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	Sept. 30, 2020		Dec. 31, 2019

Investment grade	87	%	90	%
Non-investment grade	13	%	10	%

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 $87 million at Sept. 30, 2020 and $74 million at Dec. 31, 2019.

We expect many of the lending commitments and letters of credit 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. The allowance for lending-related commitments was $135 million at Sept. 30, 2020 and $94 million at Dec. 31, 2019.

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.

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 $435 billion at Sept. 30, 2020 and $428 billion at Dec. 31, 2019.

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 Sept. 30, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2019, $58 billion and $57 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 $61 billion and $61 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.

Unsettled repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements

In the normal course of business, we enter into repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements that settle at a future date. In repurchase agreements, BNY Mellon receives cash from and provides securities as collateral to a counterparty at settlement. In reverse repurchase agreements, BNY Mellon advances cash to and receives securities as collateral from the counterparty at settlement. These transactions are recorded on the consolidated balance sheet on the settlement date. At Sept. 30, 2020, we had $150 million of unsettled repurchase agreements and no unsettled reverse repurchase agreements.

Industry concentrations

We have significant industry concentrations related to credit exposure at Sept. 30, 2020. The tables below present our credit exposure in the financial institutions and commercial portfolios.


Financial institutions portfolio exposure (in billions)	Sept. 30, 2020
	Loans		Unfunded commitments		Total exposure
Securities industry	$	2.8	$	22.3	$	25.1
Asset managers	1.2		6.5		7.7
Banks	6.1		1.1		7.2
Insurance	0.1		2.7		2.8
Government	0.1		0.2		0.3
Other	0.7		0.7		1.4
Total	$	11.0	$	33.5	$	44.5


Commercial portfolio exposure (in billions)	Sept. 30, 2020
	Loans		Unfunded commitments		Total exposure
Services and other	$	1.0	$	3.5	$	4.5
Manufacturing	0.7		3.8		4.5
Energy and utilities	0.2		4.0		4.2
Media and telecom	—		0.9		0.9
Total	$	1.9	$	12.2	$	14.1

Major concentrations in securities lending are primarily to broker-dealers and are generally collateralized with cash and/or securities.

Sponsored Member Repo Program

BNY Mellon is a sponsoring member in the FICC sponsored member program, where we submit eligible overnight repurchase and reverse repurchase transactions in U.S. Treasury securities (“Sponsored Member Transactions”) between BNY Mellon and our sponsored member clients for novation and clearing through FICC pursuant to the FICC Government Securities Division rulebook (the “FICC Rules”). We also guarantee to FICC the prompt and full payment and performance of our sponsored member clients’ respective obligations under the FICC Rules in connection with such clients’ Sponsored Member Transactions. We minimize our credit exposure under this guaranty by obtaining a security interest in our sponsored member clients’ collateral and rights under Sponsored Member Transactions. See “Offsetting assets and liabilities” in Note 17 for additional information on our repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements.

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 Sept. 30, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2019, 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 and/or to provide liquidity 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. Any ancillary costs that occur as a result of any mark-to-market loss cannot be quantified. In addition, we also sponsor clients as members on clearing and settlement exchanges and guarantee their obligations. At Sept. 30, 2020 and Dec. 31, 2019, we did not record any material liabilities under these arrangements.

Legal proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation 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 governmental and 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 our results of operations in a given period.

In view of the inherent unpredictability of outcomes in litigation 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 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, we establish accruals for litigation 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. We regularly 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, we do not establish an accrual and the matter continues to be monitored for any developments that would make the loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. We believe that our 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 the results of operations in a given period. In addition, if we have the potential to recover a portion of an estimated loss from a third party, we record a receivable up to the amount of the accrual that is probable of recovery.

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 $750 million in excess of the accrued liability (if any) related to those matters. For matters where a reasonably possible loss is denominated in a foreign currency, our estimate is adjusted quarterly based on prevailing exchange rates. We do not consider potential recoveries when estimating reasonably possible losses.

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

Mortgage-Securitization Trusts Proceedings

The Bank of New York Mellon has been named as a defendant in a number of legal actions brought by MBS investors alleging that the trustee has expansive duties under the governing agreements, including the duty to investigate and pursue breach of representation and warranty claims against other parties to the MBS transactions. Three actions commenced in December 2014, December 2015 and February 2017 are pending in New York federal court; and one action commenced in May 2016 is pending in New York state court. A New York federal court action filed in August 2014 has been dismissed.

Matters Related to R. Allen Stanford

In late December 2005, Pershing LLC (“Pershing”) 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”). Stanford International Bank, also controlled by Stanford, issued certificates of deposit (“CDs”). Some investors allegedly wired funds from their SGC accounts to purchase CDs. In 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission 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 two putative class action proceedings against Pershing: one in November 2009 in Texas federal court, and one in May 2016 in New Jersey federal court. Thirteen lawsuits have been filed against Pershing in Louisiana, Florida and New Jersey federal courts in January 2010, January and February 2015, October 2015 and May 2016. 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 March 2019, a group of investors filed a putative class action against The Bank of New York Mellon in New Jersey federal court, making the same allegations as in the prior actions brought against

Pershing. All the cases that have been brought in federal court against Pershing and the case brought against The Bank of New York Mellon have been consolidated in Texas federal court for discovery purposes. On Dec. 19, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of six individual federal lawsuits brought under Florida law, which will also apply to four other similarly situated cases. On March 18, 2020, the plaintiffs in those lawsuits filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeking permission to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. On Oct. 5, 2020, the United States Supreme Court denied the Petition. In July 2020, after being enjoined from pursuing claims before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), an investment firm filed an action against Pershing in Texas federal court. FINRA arbitration proceedings also have been initiated by alleged purchasers asserting similar claims.

Brazilian Postalis Litigation

BNY Mellon Servicos Financeiros DTVM S.A. (“DTVM”), a subsidiary that provides asset services in Brazil, acts as administrator for certain investment funds in which a public pension fund for postal workers called Postalis-Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios e Telégrafos (“Postalis”) invested. On Aug. 22, 2014, Postalis sued DTVM in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil for losses related to a Postalis fund for which DTVM is administrator. Postalis alleges that DTVM failed to properly perform duties, including to conduct due diligence of and exert control over the manager. On March 12, 2015, Postalis filed a lawsuit in Rio de Janeiro against DTVM and BNY Mellon Administração de Ativos Ltda. (“Ativos”) alleging failure to properly perform duties relating to another fund of which DTVM is administrator and Ativos is manager. On Dec. 14, 2015, Associacão dos Profissionais dos Correios (“ADCAP”), a Brazilian postal workers association, filed a lawsuit in São Paulo against DTVM and other defendants alleging that DTVM improperly contributed to Postalis investment losses. On March 20, 2017, the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, and ADCAP has appealed that decision. On Dec. 17, 2015, Postalis filed three lawsuits in Rio de Janeiro against DTVM and Ativos alleging failure to properly perform duties with respect to investments in several other funds. On Feb. 4, 2016, Postalis filed a lawsuit in Brasilia against DTVM, Ativos and BNY Mellon Alocação de Patrimônio Ltda. (“Alocação de Patrimônio”), an investment management subsidiary, alleging failure to properly perform duties and liability for losses with

respect to investments in various funds of which the defendants were administrator and/or manager. On Jan. 16, 2018, the Brazilian Federal Prosecution Service (“MPF”) filed a civil lawsuit in São Paulo against DTVM alleging liability for Postalis losses based on alleged failures to properly perform certain duties as administrator to certain funds in which Postalis invested or as controller of Postalis’s own investment portfolio. On April 18, 2018, the court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, and the MPF has appealed that decision. In addition, the Tribunal de Contas da Uniao (“TCU”), an administrative tribunal, has initiated two proceedings with the purpose of determining liability for losses to two investment funds administered by DTVM in which Postalis was the exclusive investor. On Sept. 9, 2020, TCU rendered a decision in one of the proceedings, finding DTVM and two former Postalis directors jointly and severally liable for approximately $41.7 million. TCU also imposed on DTVM a fine of approximately $1.8 million. DTVM has filed an administrative appeal of the decision. On Oct. 4, 2019, Postalis and another pension fund filed a request for arbitration in São Paulo against DTVM and Ativos alleging liability for losses to an investment fund for which DTVM was administrator and Ativos was manager. On Oct. 25, 2019, Postalis filed a lawsuit in Rio de Janeiro against DTVM and Alocação de Patrimônio, alleging liability for losses in another fund for which DTVM was administrator and Alocação de Patrimônio and Ativos were managers. On June 19, 2020, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in Rio de Janeiro against DTVM, Postalis, and various other defendants alleging liability against DTVM for certain Postalis losses in an investment fund of which DTVM was administrator.

Brazilian Silverado Litigation

DTVM acts as administrator for the Fundo de Investimento em Direitos Creditórios Multisetorial Silverado Maximum (“Silverado Maximum Fund”), which invests in commercial credit receivables. On June 2, 2016, the Silverado Maximum Fund sued DTVM in its capacity as administrator, along with Deutsche Bank S.A. - Banco Alemão in its capacity as custodian and Silverado Gestão e Investimentos Ltda. in its capacity as investment manager. The Fund alleges that each of the defendants failed to fulfill its respective duty, and caused losses to the Fund for which the defendants are jointly and severally liable.

German Tax Matters

German authorities are investigating past “cum/ex” trading, which involved the purchase of equity securities on or shortly before the dividend date, but settled after that date, potentially resulting in an unwarranted refund of withholding tax. German authorities have taken the view that past cum/ex trading may have resulted in tax avoidance or evasion. European subsidiaries of BNY Mellon have been informed by German authorities about investigations into potential cum/ex trading by certain third-party investment funds, where one of the subsidiaries had acquired entities that served as depositary and/or fund manager for those third-party investment funds. We have received information requests from the authorities relating to pre-acquisition activity and are cooperating fully with those requests. We have not received any tax demand concerning cum/ex trading. In August 2019, the District Court of Bonn ordered that one of these subsidiaries be joined as a secondary party in connection with the prosecution of unrelated individual defendants. Trial commenced in September 2019. In March 2020, the court stated that it would refrain from taking action against the subsidiary in order to expedite the conclusion of the trial. The court convicted the unrelated individual defendants, and determined that the cum/ex trading activities of the relevant third-party investment funds were unlawful. In connection with the acquisition of the subject entities, we obtained an indemnity for liabilities from the sellers that we intend to pursue as necessary.