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, 2014 are disclosed in the financial institutions portfolio exposure table and the commercial portfolio exposure table below.



Financial institutions portfolio exposure (in billions)	March 31, 2014
Financial institutions portfolio exposure (in billions)	Loans		Unfunded commitments		Total exposure
Banks	$	8.6	$	2.1	$	10.7
Asset managers	1.1		4.7		5.8
Securities industry	3.2		2.5		5.7
Insurance	0.1		4.2		4.3
Government	0.3		3.1		3.4
Other	0.3		1.0		1.3
Total	$	13.6	$	17.6	$	31.2



Commercial portfolio exposure (in billions)	March 31, 2014
Commercial portfolio exposure (in billions)	Loans		Unfunded commitments		Total exposure
Services and other	$	0.8	$	6.2	$	7.0
Energy and utilities	0.7		5.8		6.5
Manufacturing	0.3		5.7		6.0
Media and telecom	0.2		1.6		1.8
Total	$	2.0	$	19.3	$	21.3

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)	2014		2013
Lending commitments (a)	$	34,842	$	34,039
Standby letters of credit (b)	6,932		6,721
Commercial letters of credit	280		310
Securities lending indemnifications (c)	276,106		244,382


(a)	Net of participations totaling $6 million at March 31, 2014 and $6 million at Dec. 31, 2013.


(b)	Net of participations totaling $688 million at March 31, 2014 and $720 million at Dec. 31, 2013.


(c)	Excludes the indemnification for securities for which BNY Mellon acts as an agent on behalf of CIBC Mellon clients, which totaled $65 billion at March 31, 2014 and $60 billion at Dec. 31, 2013.

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: $10.2 billion in less than one year, $24.2 billion in one to five years and $0.4 billion over five years.

Standby letters of credit (“SBLC”) principally support corporate obligations. As shown in the off-balance sheet credit risks table, the maximum potential exposure of SBLCs was $6.9 billion at March 31, 2014 and $6.7 billion at Dec. 31, 2013, and includes $489 million and $418 million that were collateralized with cash and securities at March 31, 2014 and Dec. 31, 2013, respectively. At March 31, 2014, $3.9 billion of the SBLCs will expire within one year and $3.0 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. As required by ASC 460 Guarantees, 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 $128 million at March 31, 2014 and $134 million at Dec. 31, 2013.

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,
	2014		2013
Investment grade	88	%	86	%
Non-investment grade	12	%	14	%

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 $280 million at March 31, 2014 compared with $310 million at Dec. 31, 2013.

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 $286 billion at March 31, 2014 and $252 billion at Dec. 31, 2013.

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, 2014 and Dec. 31, 2013, $65 billion and $60 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 $68 billion and $64 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 funds that we manage, we may be liable to the funds for certain administrative errors. The errors relate to questions about the resident status of certain offshore tax exempt 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. In addition to amounts accrued, we believe it is reasonably possible that we could have a potential additional exposure of approximately $100 million.

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, 2014 and Dec. 31, 2013, we have not recorded any material liabilities under these arrangements.

Clearing and Settlement Exchanges

We are a minority 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, 2014 and Dec. 31, 2013, 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 and regulatory matters. Claims for significant monetary damages are often asserted in many of these legal actions, while claims for disgorgement, penalties and/or other remedial 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 or settlements, 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 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, BNY Mellon establishes 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. 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 herein 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 where BNY Mellon is able to estimate a reasonably possible loss, the aggregate range of such reasonably possible loss is up to $745 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

As previously disclosed, 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 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 on the fraudulent transfer portion of the opinion 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 with respect to the bankruptcy trustee’s fraudulent transfer and equitable subordination claims and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. See Note 5 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.

As previously disclosed, 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

As previously disclosed, 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 losses in connection with the investment of securities lending collateral in Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., and seek damages as to those losses.

Foreign Exchange Matters

As previously disclosed, 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 is cooperating with these inquiries.

In addition, in early 2011, as previously disclosed, the Virginia Attorney General’s Office and the Florida Attorney General’s Office each intervened in a qui tam lawsuit pending in its jurisdiction, and, on Aug. 11, 2011, filed superseding complaints. On Nov. 9, 2012, the Virginia court, which had previously dismissed all of the claims against BNY Mellon, dismissed the Virginia lawsuit with prejudice by agreement of the parties. On Nov. 18, 2013, the Florida Attorney General’s Office dismissed the Florida lawsuit with prejudice by agreement of the parties. On Oct. 4, 2011, the New York Attorney General’s Office, 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. On Oct. 26, 2011, the Massachusetts Securities Division filed an Administrative Complaint against BNY Mellon, but closed the matter on Jan. 30, 2014 by agreement of the parties.

BNY Mellon has also been named as a defendant in several putative class action federal lawsuits filed on various dates in 2011 and 2012. 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, and plaintiffs have appealed that decision. On Oct. 1, 2013, the court in the consolidated state derivative action dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims, and one of the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. BNY Mellon was also named in a qui tam lawsuit filed on May 22, 2012 in Massachusetts state court, but the court dismissed all of plaintiff’s claims on Sept. 10, 2013. All of the pending lawsuits are currently in discovery. To the extent the lawsuits are pending in federal court, they are being coordinated for pre-trial purposes in federal court in New York.

Tax Litigation

As previously disclosed, 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. 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. See Note 11 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.

Mortgage-Securitization Trusts Proceeding

As previously disclosed, 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 bondholders in certain Countrywide residential mortgage-securitization trusts. The New York and Delaware Attorneys General have intervened in this proceeding. The trial in this matter ended on Nov. 21, 2013. 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. On Feb. 21, 2014, 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.

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 five pending lawsuits against Pershing in Texas. In addition, alleged purchasers have filed thirty-three FINRA arbitration claims against Pershing in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, New York, Arkansas, North Carolina and Georgia. The purchasers allege that Pershing, as SGC’s clearing firm, assisted Stanford in a fraudulent scheme, and assert contractual, statutory and common law claims.