Commitments and contingent liabilities

In the normal course of business, various commitments and contingent liabilities are outstanding that are not reflected in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

Our significant trading and off-balance sheet risks are securities, foreign currency and interest rate risk management products, commercial lending commitments, letters of credit and securities lending indemnifications. We assume these risks to reduce interest rate and foreign currency risks, to provide customers with the ability to meet credit and liquidity needs and to hedge foreign currency and interest rate risks. These items involve, to varying degrees, credit, foreign currency and interest rate risk not recognized in the balance sheet. Our off-balance sheet risks are managed and monitored in manners similar to those used for on-balance sheet risks. Significant industry concentrations related to credit exposure at March 31, 2015 are disclosed in the financial institutions portfolio exposure table and the commercial portfolio exposure table below.



Financial institutions portfolio exposure (in billions)	March 31, 2015
Financial institutions portfolio exposure (in billions)	Loans		Unfunded commitments		Total exposure
Banks	$	9.1	$	1.7	$	10.8
Asset managers	1.7		5.1		6.8
Securities industry	3.3		1.1		4.4
Insurance	0.1		3.9		4.0
Government	0.1		3.0		3.1
Other	0.4		1.2		1.6
Total	$	14.7	$	16.0	$	30.7



Commercial portfolio exposure (in billions)	March 31, 2015
Commercial portfolio exposure (in billions)	Loans		Unfunded commitments		Total exposure
Services and other	$	0.8	$	6.0	$	6.8
Manufacturing	0.4		5.7		6.1
Energy and utilities	0.5		5.5		6.0
Media and telecom	0.3		1.5		1.8
Total	$	2.0	$	18.7	$	20.7

Major concentrations in securities lending are primarily to broker-dealers and are generally collateralized with cash. Securities lending transactions are discussed below.

The following table presents a summary of our off-balance sheet credit risks, net of participations.



Off-balance sheet credit risks	March 31,		Dec. 31,
(in millions)	2015		2014
Lending commitments	$	34,166	$	33,273
Standby letters of credit (a)	5,600		5,767
Commercial letters of credit	264		255
Securities lending indemnifications (b)	310,273		304,386


(a)	Net of participations totaling $961 million at March 31, 2015 and $894 million at Dec. 31, 2014.


(b)	Excludes the indemnification for securities for which BNY Mellon acts as an agent on behalf of CIBC Mellon clients, which totaled $68 billion at March 31, 2015 and $64 billion at Dec. 31, 2014.

Included in lending commitments are facilities that provide liquidity for variable rate tax-exempt securities wrapped by monoline insurers. The credit approval for these facilities is based on an assessment of the underlying tax-exempt issuer and considers factors other than the financial strength of the monoline insurer.

The total potential loss on undrawn lending commitments, standby and commercial letters of credit, and securities lending indemnifications is equal to the total notional amount if drawn upon, which does not consider the value of any collateral.

Since many of the commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon, the total amount does not necessarily represent future cash requirements. A summary of lending commitment maturities is as follows: $11.3 billion in less than one year, $22.6 billion in one to five years and $252 million over five years.

Standby letters of credit (“SBLC”) principally support corporate obligations and were collateralized with cash and securities of $412 million and $421 million at March 31, 2015 and Dec. 31, 2014, respectively. At March 31, 2015, $3.4 billion of the SBLCs will expire within one year and $2.2 billion in one to five years.

We must recognize, at the inception of standby letters of credit and foreign and other guarantees, a liability for the fair value of the obligation undertaken in issuing the guarantee. The fair value of the liability, which was recorded with a corresponding asset in other assets, was estimated as the present value of contractual customer fees.

The estimated liability for losses related to these commitments and SBLCs, if any, is included in the allowance for lending-related commitments. The allowance for lending-related commitments was $93 million at March 31, 2015 and $89 million at Dec. 31, 2014.

Payment/performance risk of SBLCs is monitored using both historical performance and internal ratings criteria. BNY Mellon’s historical experience is that SBLCs typically expire without being funded. SBLCs below investment grade are monitored closely for payment/performance risk. The table below shows SBLCs by investment grade:



Standby letters of credit	March 31,		Dec. 31,
	2015		2014
Investment grade	86	%	88	%
Non-investment grade	14	%	12	%

A commercial letter of credit is normally a short-term instrument used to finance a commercial contract for the shipment of goods from a seller to a buyer. Although the commercial letter of credit is contingent upon the satisfaction of specified conditions, it represents a credit exposure if the buyer defaults on the underlying transaction. As a result, the total contractual amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. Commercial letters of credit totaled $264 million at March 31, 2015 compared with $255 million at Dec. 31, 2014.

A securities lending transaction is a fully collateralized transaction in which the owner of a security agrees to lend the security (typically through an agent, in our case, The Bank of New York Mellon), to a borrower, usually a broker-dealer or bank, on an open, overnight or term basis, under the terms of a prearranged contract, which normally matures in less than 90 days.

We typically lend securities with indemnification against borrower default. We generally require the borrower to provide collateral with a minimum value of 102% of the fair value of the securities borrowed, which is monitored on a daily basis, thus reducing credit risk. Market risk can also arise in securities lending transactions. These risks are controlled through policies limiting the level of risk that can be undertaken. Securities lending transactions are generally entered into only with highly-rated counterparties. Securities lending indemnifications were secured by collateral of $323 billion at March 31, 2015 and $316 billion at Dec. 31, 2014.

CIBC Mellon, a joint venture between BNY Mellon and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (“CIBC”), engages in securities lending activities. CIBC Mellon, BNY Mellon, and CIBC jointly and severally indemnify securities lenders against specific types of borrower default. At March 31, 2015 and Dec. 31, 2014, $68 billion and $64 billion, respectively, of borrowings at CIBC Mellon for which BNY Mellon acts as agent on behalf of CIBC Mellon clients, were secured by collateral of $72 billion and $67 billion, respectively. If, upon a default, a borrower’s collateral was not sufficient to cover its related obligations, certain losses related to the indemnification could be covered by the indemnitors.

We expect many of these guarantees to expire without the need to advance any cash. The revenue associated with guarantees frequently depends on the credit rating of the obligor and the structure of the transaction, including collateral, if any.

Exposure for certain administrative errors

In connection with certain offshore tax-exempt funds that we manage, we may be liable to the funds for certain administrative errors. The errors relate to the resident status of such funds, potentially exposing the Company to a tax liability related to the funds’ earnings. The Company is in discussions with tax authorities regarding the funds. With the charge recorded in 2014 for this matter, we believe we are appropriately accrued and the additional reasonably possible exposure is not significant.

Indemnification arrangements

We have provided standard representations for underwriting agreements, acquisition and divestiture agreements, sales of loans and commitments, and other similar types of arrangements and customary indemnification for claims and legal proceedings related to providing financial services that are not otherwise included above. Insurance has been purchased to mitigate certain of these risks. Generally, there are no stated or notional amounts included in these indemnifications and the contingencies triggering the obligation for indemnification are not expected to occur. Furthermore, often counterparties to these transactions provide us with comparable indemnifications. We are unable to develop an estimate of the maximum payout under these indemnifications for several reasons. In addition to the lack of a stated or notional amount in a majority of such indemnifications, we are unable to predict the nature of events that would trigger indemnification or the level of indemnification for a certain event. We believe, however, that the possibility that we will have to make any material payments for these indemnifications is remote. At March 31, 2015 and Dec. 31, 2014, we have not recorded any material liabilities under these arrangements.

Clearing and settlement exchanges

We are a noncontrolling equity investor in, and/or member of, several industry clearing or settlement exchanges through which foreign exchange, securities, derivatives or other transactions settle. Certain of these industry clearing and settlement exchanges require their members to guarantee their obligations and liabilities or to provide financial support in the event other members do not honor their obligations. We believe the likelihood that a clearing or settlement exchange (of which we are a member) would become insolvent is remote. Additionally, certain settlement exchanges have implemented loss allocation policies that enable the exchange to allocate settlement losses to the members of the exchange. It is not possible to quantify such mark-to-market loss until the loss occurs. In addition, any ancillary costs that occur as a result of any mark-to-market loss cannot be quantified. At March 31, 2015 and Dec. 31, 2014, we have not recorded any material liabilities under these arrangements.

Legal proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, BNY Mellon and its subsidiaries are routinely named as defendants in or made parties to pending and potential legal actions. We also are subject to governmental and regulatory examinations, information-gathering requests, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal). Claims for significant monetary damages are often asserted in many of these legal actions, while claims for disgorgement, restitution, penalties and/or other remedial actions or sanctions may be sought in regulatory matters. It is inherently difficult to predict the eventual outcomes of such matters given their complexity and the particular facts and circumstances at issue in each of these matters. However, on the basis of our current knowledge and understanding, we do not believe that judgments, settlements or orders, if any, arising from these matters (either individually or in the aggregate, after giving effect to applicable reserves and insurance coverage) will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or liquidity of BNY Mellon, although they could have a material effect on net income in a given period.

In view of the inherent unpredictability of outcomes in litigation and governmental and regulatory matters, particularly where (i) the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (iii) the matters involve novel legal theories or a large number of parties, as a matter of course there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the timing or ultimate resolution of litigation and governmental and regulatory matters, including a possible eventual loss, fine, penalty or business impact, if any, associated with each such matter. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, BNY Mellon establishes accruals for litigation and governmental and regulatory matters when those matters proceed to a stage where they present loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable. In such cases, there may be a possible exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. BNY Mellon will continue to monitor such matters for developments that could affect the amount of the accrual, and will adjust the accrual amount as appropriate. If the loss contingency in question is not both probable and reasonably estimable, BNY Mellon does not establish an accrual and the matter will continue to be monitored for any developments that would make the loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. BNY Mellon believes that its accruals for legal proceedings are appropriate and, in the aggregate, are not material to the consolidated financial position of BNY Mellon, although future accruals could have a material effect on net income in a given period.

For certain of those matters described here for which a loss contingency may, in the future, be reasonably possible (whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability), BNY Mellon is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. For those matters described here where BNY Mellon is able to estimate a reasonably possible loss, the aggregate range of such reasonably possible loss is up to $280 million in excess of the accrued liability (if any) related to those matters.

The following describes certain judicial, regulatory and arbitration proceedings involving BNY Mellon:

Sentinel Matters

On Jan. 18, 2008, The Bank of New York Mellon filed a proof of claim in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding of Sentinel Management Group, Inc. (“Sentinel”) pending in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois, seeking to recover approximately $312 million loaned to Sentinel and secured by securities and cash in an account maintained by Sentinel at The Bank of New York Mellon. On March 3, 2008, the bankruptcy trustee filed an adversary complaint against The Bank of New York Mellon seeking to disallow The Bank of New York Mellon’s claim and seeking damages for The Bank of New York Mellon’s allegedly aiding and abetting Sentinel insiders in misappropriating customer assets and improperly using those assets as collateral for the loan. In a decision dated Nov. 3, 2010, the court found for The Bank of New York Mellon and against the bankruptcy trustee, holding that The Bank of New York Mellon’s loan to Sentinel is valid, fully secured and not subject to equitable subordination. The bankruptcy trustee appealed this decision, and on Aug. 9, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a decision affirming the trial court’s judgment. On Sept. 7, 2012, the bankruptcy trustee filed a petition for rehearing and, on Nov. 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals withdrew its opinion and vacated its judgment. On Aug. 26, 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed its own prior decision and the district court’s decision, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On Dec. 10, 2014, the district court issued a decision in favor of The Bank of New York Mellon holding that the transfers from Sentinel cannot be reversed and that The Bank of New York Mellon’s lien is valid and not subject to equitable subordination. On Jan. 8, 2015, the bankruptcy trustee filed a notice of appeal.

In November 2009, the Division of Enforcement of the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) indicated that it is considering a recommendation to the CFTC that it file a civil enforcement action against The Bank of New York Mellon for possible violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations in connection with its relationship to Sentinel. The Bank of New York Mellon responded in writing to the CFTC on Jan. 29, 2010 and provided an explanation as to why an enforcement action is unwarranted.

Securities Lending Matters

BNY Mellon or its affiliates have been named as defendants in a number of lawsuits initiated by participants in BNY Mellon’s securities lending program, which is a part of BNY Mellon’s Investment Services business. The lawsuits were filed on various dates from 2009 to 2013,and are currently pending in courts in North Carolina and Illinois. The complaints assert contractual, statutory, and common law claims, including claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs allege that BNY Mellon should have prevented losses in connection with the investment of securities lending collateral in Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., and seek damages as to those losses. The lawsuits are all in discovery phases; no trial dates have been set.

Foreign Exchange Matters

Beginning in December 2009, government authorities have been conducting inquiries seeking information relating primarily to standing instruction foreign exchange transactions in connection with custody services BNY Mellon provides to public pension plans and certain other custody clients. BNY Mellon has cooperated with these inquiries.

In addition, on Oct. 4, 2011, the New York Attorney General’s Office (“NYAG”), the New York City Comptroller and various city pension and benefit funds filed a lawsuit asserting claims under the Martin Act and state and city false claims acts. On Aug. 5, 2013, the court dismissed the false claims act claims, and certain plaintiffs have since filed a notice of appeal. Also, on Oct. 4, 2011, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a civil lawsuit seeking civil penalties under 12 U.S.C. Section 1833a and injunctive relief under 18 U.S.C. Section 1345 based on alleged ongoing violations of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1341 and 1343 (mail and wire fraud). On Jan. 17, 2012, the court approved a partial settlement resolving the DOJ’s claim for injunctive relief. In October 2011, several public pension funds in the state of California purported to intervene in a qui tam lawsuit that was removed to federal district court in California. On March 30, 2012, the court dismissed certain of plaintiffs’ claims, including all claims under the California False Claims Act. Certain plaintiffs refiled their claims and, on May 1, 2014, the court again dismissed the California False Claims Act claims, along with certain other claims.

BNY Mellon has also been named as a defendant in several putative class action federal lawsuits filed on various dates in 2011, 2012 and 2014. The complaints, which assert claims including breach of contract and ERISA and securities laws violations, all allege that the prices BNY Mellon charged for standing instruction foreign exchange transactions executed in connection with custody services provided by BNY Mellon were improper. In addition, BNY Mellon has been named as a nominal defendant in several derivative lawsuits filed in 2011 and 2012 in state and federal court in New York. On July 2, 2013, the court in the consolidated federal derivative action dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims. On Oct. 1, 2013, the court in the consolidated state derivative action dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims. One of the plaintiffs appealed and the dismissal was affirmed on Dec. 11, 2014. To the extent the lawsuits are pending in federal court, they are being coordinated for pre-trial purposes in federal court in New York.

On March 19, 2015, BNY Mellon announced that it has resolved substantially all of the FX-related actions currently pending, resulting in a total of $714 million in settlement payments, which are fully covered by preexisting reserves. BNY Mellon reached settlements with the DOJ and NYAG under which it will pay each of them $167.5 million and provide functionality allowing customers to compare pricing for BNY Mellon’s “defined spread” and “session range” standing instruction FX products. In addition, BNY Mellon reached settlements with the plaintiffs in the outstanding customer class actions, as well as with the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”). BNY Mellon will pay $335 million under the class action settlement, which is subject to court approval, and an additional $14 million to the DOL. BNY Mellon has also reached a settlement in principle with the SEC. Under the terms of the agreement with the SEC staff, which is subject to Commission approval, BNY Mellon will pay a $30 million penalty. The putative class action asserting securities law violations, along with two lawsuits brought by individual FX customers, remain pending.

Tax Litigation

On Aug. 17, 2009, BNY Mellon received a Statutory Notice of Deficiency disallowing tax benefits for the 2001 and 2002 tax years in connection with a 2001 transaction that involved the payment of UK corporate income taxes that were credited against BNY Mellon’s U.S. corporate income tax liability. The Notice alleged that the transaction lacked economic substance and business purpose. On Nov. 10, 2009, BNY Mellon filed a petition with the U.S. Tax Court contesting the disallowance of the benefits. Following a trial, the Tax Court upheld the IRS’s Notice of Deficiency and disallowed BNY Mellon’s tax credits and associated transaction costs on Feb. 11, 2013. On Sept. 23, 2013, the Tax Court issued a supplemental opinion, partially reducing the tax implications to BNY Mellon of its earlier decision. The Tax Court entered a decision formally implementing its prior rulings on Feb. 20, 2014. BNY Mellon appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on March 5, 2014. Argument on the appeal is scheduled for May 18, 2015. See Note 10 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.

Mortgage-Securitization Trusts Proceedings

The Bank of New York Mellon as trustee is the petitioner in a legal proceeding filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York County on June 29, 2011, seeking approval of a proposed settlement involving Bank of America Corporation, and investors in certain Countrywide residential mortgage-securitization trusts. On Jan. 31, 2014, the court issued its decision approving the settlement except to the extent that it releases loan modification claims. The court approved all the other terms of the settlement. The Bank of New York Mellon appealed the court’s decision to exempt loan modification claims from the settlement approval and several objectors to the settlement cross-appealed. On March 5, 2015, the Appellate Division approved the terms of the settlement in their entirety, including the release of the loan modification claims. The Bank of New York Mellon has also been named as a defendant in a lawsuit brought in New York State court on June 18, 2014, and later re-filed in federal court, by a group of institutional investors. This lawsuit is one of a number of legal actions brought by MBS investors against The Bank of New York Mellon alleging that the trustee has expansive duties under the governing agreements, including to investigate and pursue breach of representation and warranty claims against other parties to the MBS transactions.

Matters Related to R. Allen Stanford

In late December 2005, Pershing LLC became a clearing firm for Stanford Group Co. (“SGC”), a registered broker dealer that was part of a group of entities ultimately controlled by R. Allen Stanford. Stanford International Bank (“SIB”), also controlled by Stanford, issued certificates of deposit (“CDs”). Some investors allegedly wired funds from their SGC accounts to purchase CDs. In 2009, the SEC charged Stanford with operating a Ponzi scheme in connection with the sale of CDs, and SGC was placed into receivership. Alleged purchasers of CDs have filed 11 pending lawsuits against Pershing in Texas, including a putative class action. The purchasers allege that Pershing, as SGC’s clearing firm, assisted Stanford in a fraudulent scheme and assert contractual, statutory and common law claims. In addition, alleged purchasers have filed FINRA arbitration claims against Pershing in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina and Georgia. On Oct. 8, 2014 and Nov. 3, 2014, Pershing received awards in its favor from two FINRA arbitration panels. On March 2, 2015, Pershing settled 38 FINRA arbitration claims; six FINRA arbitration claims remain pending.

UK Financial Conduct Authority Matter

The UK Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) has been conducting an investigation into compliance by The Bank of New York Mellon, London Branch and The Bank of New York Mellon (International) Limited (the “firms”) with the FCA’s Client Assets Sourcebook (“CASS Rules”), which sets out the regime in the UK for the protection of client interests in relation to holding or controlling client assets. On April 15, 2015, the FCA announced that it had entered into a settlement agreement with the firms in which the firms agreed to pay a fine in the amount of £126 million, after reduction for an early stage settlement, and to the issuance of a Final Notice by the FCA for failing to comply with the CASS Rules between Nov. 1, 2007 and Aug. 12, 2013.

Brazilian Postalis Litigation

BNY Mellon Servicos Financeiros DTVM S.A. (“DTVM”), a subsidiary that provides a number of asset services in Brazil, acts as administrator for certain investment funds in which the exclusive investor is a public pension fund for postal workers called Postalis-Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios e Telégrafos (“Postalis”). On Aug. 22, 2014, Postalis sued DTVM in Brazil for losses related to a Postalis investment fund for which DTVM serves as fund administrator. Postalis alleges that DTVM failed to properly perform alleged duties, including duties to conduct due diligence of and exert control over the fund manager, Atlântica Administração de Recursos (“Atlântica”), and Atlântica’s investments. On March 12, 2015, Postalis filed a lawsuit in Brazil against DTVM and BNY Mellon Administração de Ativos Ltda. (“Ativos”) alleging failure to properly perform alleged duties relating to another fund of which DTVM is administrator and Ativos is investment manager.

Sovereign Wealth Funds Inquiry

In January 2011, the Enforcement Division of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC Staff”) informed several financial institutions, including BNY Mellon, that it had commenced an inquiry into certain of their business practices and relationships with sovereign wealth fund clients. In the third quarter of 2014, the SEC Staff issued Wells notices to certain current and former employees of BNY Mellon, informing them that the SEC Staff has made a preliminary determination to recommend enforcement action against them for alleged violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in connection with the provision of a limited number of internships to relatives of sovereign wealth fund officials. BNY Mellon received a similar Wells notice in the fourth quarter of 2014. On Jan. 23, 2015, BNY Mellon received an additional subpoena from the SEC expanding the scope of the SEC’s inquiry into the provision of internships and employment opportunities offered to officials and relatives of officials at government-related entities. BNY Mellon has fully cooperated with the SEC Staff’s investigation.