XML 42 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.24.1.u1
Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies
 3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2024
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies
Commitments
 Years to Maturity at March 31, 2024 
$ in millionsLess than 11-33-5Over 5Total
Lending:
Corporate$15,091 $35,055 $58,740 $4,230 $113,116 
Secured lending facilities8,167 6,891 4,319 4,465 23,842 
Commercial and Residential real estate214 21 14 481 730 
Securities-based lending and Other16,013 3,165 377 443 19,998 
Forward-starting secured financing receivables1
88,826 — — — 88,826 
Central counterparty300 — — 12,861 13,161 
Investment activities1,709 120 73 524 2,426 
Letters of credit and other financial guarantees68 15 — 7 90 
Total$130,388 $45,267 $63,523 $23,011 $262,189 
Lending commitments participated to third parties$8,348 
1.Forward-starting secured financing receivables are generally settled within three business days.
Since commitments associated with these instruments may expire unused, the amounts shown do not necessarily reflect the actual future cash funding requirements.
For a further description of these commitments, refer to Note 14 to the financial statements in the 2023 Form 10-K.
Guarantees
 At March 31, 2024
Maximum Potential Payout/Notional of Obligations by Years to Maturity
Carrying Amount Asset (Liability)
$ in millionsLess than 11-33-5Over 5
Non-credit derivatives1
$1,576,169 $748,245 $155,224 $458,033 $(33,732)
Standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees issued2,3
1,726 1,152 1,236 2,561 2 
Liquidity facilities2,193 — — — (1)
Whole loan sales guarantees2 85 — 23,074 — 
Securitization representations and warranties4
— — — 82,349 (3)
General partner guarantees412 32 133 28 (87)
Client clearing guarantees208 — — — — 
1.The carrying amounts of derivative contracts that meet the accounting definition of a guarantee are shown on a gross basis. For further information on derivatives contracts, see Note 6.
2.These amounts include certain issued standby letters of credit participated to third parties, totaling $0.7 billion of notional and collateral/recourse, due to the nature of the Firm’s obligations under these arrangements.
3.As of March 31, 2024, the carrying amount of standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees issued includes an allowance for credit losses of $72 million.
4.Related to commercial and residential mortgage securitizations.
The Firm has obligations under certain guarantee arrangements, including contracts and indemnification agreements, that contingently require the Firm to make payments to the guaranteed party based on changes in an underlying measure (such as an interest or foreign exchange rate, security or commodity price, an index, or the occurrence or non-occurrence of a specified event) related to an asset, liability or equity security of a guaranteed party. Also included as guarantees are contracts that contingently require the Firm to make payments to the guaranteed party based on another entity’s failure to perform under an agreement, as well as indirect guarantees of the indebtedness of others.
For more information on the nature of the obligations and related business activities for our guarantees, see Note 14 to the financial statements in the 2023 Form 10-K.
Other Guarantees and Indemnities
In the normal course of business, the Firm provides guarantees and indemnifications in a variety of transactions. These provisions generally are standard contractual terms. Certain of these guarantees and indemnifications related to indemnities, exchange and clearinghouse member guarantees and merger and acquisition guarantees are described in Note 14 to the financial statements in the 2023 Form 10-K.
In addition, in the ordinary course of business, the Firm guarantees the debt and/or certain trading obligations (including obligations associated with derivatives, foreign exchange contracts and the settlement of physical commodities) of certain subsidiaries. These guarantees generally are entity or product specific and are required by investors or trading counterparties. The activities of the Firm’s subsidiaries covered by these guarantees (including any related debt or trading obligations) are included in the financial statements.
Finance Subsidiary
The Parent Company fully and unconditionally guarantees the securities issued by Morgan Stanley Finance LLC, a wholly owned finance subsidiary. No other subsidiary of the Parent Company guarantees these securities.
Contingencies
Legal
In addition to the matters described below, in the normal course of business, the Firm has been named, from time to time, as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, arising in connection with its activities as a global diversified financial services institution. Certain of the actual or threatened legal actions include claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. In some cases, the third-party entities that are, or would otherwise be, the primary defendants in such cases are bankrupt, in financial distress, or may not honor applicable indemnification obligations. These actions have included, but are not limited to, antitrust claims, claims under various false claims act statutes, and matters arising from our sales and trading businesses and our activities in the capital markets.
The Firm is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental or other regulatory agencies regarding the Firm’s business, and involving, among other matters, sales, trading, financing, prime brokerage, market-making activities, investment banking advisory services, capital markets activities, financial products or offerings sponsored, underwritten or sold by the Firm, wealth and investment management services, and accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, disgorgement, restitution, forfeiture, injunctions, limitations on our ability to conduct certain business, or other relief.
The Firm contests liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in each pending matter. Where available information indicates that it is probable a liability had been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the Firm can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss or the range of loss, the Firm accrues an estimated loss by a charge to
income, including with respect to certain of the individual proceedings or investigations described below.
Three Months Ended
March 31,
$ in millions20242023
Legal expenses$(26)$151 
The Firm’s legal expenses can, and may in the future, fluctuate from period to period, given the current environment regarding government or regulatory agency investigations and private litigation affecting global financial services firms, including the Firm.
In many legal proceedings and investigations, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or reasonably possible, or to estimate the amount of any loss. In addition, even where the Firm has determined that a loss is probable or reasonably possible or an exposure to loss or range of loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued with respect to a previously recognized loss contingency, the Firm may be unable to reasonably estimate the amount of the loss or range of loss. It is particularly difficult to determine if a loss is probable or reasonably possible, or to estimate the amount of loss, where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government entities seek substantial or indeterminate damages, restitution, forfeiture, disgorgement or penalties. Numerous issues may need to be resolved in an investigation or proceeding before a determination can be made that a loss or additional loss (or range of loss or range of additional loss) is probable or reasonably possible, or to estimate the amount of loss, including through potentially lengthy discovery or determination of important factual matters, determination of issues related to class certification, the calculation of damages or other relief, and consideration of novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings or investigations in question.

The Firm has identified below any individual proceedings or investigations where the Firm believes a material loss to be reasonably possible. In certain legal proceedings in which the Firm has determined that a material loss is reasonably possible, the Firm is unable to reasonably estimate the loss or range of loss. There are other matters in which the Firm has determined a loss or range of loss to be reasonably possible, but the Firm does not believe, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that such losses could have a material adverse effect on the Firm’s financial statements as a whole, although the outcome of such proceedings or investigations may significantly impact the Firm’s business or results of operations for any particular reporting period, or cause significant reputational harm.
While the Firm has identified below certain proceedings or investigations that the Firm believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not
yet been asserted or those where potential losses have not yet been determined to be probable or reasonably possible.
Antitrust Related Matters
The Firm and other financial institutions are responding to a number of governmental investigations and civil litigation matters related to allegations of anticompetitive conduct in various aspects of the financial services industry, including the matters described below.

Beginning in February of 2016, the Firm was named as a defendant in multiple purported antitrust class actions now consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) styled In Re: Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Firm, together with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. and New York state antitrust laws from 2008 through December of 2016 in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of electronic exchange-based platforms for interest rate swaps trading. Complaints were filed both on behalf of a purported class of investors who purchased interest rate swaps from defendants, as well as on behalf of three operators of swap execution facilities that allegedly were thwarted by the defendants in their efforts to develop such platforms. The consolidated complaints seek, among other relief, certification of the investor class of plaintiffs and treble damages. On July 28, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaints. On December 15, 2023, the court denied the class plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On December 29, 2023, the class plaintiffs petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for leave to appeal that decision. On February 28, 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the class claims.

In August of 2017, the Firm was named as a defendant in a purported antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the SDNY styled Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Firm, together with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws and New York state law in connection with their alleged efforts to prevent the development of electronic exchange-based platforms for securities lending. The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class of borrowers and lenders who entered into stock loan transactions with the defendants. The class action complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages. On September 27, 2018, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the class action complaint. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was referred by the District Court to a magistrate judge who, on June 30, 2022, issued a report and recommendation that the District Court certify a class. On May 20, 2023, the Firm reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. On
September 1, 2023, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

The Firm is a defendant in three antitrust class action complaints which have been consolidated into one proceeding in the United States District Court for the SDNY under the caption City of Philadelphia, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Firm, along with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws and relevant state laws in connection with alleged efforts to artificially inflate interest rates for Variable Rate Demand Obligations (“VRDO”). Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, treble damages. The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a class of municipal issuers of VRDO for which defendants served as remarketing agent. On November 2, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, dismissing state law claims, but denying dismissal of the U.S. antitrust claims. On September 21, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On October 5, 2023, defendants petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for leave to appeal that decision, which was granted on February 5, 2024.
Qui Tam Matters

The Firm and other financial institutions are defending against qui tam litigations brought under various state false claims statutes, including the matter described below. Such matters may involve the same types of claims pursued in multiple jurisdictions and may include claims for treble damages.

On August 18, 2009, Relators Roger Hayes and C. Talbot Heppenstall, Jr., filed a qui tam action in New Jersey state court styled State of New Jersey ex. rel. Hayes v. Bank of America Corp., et al. The complaint, filed under seal pursuant to the New Jersey False Claims Act, alleged that the Firm and several other underwriters of municipal bonds had defrauded New Jersey issuers by misrepresenting that they would achieve the best price or lowest cost of capital in connection with certain municipal bond issuances. On March 17, 2016, the court entered an order unsealing the complaint. On November 17, 2017, Relators filed an amended complaint to allege the Firm mispriced certain bonds issued in twenty-three bond offerings between 2008 and 2017, having a total par amount of $6.9 billion. The complaint seeks, among other relief, treble damages. On February 22, 2018, the Firm moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on July 17, 2018, the court denied the Firm’s motion. On October 13, 2021, following a series of voluntary and involuntary dismissals, Relators limited their claims to certain bonds issued in five offerings the Firm underwrote between 2008 and 2011, having a total par amount of $3.9 billion. On August 22, 2023, the Firm reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. The final agreement became effective on January 30, 2024.
European Matters
Tax
In matters styled Case number 15/3637 and Case number 15/4353, the Dutch Tax Authority (“Dutch Authority”) is challenging in the Dutch courts the prior set-off by the Firm of approximately €124 million (approximately $134 million) plus accrued interest of withholding tax credits against the Firm’s corporation tax liabilities for the tax years 2007 to 2012. The Dutch Authority alleges that the Firm was not entitled to receive the withholding tax credits on the basis, inter alia, that a Firm subsidiary did not hold legal title to certain securities subject to withholding tax on the relevant dates. The Dutch Authority has also alleged that the Firm failed to provide certain information to the Dutch Authority and to keep adequate books and records. On April 26, 2018, the District Court in Amsterdam issued a decision dismissing the Dutch Authority’s claims with respect to certain of the tax years in dispute. On May 12, 2020, the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam granted the Dutch Authority's appeal in matters re-styled Case number 18/00318 and Case number 18/00319. On January 19, 2024, the Dutch High Court granted the Firm’s appeal in matters re-styled Case number 20/01884 and referred the case to the Court of Appeal in The Hague.
On June 22, 2021, Dutch criminal authorities sought various documents in connection with an investigation of the Firm related to the civil claims asserted by the Dutch Authority concerning the accuracy of the Firm subsidiary’s tax returns and the maintenance of its books and records for 2007 to 2012. The Dutch criminal authorities have requested additional information, and the Firm is continuing to respond to them in connection with their ongoing investigation.
Danish Underwriting Matter
On October 5, 2017, various institutional investors filed a claim against the Firm and another bank in a matter now styled Case number B-803-18 (previously BS 99-6998/2017), in the City Court of Copenhagen, Denmark concerning their roles as underwriters of the initial public offering (“IPO”) in March 2014 of the Danish company OW Bunker A/S. The claim seeks damages of approximately DKK529 million (approximately $77 million) plus interest in respect of alleged losses arising from investing in shares in OW Bunker, which entered into bankruptcy in November 2014. Separately, on November 29, 2017, another group of institutional investors joined the Firm and another bank as defendants to pending proceedings in the High Court of Eastern Denmark against various other parties involved in the IPO in a matter styled Case number B-2073-16. The claim brought against the Firm and the other bank has been given its own Case number B-2564-17. The investors claim damages of approximately DKK767 million (approximately $111 million) plus interest from the Firm and the other bank on a joint and several basis with the Defendants to these proceedings. Both claims are based on alleged prospectus liability; the second claim also
alleges professional liability of banks acting as financial intermediaries. On June 8, 2018, the City Court of Copenhagen, Denmark ordered that the matters now styled Case number B-803-18, Case number B-2073-16, and Case number B-2564-17 be heard together before the High Court of Eastern Denmark. On June 29, 2018, the Firm filed its defense to the matter now styled Case number B-2564-17. On February 4, 2019, the Firm filed its defense to the matter now styled Case number B-803-18.
U.K. Government Bond Matter

The Firm is engaging with the UK Competition and Markets Authority in connection with its investigation of suspected anti-competitive arrangements in the financial services sector, specifically regarding the Firm's activities concerning certain liquid fixed income products between 2009 and 2012. On May 24, 2023, the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority issued a Statement of Objections setting out its provisional findings that the Firm had breached U.K. competition law by sharing competitively sensitive information in connection with gilts and gilt asset swaps between 2009 and 2012. The Firm is contesting the provisional findings. Separately, on June 16, 2023, the Firm was named as a defendant in a purported antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the SDNY styled Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, et al., alleging, inter alia, that the Firm, together with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws in connection with their alleged effort to fix prices of gilts traded in the United States between 2009 and 2013. On September 28, 2023, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint, which has been fully briefed.
Other
On August 13, 2021, the plaintiff in Camelot Event Driven Fund, a Series of Frank Funds Trust v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al. filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County ("Supreme Court of NY") a purported class action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws against ViacomCBS (“Viacom”), certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters, including the Firm, of two March 2021 Viacom offerings: a $1.7 billion Viacom Class B Common Stock offering and a $1 billion offering of 5.75% Series A Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock (collectively, the “Offerings”). The complaint alleges, inter alia, that the Viacom offering documents for both issuances contained material omissions because they did not disclose that certain of the underwriters, including the Firm, had prime brokerage relationships and/or served as counterparties to certain derivative transactions with Archegos Capital Management LP, (“Archegos”), a fund with significant exposure to Viacom securities across multiple prime brokers. The complaint, which seeks, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, alleges that the offering documents did not adequately disclose the risks associated with Archegos’s concentrated Viacom positions at
the various prime brokers, including that the unwind of those positions could have a deleterious impact on the stock price of Viacom. On November 5, 2021, the complaint was amended to add allegations that defendants failed to disclose that certain underwriters, including the Firm, had intended to unwind Archegos’s Viacom positions while simultaneously distributing the Offerings. On February 6, 2023, the court issued a decision denying the motions to dismiss as to the Firm and the other underwriters, but granted the motion to dismiss as to Viacom and the Viacom individual defendants. On February 15, 2023, the underwriters, including the Firm, filed their notices of appeal of the denial of their motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2023, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of Viacom and the individual Viacom defendants. On April 4, 2024, the Appellate Division upheld the lower court’s decision as to the Firm and other underwriter defendants that had prime brokerage relationships and/or served as counterparties to certain derivative transactions with Archegos, dismissed the remaining underwriters, and upheld the dismissal of Viacom and its officers and directors. On January 4, 2024, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. On February 14, 2024, the defendants filed their notice of appeal of the court’s grant of class certification.
On May 17, 2013, the plaintiff in IKB International S.A. in Liquidation, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. filed a complaint against the Firm and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Firm to plaintiffs was approximately $133 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Firm for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On October 29, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Firm’s motion to dismiss. All claims regarding four certificates were dismissed. After these dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Firm or sold to plaintiffs by the Firm was approximately $116 million. On August 11, 2016, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s order denying in part the Firm’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 15, 2022, the Firm filed a motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims. On March 1, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the Firm’s motion for summary judgment, narrowing the alleged misrepresentations at issue in the case. On March 26, 2024, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment order.