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative securities class actions filed beginning in September 2019 in California Superior Court, County of San Francisco and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, relating to Uber Technologies, Inc.’s (Uber) $8.1 billion May 2019 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Uber and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 35,864,408 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.6 billion. On November 16, 2020, the court in the state court action granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed on February 11, 2020, and on December 16, 2020, plaintiffs appealed. On August 7, 2020, defendants’ motion to dismiss the district court action was denied. On September 25, 2020, the plaintiffs in the district court action moved for class certification. On December 5, 2020, the plaintiffs in the state court action filed a complaint in the district court, which was consolidated with the existing district court action on January 25, 2021. On May 14, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the district court, purporting to add the plaintiffs from the state court action as additional class representatives. On October 1, 2021, defendants’ motion to dismiss the additional class representatives from the second amended complaint was denied, and on July 26, 2022, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On August 9, 2022, defendants filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking interlocutory review of the district court’s grant of class certification.

Venator Materials PLC. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions in Texas District Court, Dallas County, New York Supreme Court, New York County, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, filed beginning in February 2019, relating to Venator Materials PLC’s (Venator) $522 million August 2017 initial public offering and $534 million December 2017 secondary equity offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Venator, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 6,351,347 shares of common stock in the August 2017 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $127 million and 5,625,768 shares of common stock in the December 2017 secondary equity offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $127 million. On January 21, 2020, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the Texas District Court and dismissed the claims against the underwriter defendants, including GS&Co., in the Texas state court action for lack of personal jurisdiction. On March 22, 2021, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the New York state court action was granted and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On July 7, 2021, the court in the federal action granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On August 16, 2021, the plaintiffs in the federal action filed an amended consolidated complaint. On November 19, 2021, the plaintiffs in the federal action moved for class certification. On February 28, 2022, the plaintiffs stipulated to withdraw the appeal in the New York state court action after the parties reached a settlement, and on March 29, 2022, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the First Department deemed the appeal withdrawn. On September 15, 2022, the federal court approved a settlement among the parties. Under the terms of the settlement, the firm is not required to contribute to the settlement.

GoHealth, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed beginning on September 21, 2020 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois relating to GoHealth, Inc.’s (GoHealth) $914 million July 2020 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include GoHealth, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 11,540,550 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $242 million. On February 25, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On April 5, 2022, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint was denied. On September 23, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for class certification.

Array Technologies, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on May 14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Array Technologies, Inc.’s (Array) $1.2 billion October 2020 initial public offering of common stock, $1.3 billion December 2020 offering of common stock and $993 million March 2021 offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Array and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote an aggregate of 31,912,213 shares of common stock in the three offerings representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $877 million. On December 7, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. On October 17, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.

Skillz Inc. GS&Co. was among the underwriters named as defendants in an amended consolidated complaint for a putative securities class action filed on October 8, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to Skillz Inc.’s (Skillz) approximately $883 million March 2021 public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants included Skillz and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 8,832,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $212 million. On July 5, 2022, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint was granted with leave to replead. On August 4, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint naming only Skillz and certain of its officers as defendants.

ContextLogic Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed beginning on May 17, 2021 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, relating to ContextLogic Inc.’s (ContextLogic) $1.1 billion December 2020 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include ContextLogic and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 16,169,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $388 million. On July 15, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. On September 16, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

DiDi Global Inc. Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C. (GS Asia) is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed beginning on July 6, 2021 in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Central District of California and New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to DiDi Global Inc.’s (DiDi) $4.4 billion June 2021 initial public offering of American Depositary Shares (ADS). In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include DiDi and certain of its officers and directors. GS Asia underwrote 104,554,000 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.5 billion. On September 22, 2021, plaintiffs in the California action voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice. On May 5, 2022, plaintiffs in the consolidated federal action filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which includes allegations of violations of Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act against the underwriter defendants. On June 3, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint.

Vroom Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in an amended complaint for a putative securities class action filed on October 4, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Vroom Inc.’s (Vroom) approximately $589 million September 2020 public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Vroom and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 3,886,819 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $212 million. On December 20, 2021, the defendants served a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

Zymergen Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on August 4, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to Zymergen Inc.’s (Zymergen) $575 million April 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Zymergen and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 5,750,345 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $178 million. On February 24, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on April 25, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

Waterdrop Inc. GS Asia is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on September 14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Waterdrop Inc.’s (Waterdrop) $360 million May 2021 initial public offering of ADS. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Waterdrop and certain of its officers and directors. GS Asia underwrote 15,300,000 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $184 million. On February 21, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on April 22, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

Sea Limited. GS Asia is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed on February 11, 2022 and June 17, 2022, respectively, in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to Sea Limited’s approximately $4.0 billion September 2021 public offering of ADS and approximately $2.9 billion September 2021 public offering of convertible senior notes, respectively. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Sea Limited, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS Asia underwrote 8,222,500 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $2.6 billion and convertible senior notes representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.9 billion. On August 3, 2022, the actions were consolidated, and on August 9, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The defendants had previously moved to dismiss the action on July 15, 2022, with the parties stipulating that the motion would apply to the consolidated amended complaint.

Rivian Automotive Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on March 7, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California relating to Rivian Automotive Inc.’s (Rivian) approximately $13.7 billion November 2021 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Rivian and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 44,733,050 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $3.5 billion. On July 22, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, and on August 29, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

Natera Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions in New York Supreme Court, County of New York and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas filed on March 10, 2022 and October 7, 2022, respectively, relating to Natera Inc.’s (Natera) approximately $585 million July 2021 public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Natera and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 1,449,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $164 million. On July 15, 2022, the parties in the state court action filed a stipulation and proposed order approving the discontinuance of the action without prejudice.

Robinhood Markets, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on December 17, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to Robinhood Markets, Inc.’s (Robinhood) approximately $2.2 billion July 2021 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Robinhood and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 18,039,706 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $686 million. On June 20, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On August 18, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

ON24, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November 3, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California relating to ON24, Inc.’s (ON24) approximately $492 million February 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include ON24 and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 3,616,785 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $181 million. On March 18, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On May 2, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

Riskified Ltd. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on May 2, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Riskified Ltd.’s (Riskified) approximately $423 million July 2021 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Riskified and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 6,981,128 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $147 million. On September 15, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On October 28, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

Oscar Health, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on May 12, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Oscar Health, Inc.’s (Oscar Health) approximately $1.4 billion March 2021 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Oscar Health and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 12,760,633 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $498 million.

Oak Street Health, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in an amended complaint for a putative securities class action filed on May 25, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois relating to Oak Street Health, Inc.’s (Oak Street) $377 million August 2020 initial public offering, $298 million December 2020 secondary equity offering, $691 million February 2021 secondary equity offering and $747 million May 2021 secondary equity offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Oak Street, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 4,157,103 shares of common stock in the August 2020 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $87 million, 1,503,944 shares of common stock in the December 2020 secondary equity offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $69 million, 3,083,098 shares of common stock in the February 2021 secondary equity offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $173 million and 3,013,065 shares of common stock in the May 2021 secondary equity offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $187 million. On July 25, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a consolidated amended complaint for a putative securities class action filed on June 21, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to Reata Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (Reata) approximately $282 million December 2020 public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Reata and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 1,000,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $141 million. On September 7, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

Bright Health Group, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in an amended complaint for a putative securities class action filed on June 24, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York relating to Bright Health Group, Inc.’s (Bright Health) approximately $924 million June 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Bright Health and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 11,297,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $203 million. On October 12, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

17 Education & Technology Group Inc. GS Asia is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on July 19, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California relating to 17 Education & Technology Group Inc.’s (17EdTech) approximately $331 million December 2020 initial public offering of ADS. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include 17EdTech and certain of its officers and directors. GS Asia underwrote 12,604,000 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $132 million.

LifeStance Health Group, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on August 10, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to LifeStance Health Group, Inc.’s (LifeStance) approximately $828 million June 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include LifeStance and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 10,580,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $190 million.

MINISO Group Holding Limited. GS Asia is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on August 17, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California relating to MINISO Group Holding Limited’s (MINISO) approximately $656 million October 2020 initial public offering of ADS. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include MINISO and certain of its officers and directors. GS Asia underwrote 16,408,093 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $328 million.

Coupang, Inc. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on August 26, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Coupang, Inc.’s (Coupang) approximately $4.6 billion March 2021 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Coupang and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 42,900,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.5 billion.

Yatsen Holding Limited. GS Asia is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on September 23, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Yatsen Holding Limited’s (Yatsen) approximately $617 million November 2020 initial public offering of ADS. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Yatsen, certain of its officers and directors and one of its shareholders. GS Asia underwrote 22,912,500 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $241 million.

Investment Management Services

Group Inc. and certain of its affiliates are parties to various civil litigation and arbitration proceedings and other disputes with clients relating to losses allegedly sustained as a result of the firm’s investment management services. These claims generally seek, among other things, restitution or other compensatory damages and, in some cases, punitive damages.

Securities Lending Antitrust Litigation

Group Inc. and GS&Co. were among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action and three individual actions relating to securities lending practices filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in August 2017. The complaints generally assert claims under federal and state antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development of electronic platforms for securities lending transactions. The individual complaints also assert claims for tortious interference with business relations and under state trade practices law and, in the second and third individual actions, unjust enrichment under state common law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble, punitive and other damages. Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative class action on January 26, 2018. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the class action complaint was denied on September 27, 2018. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the first individual action was granted on August 7, 2019. On September 30, 2021, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second and third individual actions, which were consolidated in June 2019, was granted. On October 25, 2021, the plaintiff in the second individual action appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On June 30, 2022, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in the putative class action be granted in part and denied in part.

Variable Rate Demand Obligations Antitrust Litigation

GS&Co. is among the defendants named in a putative class action relating to variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs), filed beginning in February 2019 under separate complaints and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 31, 2019, generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate the market for VRDOs. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages. On November 2, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing the state common law claims against GS&Co., but denying dismissal of the federal antitrust law claims.

GS&Co. is also among the defendants named in a related putative class action filed on June 2, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges the same conspiracy in the market for VRDOs as that alleged in the consolidated amended complaint filed on May 31, 2019, and asserts federal antitrust law, state law and state common law claims against the defendants. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages. On August 6, 2021, plaintiffs in the May 31, 2019 action filed an amended complaint consolidating the June 2, 2021 action with the May 31, 2019 action. On September 14, 2021, defendants filed a joint partial motion to dismiss the August 6, 2021 amended consolidated complaint. On June 28, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing the state breach of fiduciary duty claim against GS&Co., but declining to dismiss any portion of the federal antitrust law claims. On October 27, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for class certification.

Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation

Group Inc., GS&Co., GSI, GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The same Goldman Sachs entities are also among the defendants named in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, commenced in April 2016 and June 2018, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their affiliates. These actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under state antitrust law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss the class and the first individual action and the district court dismissed the state common law claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and otherwise limited the state common law claim in the putative class action and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from 2013 to 2016. On November 20, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second individual action, dismissing the state common law claims for unjust enrichment and tortious interference, but denying dismissal of the federal and state antitrust claims. On March 13, 2019, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion in the putative class action to amend their complaint to add allegations related to conduct from 2008 to 2012, but granted the motion to add limited allegations from 2013 to 2016, which the plaintiffs added in a fourth consolidated amended complaint filed on March 22, 2019. The plaintiffs in the putative class action moved for class certification on March 7, 2019.

Commodities-Related Litigation

GSI is among the defendants named in putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently amended on May 15, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On March 29, 2020, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for reconsideration, resulting in the dismissal of all claims. On April 27, 2020, plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

GS&Co., GSI, J. Aron & Company and Metro International Trade Services (Metro), a previously consolidated subsidiary of Group Inc. that was sold in the fourth quarter of 2014, are among the defendants in a number of putative class and individual actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege violations of federal antitrust laws and state laws in connection with the storage of aluminum and aluminum trading. The complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief, as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages. In December 2016, the district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and on August 27, 2019, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissals and remanded the case to district court for further proceedings. On July 23, 2020, the district court denied the class plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and on December 16, 2020 the Second Circuit denied leave to appeal the denial. On February 17, 2021, the district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the claims of most of the individual plaintiffs. On April 14, 2021, the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On May 31, 2022, the two remaining individual plaintiffs entered into a settlement with the defendants. The firm has paid the full amount of its contribution to the settlement.

In connection with the sale of Metro, the firm agreed to provide indemnities to the buyer, including for any potential liabilities for legal or regulatory proceedings arising out of the conduct of Metro’s business while the firm owned it.

U.S. Treasury Securities Litigation

GS&Co. is among the primary dealers named as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017. The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29, 2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms in order to impede competition in the bidding process. The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages in an unspecified amount and restitution. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted on March 31, 2021. On May 14, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted on March 31, 2022. On April 28, 2022, plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Corporate Bonds Antitrust Litigation

Group Inc. and GS&Co. are among the dealers named as defendants in a putative class action relating to the secondary market for odd-lot corporate bonds, filed on April 21, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The amended consolidated complaint, filed on October 29, 2020, asserts claims under federal antitrust law in connection with alleged anti-competitive conduct by the defendants in the secondary market for odd-lots of corporate bonds, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble and punitive damages and restitution. On October 25, 2021, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. On November 23, 2021, plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On March 30, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an indicative ruling in the district court that the judgment should be vacated because the wife of the district judge owned stock in one of the defendants and the district judge did not recuse himself.

Credit Default Swap Antitrust Litigation

Group Inc., GS&Co. and GSI were among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action relating to the settlement of credit default swaps, filed on June 30, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The complaint generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate the benchmark price used to value credit default swaps for settlement. The complaint also asserts a claim for unjust enrichment under state common law. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of treble and other damages. On November 15, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 4, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and voluntarily dismissed Group Inc. from the action. On April 5, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Employment-Related Matters

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three female former employees. The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges that Group Inc. and GS&Co. have systematically discriminated against female employees in respect of compensation, promotion and performance evaluations. The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages.

On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as to the plaintiffs’ disparate impact and treatment claims. On September 4, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied defendants’ petition for interlocutory review of the district court’s class certification decision and subsequently denied defendants’ petition for rehearing. On September 27, 2018, plaintiffs advised the district court that they would not seek to certify a class for injunctive and declaratory relief. On March 26, 2020, the Magistrate Judge in the district court granted in part a motion to compel arbitration as to class members who are parties to certain agreements with Group Inc. and/or GS&Co. in which they agreed to arbitrate employment-related disputes. On April 16, 2020, plaintiffs submitted objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order and defendants submitted conditional objections in the event that the district judge overturned any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order. On July 22, 2021, defendants filed a motion to decertify the class. On September 15, 2021, the district court affirmed the decision of the Magistrate Judge to compel arbitration. On March 17, 2022, the district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to a portion of the disparate impact claim, granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ disparate impact and treatment claims, denied the defendants’ motion to decertify the class, and granted in part and denied in part the parties’ respective motions to preclude certain expert testimony. On August 22, 2022, the district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the portion of its March 17, 2022 decision that denied the defendants’ motion to decertify the class, denying the defendants’ motion to decertify the class but narrowing the class definition.

Communications Recordkeeping Investigation and Review

On September 27, 2022, the firm entered into settlements with the SEC and CFTC to resolve investigations of the firm’s compliance with records preservation requirements relating to business communications sent over electronic messaging channels that have not been approved by the firm. Under the terms of the settlements, the firm paid $125 million to the SEC and $75 million to the CFTC and has agreed to cease and desist from further violations of certain records preservation requirements, to retain a compliance consultant and to implement improvements to its related compliance policies and procedures.

Consumer Investigation and Review

The firm is cooperating with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in connection with an investigation of GS Bank USA’s credit card account management practices, including with respect to the application of refunds, crediting of nonconforming payments, billing error resolution, advertisements, and reporting to credit bureaus.

Regulatory Investigations and Reviews and Related Litigation

Group Inc. and certain of its affiliates are subject to a number of other investigations and reviews by, and in some cases have received subpoenas and requests for documents and information from, various governmental and regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations and litigation and shareholder requests relating to various matters relating to the firm’s businesses and operations, including:

•The securities offering process and underwriting practices;

•The firm’s investment management and financial advisory services;

•Conflicts of interest;

•Research practices, including research independence and interactions between research analysts and other firm personnel, including investment banking personnel, as well as third parties;

•Transactions involving government-related financings and other matters, municipal securities, including wall-cross procedures and conflict of interest disclosure with respect to state and municipal clients, the trading and structuring of municipal derivative instruments in connection with municipal offerings, political contribution rules, municipal advisory services and the possible impact of credit default swap transactions on municipal issuers;

•Consumer lending, as well as residential mortgage lending, servicing and securitization, and compliance with related consumer laws;

•The offering, auction, sales, trading and clearance of corporate and government securities, currencies, commodities and other financial products and related sales and other communications and activities, as well as the firm’s supervision and controls relating to such activities, including compliance with applicable short sale rules, algorithmic, high-frequency and quantitative trading, the firm’s U.S. alternative trading system (dark pool), futures trading, options trading, when-issued trading, transaction reporting, technology systems and controls, communications recordkeeping and recording, securities lending practices, prime brokerage activities, trading and clearance of credit derivative instruments and interest rate swaps, commodities activities and metals storage, private placement practices, allocations of and trading in securities, and trading activities and communications in connection with the establishment of benchmark rates, such as currency rates;

• Compliance with the FCPA;

•The firm’s hiring and compensation practices;

•The firm’s system of risk management and controls; and

•Insider trading, the potential misuse and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding corporate and governmental developments and the effectiveness of the firm’s insider trading controls and information barriers.

The firm is cooperating with all such governmental and regulatory investigations and reviews.