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 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 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 March 2017 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 $1.8 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 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 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 mortgage pass-through certificates and other mortgage-related products (including Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company and the FDIC (as receiver for Guaranty Bank)) 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 $261 million (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.

The firm has received subpoenas or requests for information from, and is engaged in discussions with, certain regulators and law enforcement agencies with which it has not entered into settlement agreements as part of inquiries or investigations relating to mortgage-related matters.

SunEdison Bankruptcy Litigation. GS Bank USA is among the defendants named in an adversary proceeding filed on October 20, 2016 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York arising from the bankruptcy of SunEdison, Inc. (SunEdison). The complaint alleges that amounts transferred and liens granted by SunEdison to its secured creditors, including GS Bank USA, prior to filing for bankruptcy were fraudulent and preferential transfers. Plaintiffs seek to recoup those transfers, avoid those liens and disallow certain claims of the secured creditors. GS Bank USA received pre-filing payments from SunEdison aggregating $169 million that are subject to the recoupment claims and holds $75 million of secured debt subject to the avoidance and disallowance claims. Defendants moved to dismiss on November 22, 2016.

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 September 26, 2016, on behalf of putative indirect purchasers of foreign exchange instruments. The amended complaint, filed on March 24, 2017, generally alleges a conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws and seeks injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount.

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.

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 the 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 second consolidated amended complaint, filed on March 15, 2017, 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, and that the shareholder affiliates (including Group Inc.) are liable for the sale of Cobalt common stock on the basis of inside information. 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. On November 3, 2016, plaintiffs moved for class certification. On April 14, 2017, the shareholder affiliates moved to dismiss the claim alleging sales based on inside information.

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 putative shareholder derivative actions filed on May 6, 2016 and November 29, 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 petitions generally allege that they breached their fiduciary duties under state law by making materially false and misleading statements concerning Cobalt. As to the shareholder defendants and their affiliates (including Group Inc. and several affiliated funds), the original petition also alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties by selling Cobalt securities in the common stock offerings described above on the basis of inside information. The petitions seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and disgorgement of proceeds from the sale of Cobalt common stock. On March 6, 2017, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the May petition as to the shareholder defendants and their affiliates (including Group Inc. and its affiliated funds). Defendants moved to dismiss the November petition on January 30, 2017.

Adeptus Health Securities Litigation. GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed beginning in October 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Adeptus Health Inc. (Adeptus), its sponsor, and certain directors and officers of Adeptus. As to the underwriters, the complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in connection with the $124 million June 2014 initial public offering, the $154 million May 2015 secondary equity offering, the $411 million July 2015 secondary equity offering, and the $175 million June 2016 secondary equity offering. The complaints assert claims under the federal securities laws and seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages. GS&Co. underwrote 1.69 million shares of common stock in the June 2014 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $37 million, 962,378 shares of common stock in the May 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $61 million, 1.76 million shares of common stock in the July 2015 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $184 million, and all the shares of common stock in the June 2016 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $175 million. On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

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.

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 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. Beginning in October 2016, the pending cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 16, 2017, certain plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint relating to TerraForm Global’s initial public offering, and, on March 17, 2017, certain plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint relating to SunEdison’s convertible preferred stock offering. The defendants also include TerraForm Global, SunEdison and certain of their directors and officers. 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.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Securities Litigation. GS&Co. and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. (GS Canada) are among the underwriters and initial purchasers named as defendants in a putative class action filed on March 2, 2016 in the Superior Court of Quebec, Canada. In addition to the underwriters and initial purchasers, the defendants include Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Valeant), certain directors and officers of Valeant and Valeant’s auditor. As to GS&Co. and GS Canada, the complaint generally alleges misstatements and omissions in connection with the offering materials for the June 2013 public offering of $2.3 billion of common stock, the June 2013 Rule 144A offering of $3.2 billion principal amount of senior notes, and the November 2013 Rule 144A offering of $900 million principal amount of senior notes. The complaint asserts claims under the Quebec Securities Act and the Civil Code of Quebec and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount. The parties have agreed to limit the proposed class by excluding U.S. purchasers in the offerings.

GS&Co. is among the initial purchasers named as defendants in a putative class action filed on June 24, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In addition to the initial purchasers for Valeant’s Rule 144A debt offerings, the defendants include Valeant, certain directors and officers of Valeant, Valeant’s auditor and the underwriters for a common stock offering in which GS&Co. did not participate. As to GS&Co., the complaint generally alleges misstatements and omissions in connection with the June 2013 and November 2013 Rule 144A offerings described above, asserts claims under the federal securities laws, and seeks rescission and compensatory damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss on September 13, 2016.

GS&Co. and GS Canada, as sole underwriters, sold 27,058,824 shares of common stock in the June 2013 offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $2.3 billion and, as initial purchasers, sold approximately $1.3 billion and $293 million in principal amount of senior notes in the June 2013 and November 2013 Rule 144A offerings, respectively.

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 second consolidated amended complaint filed on December 9, 2016 generally alleges a conspiracy among the defendants since at least January 1, 2007 to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss on January 20, 2017.

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 second consolidated amended complaint filed on December 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 seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss on January 20, 2017.

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 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 March 28, 2017, the district court dismissed the antitrust claims but permitted certain of the Commodity Exchange Act claims to proceed against certain defendants, including GSI.

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 April 12, 2017, the district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of the intervenors for lack of standing and mootness.

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.

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, as well as the firm’s supervision and controls relating to such 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;

•

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.

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