_____________

(1) Carrying amounts of derivative contracts are shown on a gross basis prior to cash collateral or counterparty netting. For further information on derivative contracts, see Note 4.

(2) These amounts include certain standby letters of credit participated to third parties totaling $0.7 billion due to the nature of the Company’s obligations under these arrangements.

For a further description of these guarantees, refer to Note 13 to the Company’s consolidated financial statements in the 2014 Form 10-K.

The Company has obligations under certain guarantee arrangements, including contracts and indemnification agreements, that contingently require a guarantor 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 guarantor 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. The Company’s use of guarantees is described in Note 13 to the Company’s consolidated financial statements in the 2014 Form 10-K.

Other Guarantees and Indemnities.

In the normal course of business, the Company provides guarantees and indemnifications in a variety of commercial transactions. These provisions generally are standard contractual terms. Certain of these guarantees and indemnifications related to trust preferred securities, indemnities, exchange/clearinghouse member guarantees and merger and acquisition guarantees are described in Note 13 to the Company’s consolidated financial statements in the 2014 Form 10-K.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company 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 Company’s subsidiaries covered by these guarantees (including any related debt or trading obligations) are included in the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements.

Contingencies.

Legal. In the normal course of business, the Company 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 entities that would otherwise be the primary defendants in such cases are bankrupt or are in financial distress. These actions have included, but are not limited to, residential mortgage and credit crisis related matters. Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies has increased materially in the financial services industry. As a result, the Company expects that it may become the subject of increased claims for damages and other relief and, while the Company has identified below any individual proceedings where the Company believes a material loss to be reasonably possible and reasonably estimable, there can be no assurance that material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are not yet determined to be probable or possible and reasonably estimable losses.

The Company 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 consolidated financial statements and the Company can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss, the Company accrues the estimated loss by a charge to income. The Company expects future litigation accruals in general to continue to be elevated and the changes in accruals from period to period may fluctuate significantly, given the current environment regarding government investigations and private litigation affecting global financial services firms, including the Company.

The Company incurred legal expenses of $320 million and $555 million in the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2015, respectively, and $66 million and $256 million in the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2014, respectively, within Other non-interest expenses.

In many proceedings and investigations, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. In addition, even where a loss is possible or an exposure to loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued with respect to a previously recognized loss contingency, it is not always possible to reasonably estimate the size of the possible loss or range of loss.

For certain legal proceedings and investigations, the Company cannot reasonably estimate such losses, particularly for proceedings and investigations where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or governmental entities seek substantial or indeterminate damages, restitution, disgorgement or penalties. Numerous issues may need to be resolved, including through potentially lengthy discovery and determination of important factual matters, determination of issues related to class certification and the calculation of damages or other relief, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings or investigations in question, before a loss or additional loss or range of loss or additional loss can be reasonably estimated for a proceeding or investigation.

For certain other legal proceedings and investigations, the Company can estimate reasonably possible losses, additional losses, ranges of loss or ranges of additional loss in excess of amounts accrued, but does not believe, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that such losses will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements as a whole, other than the matters referred to in the following paragraphs.

On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank (“CDIB”) filed a complaint against the Company, styled China Development Industrial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al., which is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (“Supreme Court of NY”). The complaint relates to a $275 million credit default swap referencing the super senior portion of the STACK 2006-1 CDO. The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud, fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment and alleges that the Company misrepresented the risks of the STACK 2006-1 CDO to CDIB, and that the Company knew that the assets backing the CDO were of poor quality when it entered into the credit default swap with CDIB. The complaint seeks compensatory damages related to the approximately $228 million that CDIB alleges it has already lost under the credit default swap, rescission of CDIB’s obligation to pay an additional $12 million, punitive damages, equitable relief, fees and costs. On February 28, 2011, the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Based on currently available information, the Company believes it could incur a loss of up to approximately $240 million plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs.

On April 25, 2012, The Prudential Insurance Company of America and certain affiliates filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey, styled The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. On October 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiffs 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 Company was approximately $1.073 billion. The amended complaint raises claims under the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, as well as common law claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, equitable fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and violations of the New Jersey RICO statute, and includes a claim for treble damages. On April 26, 2013, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. On January 2, 2015, the court denied defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint. At September 25, 2015, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $581 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, the Company believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $581 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against the Company, or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. The Company may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On August 7, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-4SL (together, the “Trust”) against the Company. The matter is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4SL, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $303 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreement underlying the transaction, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On August 8, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. On September 3, 2014, the Company filed its answer to the complaint. Based on currently available information, the Company believes that it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately $149 million, the total original unpaid balance of the mortgage loans for which the Company received repurchase demands that it did not repurchase, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs, but plaintiff is seeking to expand the number of loans at issue and the possible range of loss could increase.

On August 8, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-14SL, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-14SL, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-4SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-4SL against the Company. The complaint is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-14SL, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trusts, which had original principal balances of approximately $354 million and $305 million respectively, breached various representations and warranties. On August 16, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 17, 2013, the Company filed its answer to the complaint. On September 26, 2013, and October 7, 2013, the Company and the plaintiff, respectively, filed notices of appeal with respect to the court’s August 16, 2013 decision. The plaintiff is seeking, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreements underlying the transactions, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. Based on currently available information, the Company believes that it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately $527 million, the total original unpaid balance of the mortgage loans for which the Company received repurchase demands that it did not repurchase, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs, but plaintiff is seeking to expand the number of loans at issue and the possible range of loss could increase.

On September 28, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX against the Company styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-13ARX v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., pending in the Supreme Court of NY. U.S. Bank filed an amended complaint on January 17, 2013, which asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $609 million, breached various representations and warranties. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, declaratory judgment relief, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. On September 25, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. Based on currently available information, the Company believes that it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately $170 million, the total original unpaid balance of the mortgage loans for which the Company received repurchase demands that it did not repurchase, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs, but plaintiff is seeking to expand the number of loans at issue and the possible range of loss could increase.

On January 10, 2013, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-10SL against the Company. The complaint is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10SL, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $300 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an order requiring the Company to comply with the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, and interest. On August 8, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. On September 3, 2014, the Company filed its answer to the complaint. Based on currently available information, the Company believes that it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately $197 million, the total original unpaid balance of the mortgage loans for which the Company received repurchase demands that it did not repurchase, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs, but plaintiff is seeking to expand the number of loans at issue and the possible range of loss could increase.

On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs in Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. filed a complaint against the Company, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs 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 Company to plaintiff currently at issue in this action was approximately $644 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On September 12, 2014, the Company filed a notice of appeal from the June 10, 2014 denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On January 12, 2015, the Company filed an amended answer to the complaint. At September 25, 2015, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $277 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of approximately $81 million. Based on currently available information, the Company believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $277 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against the Company, or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. The Company may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses.

On September 23, 2013, the plaintiff in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”). The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts in the sale to the plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates issued by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiffs was approximately $417 million. The amended complaint, filed November 17, 2014, alleges causes of action against the Company for violations of the Texas Securities Act and the Illinois Securities Law of 1953 and seeks, among other things, rescissory and compensatory damages. On December 15, 2014, defendants answered the amended complaint. At September 25, 2015, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $194 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of $31 million. Based on currently available information, the Company believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $194 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against the Company, or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. The Company may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On April 28, 2014, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee for Morgan Stanley Structured Trust I 2007-1, filed a complaint against the Company. The matter is styled Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $735 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages, interest and costs. On April 3, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. On April 17, 2015, the Company filed its answer to the complaint. Based on currently available information, the Company believes that it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately $292 million, the total original unpaid balance of the mortgage loans for which the Company received repurchase demands that it did not repurchase, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs, but plaintiff is seeking to expand the number of loans at issue and the possible range of loss could increase.

On July 8, 2013, U.S. Bank National Association, in its capacity as trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX, filed a complaint against the Company. The matter is styled U.S. Bank National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee of the Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX (MSM 2007-2AX) v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as Successor-by-Merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. and GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $650 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages and interest. On August 22, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on November 24, 2014. The Company filed its answer on December 12, 2014. Based on currently available information, the Company believes that it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately $240 million, the total original unpaid balance of the mortgage loans for which the Company received repurchase demands that it did not repurchase, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs, but plaintiff is seeking to expand the number of loans at issue and the possible range of loss could increase.

On January 23, 2015, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee for Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-NC4, filed a complaint against the Company. The matter is styled Deutsche Bank National Trust Company solely in its capacity as Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-NC4 v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC as Successor-by-Merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.05 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, compensatory, consequential, rescissory, equitable and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and other related expenses, and interest. On October 20, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. Based on currently available information, the Company believes that it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately $277 million, the total original unpaid balance of the mortgage loans for which the Company received repurchase demands from a certificate holder and a monoline insurer that the Company did not repurchase, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs, but plaintiff is seeking to expand the number of loans at issue and the possible range of loss could increase.