Note 27.

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 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 as being equal to (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 2016 of the relevant securities, in each of cases (i), (ii) and (iii), taking into account any 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 $1.7 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 future mortgage-related “put-back” claims described below may ultimately result in an increase in the firm’s liabilities, but are not included in management’s estimate of reasonably possible loss. As another example, the firm’s potential liabilities with respect to the investigations and reviews described below in “Regulatory Investigations and Reviews and Related Litigation” also 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. See Note 18 for further information about mortgage-related contingencies.

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 CDO market, the firm’s conflict of interest management, and the SEC investigation that led to GS&Co. entering into a consent agreement with the SEC, settling all claims made against GS&Co. by the SEC in connection with the ABACUS 2007-AC1 CDO offering (ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction), pursuant to which GS&Co. paid $550 million of disgorgement and civil penalties. The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which names as defendants Group Inc. and certain 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 unspecified damages. On June 21, 2012, the district court dismissed the claims based on Group Inc.’s not disclosing that it had received a “Wells” notice from the staff of the SEC related to the ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction, but permitted the plaintiffs’ other claims to proceed. The district court granted class certification on September 24, 2015, but the appellate court granted defendants’ petition for review on January 26, 2016. On February 1, 2016, the district court stayed proceedings in the district court pending the appellate court’s decision.

In June 2012, the Board received a demand from a shareholder that the Board investigate and take action relating to the firm’s mortgage-related activities and to stock sales by certain directors and executives of the firm. On February 15, 2013, this shareholder filed a putative shareholder derivative action in New York Supreme Court, New York County, against Group Inc. and certain current or former directors and employees, based on these activities and stock sales. The derivative complaint includes allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement and corporate waste, and seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, disgorgement of profits and certain corporate governance and disclosure reforms. On May 28, 2013, Group Inc. informed the shareholder that the Board completed its investigation and determined to refuse the demand. On June 20, 2013, the shareholder made a books and records demand requesting materials relating to the Board’s determination. The parties have agreed to stay proceedings in the putative derivative action pending resolution of the books and records demand.

In addition, the Board has received books and records demands from several shareholders for materials relating to, among other subjects, the firm’s mortgage servicing and foreclosure activities, participation in federal programs providing assistance to financial institutions and homeowners, loan sales to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, mortgage-related activities and conflicts management.

Various alleged purchasers of, and counterparties and providers of credit enhancement involved in transactions relating to, mortgage pass-through certificates, CDOs and other mortgage-related products (including IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company and the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System) have filed complaints in state and federal court against firm affiliates, generally alleging that the offering documents for the securities that they purchased contained untrue statements of material fact and material omissions and generally seeking rescission and/or damages. Certain of these complaints allege fraud and seek punitive damages. Certain of these complaints also name other firms as defendants.

As of the date hereof, the aggregate amount of mortgage-related securities sold to plaintiffs in active cases described in the preceding paragraph where those plaintiffs are seeking rescission of such securities was approximately $1.5 billion (which does not reflect adjustment for any subsequent paydowns or distributions or any residual value of such securities, statutory interest or any other adjustments that may be claimed). This amount does not include the potential claims by these or other purchasers in the same or other mortgage-related offerings that have not been described above, or claims that have been dismissed.

The firm has entered into agreements with Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and U.S. Bank National Association to toll the relevant statute of limitations with respect to claims for repurchase of residential mortgage loans based on alleged breaches of representations related to $11.1 billion original notional face amount of securitizations issued by trusts for which they act as trustees.

On April 11, 2016, the firm reached a definitive agreement that resolved actual and potential civil claims by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Attorney General’s Offices for the States of California, Illinois and New York, the National Credit Union Administration (as conservator for several failed credit unions) and the Federal Home Loan Banks of Chicago and Des Moines (as a successor to the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle), relating to the firm’s securitization, underwriting and sale of residential mortgage-backed securities from 2005 to 2007. The firm has received subpoenas or requests for information, and is engaged in discussions with, other federal, state and local regulators or law enforcement authorities as part of inquiries or investigations relating to mortgage-related matters, and may become the subject of additional litigation, investor and shareholder demands, and regulatory and other investigations and actions with respect to mortgage-related matters. See Note 18 for information regarding mortgage-related contingencies not described in this Note 27.

Solazyme, Inc. Securities Litigation. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on June 24, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Solazyme, Inc. and certain of its directors and officers. As to the underwriters, the complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in connection with March 2014 offerings by Solazyme, Inc. of approximately $63 million of common stock and $150 million principal amount of convertible senior subordinated notes, assert claims under the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 15, 2015, and defendants moved to dismiss on February 12, 2016. GS&Co. underwrote 3,450,000 shares of common stock and $150 million principal amount of notes for an aggregate offering price of approximately $187 million.

GT Advanced Technologies Securities Litigation. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative securities class actions filed in October 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include certain directors and officers of GT Advanced Technologies Inc. (GT). As to the underwriters, the complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in connection with the December 2013 offerings by GT of approximately $86 million of common stock and $214 million principal amount of convertible senior notes, assert claims under the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. On July 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. On October 7, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss. GS&Co. underwrote 3,479,769 shares of common stock and $75 million principal amount of notes for an aggregate offering price of approximately $105 million. On October 6, 2014, GT filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

FireEye Securities Litigation. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed beginning in June 2014 in the California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include FireEye, Inc. (FireEye) and certain of its directors and officers. The complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in connection with the offering materials for the March 2014 offering of approximately $1.15 billion of FireEye common stock, assert claims under the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. On July 11, 2016, the court certified a class of purchasers of FireEye stock in the March 2014 offering. On September 8, 2016, the California Court of Appeal denied FireEye’s and the director and officer defendants’ petition for a writ of mandate appealing the Superior Court’s denial of their motion for judgment on the pleadings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On September 16, 2016, FireEye and the director and officer defendants appealed to the California Supreme Court. GS&Co. underwrote 2,100,000 shares for a total offering price of approximately $172 million.

TerraForm Global and SunEdison Securities Litigation. GS&Co. is among the underwriters, placement agents and initial purchasers named as defendants in several putative class actions and individual actions filed beginning in October 2015 relating to the $675 million July 2015 initial public offering of the common stock of TerraForm Global, Inc. (TerraForm Global), the August 2015 public offering of $650 million of SunEdison, Inc. (SunEdison) convertible preferred stock, the June 2015 private placement of $335 million of TerraForm Global Class D units, and the August 2015 Rule 144A offering of $810 million principal amount of TerraForm Global senior notes. SunEdison is TerraForm Global’s controlling shareholder and sponsor. On October 4, 2016, the cases then pending in federal court were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. An additional case is currently pending in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County. The defendants also include TerraForm Global, SunEdison and certain of their directors and officers. Defendants have moved to dismiss certain of the actions. The complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in connection with the offerings, assert claims under federal securities laws and, in certain actions, state laws, and seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, as well as rescission or rescissory damages. TerraForm Global sold 154,800 Class D units, representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $155 million, to the individual plaintiffs. GS&Co., as underwriter, sold 138,890 shares of SunEdison convertible preferred stock in the offering, representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $139 million and sold 2,340,000 shares of TerraForm Global common stock in the initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $35 million. GS&Co., as initial purchaser, sold approximately $49 million principal amount of TerraForm Global senior notes in the Rule 144A offering. On April 21, 2016, SunEdison filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Cobalt International Energy Securities Litigation. Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), certain of its officers and directors (including employees of affiliates of Group Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), affiliates of shareholders of Cobalt (including Group Inc.) and underwriters (including GS&Co.) for certain offerings of Cobalt’s securities are defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 1, 2015, asserts claims under the federal securities laws, seeks compensatory and rescissory damages in unspecified amounts and alleges material misstatements and omissions concerning Cobalt in connection with a $1.67 billion February 2012 offering of Cobalt common stock, a $1.38 billion December 2012 offering of Cobalt’s convertible notes, a $1.00 billion January 2013 offering of Cobalt’s common stock, a $1.33 billion May 2013 offering of Cobalt’s common stock, and a $1.30 billion May 2014 offering of Cobalt’s convertible notes. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that, among others, Group Inc. and GS&Co. are liable as controlling persons with respect to all five offerings. The consolidated amended complaint also seeks damages from GS&Co. in connection with its acting as an underwriter of 14,430,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $465 million, $690 million principal amount of convertible notes, and approximately $508 million principal amount of convertible notes in the February 2012, December 2012 and May 2014 offerings, respectively, for an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.66 billion. On January 19, 2016, the court granted, with leave to replead, the underwriter defendants’ motions to dismiss as to claims by plaintiffs who purchased Cobalt securities after April 30, 2013, but denied the motions to dismiss in all other respects. Defendants’ ensuing motions to certify that order for an interlocutory appeal were denied on March 14, 2016.

Cobalt, certain of its officers and directors (including employees of affiliates of Group Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), certain shareholders of Cobalt (including funds affiliated with Group Inc.), and affiliates of these shareholders (including Group Inc.) are defendants in a putative shareholder derivative action filed on May 6, 2016 in Texas District Court, Harris County. As to the director and officer defendants (including employees of affiliates of Group Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), the petition alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties under state law by making materially false and misleading statements concerning Cobalt in disclosures filed in connection with a May 2013 common stock offering. As to the shareholder defendants and their affiliates (including Group Inc. and several affiliated funds), the petition also alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties by selling Cobalt securities in the May 2013 offering on the basis of inside information. The petition seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and disgorgement of proceeds from the sale of Cobalt common stock. Defendants moved to dismiss on July 8, 2016.

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.

Libya-Related Litigation. GSI is the defendant in an action filed on January 21, 2014 with the High Court of Justice in London by the Libyan Investment Authority (LIA), relating to nine derivative transactions between the plaintiff and GSI and seeking, among other things, rescission of the transactions and unspecified equitable compensation and damages exceeding $1 billion. On October 14, 2016, the court ruled in favor of GSI on all counts. In doing so, the court dismissed the LIA’s claims that the transactions were (i) the result of undue influence by GSI over an unsophisticated LIA, in part noting (a) that the LIA had ‘greatly exaggerated’ the extent to which its personnel were ‘naïve and unworldly’ and (b) the dozens of transactions and billions of dollars of investments that the LIA had entered into with other financial institutions, hedge funds and private equity firms, and (ii) unconscionable bargains, finding no grounds for concluding that the level of profits earned by GSI on the transactions was excessive.

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.

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 alleging that Group Inc. and GS&Co. have systematically discriminated against female employees in respect of compensation, promotion, assignments, mentoring 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 July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in part Group Inc.’s and GS&Co.’s motion to strike certain of plaintiffs’ class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group Inc.’s and GS&Co.’s motion to strike plaintiffs’ class allegations in their entirety as premature. On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the named plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an arbitration agreement with the firm. On March 10, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the district judge assigned the remaining plaintiffs’ May 2014 motion for class certification recommended that the motion be denied in all respects. On August 3, 2015, the magistrate judge denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of that recommendation and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to intervene two female individuals, one of whom was employed by the firm as of September 2010 and the other of whom ceased to be an employee of the firm subsequent to the magistrate judge’s decision. On June 6, 2016, the district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s decision on intervention. On September 28, 2015, and by a supplemental motion filed July 11, 2016 (after the second intervenor ceased to be an employee), the defendants moved to dismiss the claims of the intervenors for lack of standing and mootness.

Currencies-Related Litigation. GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 3, 2015 and most recently amended on July 15, 2016 on behalf of certain ERISA employee benefit plans. The claims brought against GS&Co. and Group Inc. generally allege that the defendants violated ERISA in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets, which caused losses to ERISA plans for which the defendants provided foreign exchange services or otherwise authorized the execution of foreign exchange services. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as restitution and disgorgement in an unspecified amount. By an order dated September 20, 2016, plaintiffs’ claims against GS&Co., Group Inc. and other defendants who have settled in another action relating to an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign currency exchange markets were dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiffs appealed on October 20, 2016.

GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 26, 2016 on behalf of putative indirect purchasers of foreign exchange instruments. The complaint generally alleges that defendants violated federal antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws and seeks injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount.

Group Inc., GS&Co. and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. are among the defendants named in putative class actions related to trading in foreign exchange markets, filed beginning in September 2015 in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada and the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of foreign exchange instruments traded in Canada. The complaints generally allege a conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and assert claims under Canada’s Competition Act and common law. The Ontario and Quebec complaints seek, among other things, compensatory damages in the amounts of 1 billion Canadian dollars and 100 million Canadian dollars, respectively, as well as restitution and 50 million Canadian dollars in punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages.

Municipal Securities Matters. GS&Co. (along with, in some cases, other financial services firms) is named by municipalities, municipal-owned entities, state-owned agencies or instrumentalities and non-profit entities in a number of FINRA arbitrations and federal court cases based on GS&Co.’s role as underwriter of the claimants’ issuances of an aggregate of approximately $1.11 billion of auction rate securities from 2001 through 2007 and as a broker-dealer with respect to auctions for these securities. The claimants generally allege that GS&Co. failed to disclose that it had a practice of placing cover bids in auctions, and/or failed to inform the claimant of the deterioration of the auction rate market beginning in the fall of 2007, and that, as a result, the claimant was forced to engage in a series of expensive refinancing and conversion transactions after the failure of the auction market in February 2008. Certain claimants also allege that GS&Co. advised them to enter into or continue with interest rate swaps in connection with their auction rate securities issuances, causing them to incur additional losses. The claims include breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, violations of the Exchange Act and state securities laws, and breach of duties under the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board and the NASD. Certain of the arbitrations have been enjoined in accordance with the exclusive forum selection clauses in the transaction documents. In addition, GS&Co. has filed motions with the FINRA Panels to dismiss the arbitrations, one of which has been granted, and has filed motions to dismiss three of the proceedings pending in federal court, one of which was granted but has been appealed and one of which was denied. GS&Co. has also reached settlements or settlements in principle in nine other actions and one other action was voluntarily dismissed.

U.S. Treasury Securities-Related 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. The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated the federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities, as well as related futures and options, and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages in an unspecified amount and restitution.

Commodities-Related Litigation. GS&Co., GSI, J. Aron & Company and 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 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. On August 29, 2014, the court granted the Goldman Sachs defendants’ motion to dismiss. Certain plaintiffs appealed on September 24, 2014, and the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision on August 9, 2016. The remaining plaintiffs filed amended complaints on April 9, 2015, and on October 5, 2016, the district court dismissed their claims based on the Second Circuit’s decision.

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 July 27, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege 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 September 21, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss.

Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Litigation. Group Inc., GS&Co., GSI, GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. (GSFM) are among the defendants named in putative antitrust class actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, filed beginning in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint filed on September 9, 2016 generally alleges a conspiracy among the defendants since at least January 1, 2007 to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount.

Group Inc., GS&Co., GSI, GS Bank USA and GSFM are among the defendants named in antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in April 2016 by two operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their affiliates. These actions have been consolidated with the class action described above for pretrial proceedings. The consolidated amended complaint filed on September 9, 2016 generally asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude trading of interest rate swaps on the plaintiffs’ respective swap execution facilities and seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount.

ISDAFIX-Related Litigation. Group Inc. is among the defendants named in several putative class actions relating to trading in interest rate derivatives, filed beginning in September 2014 and most recently amended on February 12, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs assert claims under the federal antitrust laws and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the ISDAFIX benchmark and seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On March 28, 2016, the district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the antitrust, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment claims, but dismissed the tortious interference and implied covenant of good faith claims with prejudice.

Compensation-Related Litigation. On June 9, 2015, Group Inc. and certain of its current and former directors were named as defendants in a purported shareholder derivative action in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The derivative complaint alleges that excessive compensation has been paid to such directors since 2012. The derivative complaint includes allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment and seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, disgorgement of director compensation and reform of the firm’s stock incentive plan. On September 30, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss.

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 2008 financial crisis;

•

The public offering process;

•

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, including those related to 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a sovereign wealth fund in Malaysia, 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;

•

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, including compliance with the SEC’s short sale rule, 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, securities lending practices, 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 and the ISDAFIX benchmark rates;

•

Compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act;

•

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.

Goldman Sachs is cooperating with all such governmental and regulatory investigations and reviews.