Legal and Regulatory Matters:

In the ordinary course of business, we and our subsidiaries are involved in disputes, litigation, and governmental or regulatory inquiries and investigations, both pending and threatened. These matters, if resolved adversely against us or settled, may result in monetary damages, fines and penalties or require changes in our business practices. The resolution or settlement of these matters is inherently difficult to predict. Based on our assessment of these pending matters, we do not believe that the amount of any judgment, settlement or other action arising from any pending matter is likely to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition. However, an adverse outcome in certain of the matters described below could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations for the period in which such matter is resolved, or an accrual is determined to be required on our consolidated financial condition, or on our reputation.

We evaluate our needs for accruals of loss contingencies related to legal proceedings on a case-by-case basis. When we have a liability that we deem probable and that we deem can be reasonably estimated as of the date of our consolidated financial statements, we accrue for our estimate of the loss. We also consider a loss probable and establish an accrual when we make, or intend to make, an offer of settlement. Once established, an accrual is subject to subsequent adjustment as a result of additional information. The resolution of proceedings and the reasonably estimable loss (or range thereof) are inherently difficult to predict, especially in the early stages of proceedings. Even if a loss is probable, due to many complex factors, such as speed of discovery and the timing of court decisions or rulings, a loss or range of loss might not be reasonably estimated until the later stages of the proceeding.

As of June 30, 2015, our aggregate accruals for legal loss contingencies and regulatory matters totaled approximately $611 million. To the extent that we have established accruals in our consolidated statement of condition for probable loss contingencies, such accruals may not be sufficient to cover our ultimate financial exposure associated with any settlements or judgments. We may be subject to proceedings in the future that, if adversely resolved, would have a material adverse effect on our businesses or on our future consolidated financial statements. Except where otherwise noted below, we have not established accruals with respect to the claims discussed and do not believe that potential exposure is probable and can be reasonably estimated.

The following discussion provides information with respect to significant legal and regulatory matters.

Securities Finance

Two related participants in our agency securities lending program have brought suit against us challenging actions taken by us in response to their withdrawal from the program. We believe that certain withdrawals by these participants were inconsistent with the redemption policy applicable to the agency lending collateral pools and, consequently, redeemed their remaining interests through an in-kind distribution that reflected the assets these participants would have received had they acted in accordance with the collateral pools' redemption policy. In taking these actions, we believe that we acted in the best interests of all participants in the collateral pools. The two participants have asserted damages of more than $125 million, plus prejudgment interest and other enhanced damages, an amount that plaintiffs attribute to alleged deficiencies in the methodology that State Street used to construct the in-kind distribution and alleged errors in the pricing of the securities that plaintiffs received on or about August 2009. While management does not believe that such difference is an appropriate measure of damages, we have been informed that the participants liquidated these securities in June 2013, and we estimate the loss on those sales to be approximately $11 million. As of June 30, 2015, we had $10 million accrued in connection with this matter.

Foreign Exchange

We offer our custody clients and their investment managers the option to route foreign exchange transactions to our foreign exchange desk through our asset servicing operation. We record as revenue an amount approximately equal to the difference between the rates we set for those trades and indicative interbank market rates at the time of settlement of the trade.

As discussed more fully below, claims have been asserted on behalf of certain current and former custody clients, and future claims may be asserted, alleging that our indirect foreign exchange rates (including the differences between those rates and indicative interbank market rates at the time we executed the trades) were not adequately disclosed or were otherwise improper, and seeking to recover, among other things, the full amount of the revenue we obtained from our indirect foreign exchange trading with them.

In October 2009, the Attorney General of the State of California commenced an action under the California False Claims Act and California Business and Professional Code related to services State Street provides to California state pension plans. The California Attorney General asserts that the pricing of certain foreign exchange trades for these pension plans was governed by the custody contracts for these plans and that our pricing was not consistent with the terms of those contracts and related disclosures to the plans, and that, as a result, State Street made false claims and engaged in unfair competition. The Attorney General asserts actual damages of approximately $100 million for periods from 2001 to 2009 and seeks additional penalties, including treble damages. This action is in the discovery phase.

We provide custody services to and engage in principal foreign exchange trading with government pension plans in other jurisdictions. Since the commencement of the litigation in California, attorneys general and other government authorities from a number of jurisdictions, as well as U.S. Attorney's offices, the U.S. Department of Labor and the SEC, have requested information or issued subpoenas in connection with inquiries into the pricing of our indirect foreign exchange trading.

We engage in indirect foreign exchange trading with a broad range of custody clients in the U.S. and internationally. We have responded and are responding to information requests from a number of clients concerning our indirect foreign exchange rates. In February 2011, a putative class action was filed in federal court in Boston seeking unspecified damages, including treble damages, on behalf of all custodial clients that executed certain foreign exchange transactions with State Street from 1998 to 2009. The putative class action alleges, among other things, that the rates at which State Street executed foreign currency trades constituted an unfair and deceptive practice under Massachusetts law and a breach of the duty of loyalty.

Two other putative class actions are currently pending in federal court in Boston alleging various violations of ERISA on behalf of all ERISA plans custodied with us that executed indirect foreign exchange trades with State Street from 1998 onward. The complaints allege that State Street caused class members to pay unfair and unreasonable rates on indirect foreign exchange trades with State Street. The complaints seek unspecified damages, disgorgement of profits, and other equitable relief. Other claims may be asserted in the future, including in response to developments in the actions discussed above or governmental proceedings.

If these matters were to proceed to trial, we expect that plaintiffs would seek to recover their share of all or a portion of the revenue that we have recorded from indirect foreign exchange trades. We cannot predict whether a court, in the event of an adverse resolution, would consider our revenue to be the appropriate measure of damages.

The following table summarizes our estimated total revenue worldwide from indirect foreign exchange trading for the periods indicated:



(In millions)	Revenue from indirect foreign exchange trading
Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2008	$	462
Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2009	369
Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2010	336
Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2011	331
Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2012	248
Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2013	285
Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2014	246
Six Months Ended June 30, 2015	147

We believe that the amount of our revenue from such trading has been of a similar or lesser order of magnitude for many years prior to 2008. Our revenue calculations related to indirect foreign exchange trading reflect a judgment concerning the relationship between the rates we charge for indirect foreign exchange execution and indicative interbank market rates near in time to execution. Our revenue from foreign exchange trading generally depends on the difference between the rates we set for those indirect trades and indicative interbank market rates at the time of settlement of the trade.

As of June 30, 2015, we have accrued a total of $585 million associated with indirect foreign exchange business. This accrual reflects the current status of continued negotiations in connection with our intention to seek to resolve the outstanding claims asserted in the United States against us by federal governmental entities and U.S. civil litigants with regard to our indirect foreign exchange business. Although we believe these recorded legal accruals will address the financial demands associated with these claims, significant non-financial terms remain outstanding and settlement agreements have not been finalized. In addition, there can be no assurance that other claims will not be asserted in the future. Consequently, there can be no assurance that we will enter into these settlements, that the cost of any settlements or other resolutions of any such matters will not materially exceed our accruals or that other, potentially material, claims relating to our indirect foreign exchange business will not be asserted against us. An adverse outcome with respect to one or more claims, whether or not currently asserted, relating to our indirect foreign exchange business could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, on our consolidated results of operations for the period in which the adverse outcome occurs (or an accrual is determined to be required), or on our consolidated financial condition.

Transition Management

In January 2014, we entered into a settlement with the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority, or FCA, pursuant to which we paid a fine of £22.9 million (approximately $37.8 million), as a result of our having charged six clients of our U.K. transition management business during 2010 and 2011 amounts in excess of the contractual terms. The SEC and the U.S. Attorney are conducting separate investigations into this matter. As of June 30, 2015, we had remaining accruals of approximately $2.6 million for indemnification costs associated with this matter.

Investment Servicing

State Street has been named as a defendant in related complaints by investment management clients of TAG Virgin Islands, Inc., or TAG, who hold or held custodial accounts with State Street. The complaints collectively have alleged various claims in connection with certain assets managed by TAG. In July 2015, we entered in an agreement to resolve the last of these matters. Our existing reserve will be sufficient to satisfy our obligations in connection with this settlement.

Public Retirement Plans

On June 18, 2015, State Street announced that the enforcement staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had provided it with a “Wells” notice. The notice relates to an SEC investigation into our solicitation of asset servicing business for public retirement plans during a period ending in 2011. The investigation includes our use of consultants and lobbyists and, in at least one instance, political contributions by one of our consultants during and after a public bidding process. The Wells notice informs State Street that the SEC staff intends to ask the Commission for permission to bring a civil enforcement action that would allege violations of the securities laws (i.e., Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder). The issuance of a Wells notice provides State Street with the opportunity to make a submission to the Commission in response to the SEC staff’s position. State Street intends to submit such a response.

Federal Reserve/Massachusetts Division of Banks Written Agreement

On June 1, 2015, State Street entered into a written agreement with the Federal Reserve and the Massachusetts Division of Banks relating to deficiencies identified in its compliance programs with the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act, anti-money laundering (AML) regulations and US economic sanctions regulations promulgated by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). As part of this enforcement action, State Street is required to, among other things, implement improvements to our compliance programs and to retain an independent firm to conduct a review of account and transaction activity covering a prior three-month period to evaluate whether any suspicious activity not previously reported should have been identified and reported in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. If deficiencies in our historical reporting are identified as a result of the transaction review or if we fail to comply with the terms of the written agreement, we may become subject to fines and other regulatory sanctions, which may have a material adverse effect on us.