COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Debt Covenants Borrowings of KKR contain various debt covenants. These covenants do not, in management’s opinion, materially restrict KKR’s operating business or investment strategies. KKR is in compliance with its debt covenants in all material respects as of June 30, 2015. Investment Commitments As of June 30, 2015, KKR had unfunded commitments consisting of (i) $1,267.5 million to its active private equity and other investment vehicles and (ii) $185.0 million in connection with commitments by KKR’s capital markets business, (iii) $128.6 million relating to Merchant Capital Solutions LLC and (iv) other investment commitments of $156.4 million. Whether these amounts are actually funded, in whole or in part depends on the terms of such commitments, including the satisfaction or waiver of any conditions to funding. Contingent Repayment Guarantees The partnership documents governing KKR’s carry—paying funds, including funds relating to private equity, mezzanine, infrastructure, energy, real estate, direct lending and special situations investments, generally include a “clawback” provision that, if triggered, may give rise to a contingent obligation requiring the general partner to return amounts to the fund for distribution to the fund investors at the end of the life of the fund. Under a clawback obligation, upon the liquidation of a fund, the general partner is required to return, typically on an after-tax basis, previously distributed carry to the extent that, due to the diminished performance of later investments, the aggregate amount of carry distributions received by the general partner during the term of the fund exceed the amount to which the general partner was ultimately entitled, including the effects of any performance thresholds. Excluding carried interest received by the general partners of funds that were not contributed to KKR in the acquisition of the assets and liabilities of KKR & Co. (Guernsey) L.P. (formerly known as KKR Private Equity Investors, L.P.) on October 1, 2009 (the “KPE Transaction”), as of June 30, 2015, no carried interest was subject to this clawback obligation, assuming that all applicable carry paying funds were liquidated at their June 30, 2015 fair values. Had the investments in such funds been liquidated at zero value, the clawback obligation would have been $2,432.9 million. Carried interest is recognized in the statement of operations based on the contractual conditions set forth in the agreements governing the fund as if the fund were terminated and liquidated at the reporting date and the fund’s investments were realized at the then estimated fair values. Amounts earned pursuant to carried interest are earned by the general partner of those funds to the extent that cumulative investment returns are positive and where applicable, preferred return thresholds have been met. If these investment amounts earned decrease or turn negative in subsequent periods, recognized carried interest will be reversed and to the extent that the aggregate amount of carry distributions received by the general partner during the term of the fund exceed the amount to which the general partner was ultimately entitled, a clawback obligation would be recorded. For funds that are consolidated, this clawback obligation, if any, is reflected as an increase in noncontrolling interests in the condensed consolidated statements of financial condition. For funds that are not consolidated, this clawback obligation, if any, is reflected as a reduction of KKR’s investment balance as this is where carried interest is initially recorded. Certain private equity funds that were contributed to KKR in the KPE Transaction in 2009 also include a “net loss sharing provision.” Upon the liquidation of an investment vehicle to which a net loss sharing obligation applies, the general partner is required to contribute capital to the vehicle, to fund 20% of the net losses on investments. In these vehicles, such losses would be required to be paid by KKR to the fund investors in those vehicles in the event of a liquidation of the fund regardless of whether any carried interest had previously been distributed, and a greater share of investment losses would be allocable to KKR relative to the capital that KKR contributed to it as general partner. Based on the fair market values as of June 30, 2015, there would have been no net loss sharing obligation. If the vehicles were liquidated at zero value, the net loss sharing obligation would have been approximately $92.4 million as of June 30, 2015. Prior to the KPE Transaction in 2009, certain principals who received carried interest distributions with respect to certain private equity funds contributed to KKR had personally guaranteed, on a several basis and subject to a cap, the contingent obligations of the general partners of such private equity funds to repay amounts to fund investors pursuant to the general partners’ clawback obligations. The terms of the KPE Transaction require that principals remain responsible for any clawback obligations relating to carry distributions received prior to the KPE Transaction, up to a maximum of $223.6 million. Through investment realizations, KKR's potential exposure has been reduced to $172.1 million as of June 30, 2015. Using valuations as of June 30, 2015, no amounts are due with respect to the clawback obligation required to be funded by principals. Carry distributions arising subsequent to the KPE Transaction may give rise to clawback obligations that may be allocated generally to KKR and persons who participate in the carry pool. Unlike the clawback obligation, KKR will be responsible for all amounts due under a net loss sharing obligation and will indemnify principals for any personal guarantees that they have provided with respect to such amounts. In addition, guarantees of or similar arrangements relating to clawback or net loss sharing obligations in favor of third party investors in an individual investment partnership by entities KKR owns may limit distributions of carried interest more generally. Indemnifications In the normal course of business, KKR enters into contracts that contain a variety of representations and warranties that provide general indemnifications and other indemnities relating to contractual performance. In addition, certain of KKR’s consolidated funds and KFN have provided certain indemnities relating to environmental and other matters and has provided nonrecourse carve-out guarantees for fraud, willful misconduct and other customary wrongful acts, each in connection with the financing of certain real estate investments that KKR has made. KKR’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown as this would involve future claims that may be made against KKR that have not yet occurred. However, based on experience, KKR expects the risk of material loss to be low. Litigation From time to time, KKR is involved in various legal proceedings, lawsuits and claims incidental to the conduct of KKR’s business. KKR’s business is also subject to extensive regulation, which may result in regulatory proceedings against it. On May 23, 2011, KKR, certain KKR affiliates and the board of directors of Primedia Inc. (a former KKR portfolio company whose directors at that time included certain KKR personnel) were named as defendants, along with others, in two shareholder class action complaints filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware challenging the sale of Primedia in a merger transaction that was completed on July 13, 2011. These actions allege, among other things, that Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR affiliates, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the merger agreement at an unfair price and failing to disclose all material information about the merger. Plaintiffs also allege that the merger price was unfair in light of the value of certain shareholder derivative claims, which were dismissed on August 8, 2011, based on a stipulation by the parties that the derivative plaintiffs and any other former Primedia shareholders lost standing to prosecute the derivative claims on behalf of Primedia when the Primedia merger was completed. The dismissed shareholder derivative claims included allegations concerning open market purchases of certain shares of Primedia’s preferred stock by KKR affiliates in 2002 and allegations concerning Primedia’s redemption of certain shares of Primedia’s preferred stock in 2004 and 2005, some of which were owned by KKR affiliates. With respect to the pending shareholder class actions challenging the Primedia merger, on June 7, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied a motion to preliminarily enjoin the merger. On July 18, 2011, the Court of Chancery consolidated the two pending shareholder class actions and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs. On October 7, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint in the consolidated shareholder class action. The operative complaint seeks, in relevant part, unspecified monetary damages and rescission of the merger. On December 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which similarly alleges that the Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR affiliates breached their respective fiduciary duties by entering into the merger agreement at an unfair price in light of the value of the dismissed shareholder derivative claims. That amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages. On January 31, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 10, 2013, the Court of Chancery denied the motion to dismiss the complaint as it relates to the Primedia board members, KKR and certain KKR affiliates. On July 1, 2013, KKR and other defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. On December 20, 2013, the Court of Chancery granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part. On March 6, 2015, KKR entered into a definitive agreement to settle all claims without the admission of wrongdoing, which was approved by the Court of Chancery on May 26, 2015. The settlement also operates to release all claims in the two shareholder class actions filed in Georgia state courts that are discussed below. The amount paid pursuant to the settlement did not have a material effect on KKR's financial results. Additionally, in May 2011, two shareholder class actions challenging the Primedia merger were filed in Georgia state courts, asserting similar allegations and seeking similar relief as initially sought by the Delaware shareholder class actions above. Both Georgia actions have been stayed in favor of the Delaware action. From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, the United States District Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by KFN shareholders against KFN, individual members of KFN’s board of directors, KKR, and certain of KKR’s affiliates in connection with KFN’s entry into a merger agreement pursuant to which it would become a subsidiary of KKR. The merger transaction was completed on April 30, 2014. The actions filed in California state court were consolidated, and prior to the filing or designation of an operative complaint for the consolidated action, the consolidated action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on December 1, 2014. The complaint filed in the California federal court action, which was never served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on May 6, 2014. Two of the Delaware actions were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and the remaining Delaware actions were consolidated. On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated Delaware action which all defendants moved to dismiss on March 7, 2014. On October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants’ motions to dismiss with prejudice. On November 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, the oral argument for which is scheduled for September 16, 2015. The consolidated complaint in the Delaware action alleges that the members of the KFN board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to KFN shareholders by approving the proposed transaction for inadequate consideration; approving the proposed transaction in order to obtain benefits not equally shared by other KFN shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices; and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to the KFN shareholders. The Delaware action also alleges that KKR, and certain of KKR’s affiliates, aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and that KKR is a controlling shareholder of KFN by means of a management agreement between KFN and KKR Financial Advisors LLC, a subsidiary of KKR, and KKR breached a fiduciary duty it allegedly owed to KFN shareholders by causing KFN to enter into the merger agreement. The relief sought in the Delaware action includes, among other things, declaratory relief concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief. KKR currently is and expects to continue to become, from time to time, subject to examinations, inquiries and investigations by various U.S. and non U.S. governmental and regulatory agencies, including but not limited to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, Department of Justice, state attorney generals, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA, and the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority. Such examinations, inquiries and investigations may result in the commencement of civil, criminal or administrative proceedings against KKR or its personnel. On June 29, 2015, KKR settled the previously disclosed inquiry by the SEC relating to the allocation of certain categories of expenses between KKR's flagship private equity funds and co-investment and employee vehicles that invested alongside those private equity funds during the period 2006 to 2011. The amounts paid and to be paid pursuant to the settlement are not expected to have a material effect on KKR's financial results. Moreover, in the ordinary course of business, KKR is and can be both the defendant and the plaintiff in numerous lawsuits with respect to acquisitions, bankruptcy, insolvency and other types of proceedings. Such lawsuits may involve claims that adversely affect the value of certain investments owned by KKR’s funds. KKR establishes an accrued liability for legal proceedings only when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. No loss contingency is recorded for matters where such losses are either not probable or reasonably estimable (or both) at the time of determination. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties, including among others (i) the proceedings are in early stages; (ii) damages sought are unspecified, unsupportable, unexplained or uncertain; (iii) discovery has not been started or is incomplete; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories to be presented or a large number of parties. Consequently, management is unable to estimate a range of potential loss, if any, related to these matters. In addition, loss contingencies may be, in part or in whole, subject to insurance or other payments such as contributions and/or indemnity, which may reduce any ultimate loss. For these matters described above for which a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, KKR has estimated the aggregate amount of losses attributable to KKR to be approximately $25.0 million. This estimate is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and uncertainties. Actual outcomes may vary significantly from this estimate. It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending legal proceedings, and some of the matters discussed above seek or may seek potentially large and/or indeterminate amounts. As of such date, based on information known by management, management has not concluded that the final resolutions of the matters above will have a material effect upon the consolidated financial statements. However, given the potentially large and/or indeterminate amounts sought or may be sought in certain of these matters and the inherent unpredictability of investigations and litigations, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material effect on KKR’s financial results in any particular period.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Debt Covenants

Borrowings of KKR contain various debt covenants. These covenants do not, in management’s opinion, materially restrict KKR’s operating business or investment strategies. KKR is in compliance with its debt covenants in all material respects as of June 30, 2015.

Investment Commitments

As of June 30, 2015, KKR had unfunded commitments consisting of (i) $1,267.5 million to its active private equity and other investment vehicles and (ii) $185.0 million in connection with commitments by KKR’s capital markets business, (iii) $128.6 million relating to Merchant Capital Solutions LLC and (iv) other investment commitments of $156.4 million. Whether these amounts are actually funded, in whole or in part depends on the terms of such commitments, including the satisfaction or waiver of any conditions to funding.

Contingent Repayment Guarantees

The partnership documents governing KKR’s carry—paying funds, including funds relating to private equity, mezzanine, infrastructure, energy, real estate, direct lending and special situations investments, generally include a “clawback” provision that, if triggered, may give rise to a contingent obligation requiring the general partner to return amounts to the fund for distribution to the fund investors at the end of the life of the fund. Under a clawback obligation, upon the liquidation of a fund, the general partner is required to return, typically on an after-tax basis, previously distributed carry to the extent that, due to the diminished performance of later investments, the aggregate amount of carry distributions received by the general partner during the term of the fund exceed the amount to which the general partner was ultimately entitled, including the effects of any performance thresholds. Excluding carried interest received by the general partners of funds that were not contributed to KKR in the acquisition of the assets and liabilities of KKR & Co. (Guernsey) L.P. (formerly known as KKR Private Equity Investors, L.P.) on October 1, 2009 (the “KPE Transaction”), as of June 30, 2015, no carried interest was subject to this clawback obligation, assuming that all applicable carry paying funds were liquidated at their June 30, 2015 fair values. Had the investments in such funds been liquidated at zero value, the clawback obligation would have been $2,432.9 million. Carried interest is recognized in the statement of operations based on the contractual conditions set forth in the agreements governing the fund as if the fund were terminated and liquidated at the reporting date and the fund’s investments were realized at the then estimated fair values. Amounts earned pursuant to carried interest are earned by the general partner of those funds to the extent that cumulative investment returns are positive and where applicable, preferred return thresholds have been met. If these investment amounts earned decrease or turn negative in subsequent periods, recognized carried interest will be reversed and to the extent that the aggregate amount of carry distributions received by the general partner during the term of the fund exceed the amount to which the general partner was ultimately entitled, a clawback obligation would be recorded. For funds that are consolidated, this clawback obligation, if any, is reflected as an increase in noncontrolling interests in the condensed consolidated statements of financial condition. For funds that are not consolidated, this clawback obligation, if any, is reflected as a reduction of KKR’s investment balance as this is where carried interest is initially recorded.

Certain private equity funds that were contributed to KKR in the KPE Transaction in 2009 also include a “net loss sharing provision.” Upon the liquidation of an investment vehicle to which a net loss sharing obligation applies, the general partner is required to contribute capital to the vehicle, to fund 20% of the net losses on investments. In these vehicles, such losses would be required to be paid by KKR to the fund investors in those vehicles in the event of a liquidation of the fund regardless of whether any carried interest had previously been distributed, and a greater share of investment losses would be allocable to KKR relative to the capital that KKR contributed to it as general partner. Based on the fair market values as of June 30, 2015, there would have been no net loss sharing obligation. If the vehicles were liquidated at zero value, the net loss sharing obligation would have been approximately $92.4 million as of June 30, 2015.

Prior to the KPE Transaction in 2009, certain principals who received carried interest distributions with respect to certain private equity funds contributed to KKR had personally guaranteed, on a several basis and subject to a cap, the contingent obligations of the general partners of such private equity funds to repay amounts to fund investors pursuant to the general partners’ clawback obligations. The terms of the KPE Transaction require that principals remain responsible for any clawback obligations relating to carry distributions received prior to the KPE Transaction, up to a maximum of $223.6 million. Through investment realizations, KKR's potential exposure has been reduced to $172.1 million as of June 30, 2015. Using valuations as of June 30, 2015, no amounts are due with respect to the clawback obligation required to be funded by principals. Carry distributions arising subsequent to the KPE Transaction may give rise to clawback obligations that may be allocated generally to KKR and persons who participate in the carry pool. Unlike the clawback obligation, KKR will be responsible for all amounts due under a net loss sharing obligation and will indemnify principals for any personal guarantees that they have provided with respect to such amounts. In addition, guarantees of or similar arrangements relating to clawback or net loss sharing obligations in favor of third party investors in an individual investment partnership by entities KKR owns may limit distributions of carried interest more generally.

Indemnifications

In the normal course of business, KKR enters into contracts that contain a variety of representations and warranties that provide general indemnifications and other indemnities relating to contractual performance. In addition, certain of KKR’s consolidated funds and KFN have provided certain indemnities relating to environmental and other matters and has provided nonrecourse carve-out guarantees for fraud, willful misconduct and other customary wrongful acts, each in connection with the financing of certain real estate investments that KKR has made. KKR’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown as this would involve future claims that may be made against KKR that have not yet occurred. However, based on experience, KKR expects the risk of material loss to be low.

Litigation

From time to time, KKR is involved in various legal proceedings, lawsuits and claims incidental to the conduct of KKR’s business. KKR’s business is also subject to extensive regulation, which may result in regulatory proceedings against it.

On May 23, 2011, KKR, certain KKR affiliates and the board of directors of Primedia Inc. (a former KKR portfolio company whose directors at that time included certain KKR personnel) were named as defendants, along with others, in two shareholder class action complaints filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware challenging the sale of Primedia in a merger transaction that was completed on July 13, 2011. These actions allege, among other things, that Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR affiliates, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the merger agreement at an unfair price and failing to disclose all material information about the merger. Plaintiffs also allege that the merger price was unfair in light of the value of certain shareholder derivative claims, which were dismissed on August 8, 2011, based on a stipulation by the parties that the derivative plaintiffs and any other former Primedia shareholders lost standing to prosecute the derivative claims on behalf of Primedia when the Primedia merger was completed. The dismissed shareholder derivative claims included allegations concerning open market purchases of certain shares of Primedia’s preferred stock by KKR affiliates in 2002 and allegations concerning Primedia’s redemption of certain shares of Primedia’s preferred stock in 2004 and 2005, some of which were owned by KKR affiliates. With respect to the pending shareholder class actions challenging the Primedia merger, on June 7, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied a motion to preliminarily enjoin the merger. On July 18, 2011, the Court of Chancery consolidated the two pending shareholder class actions and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs. On October 7, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint in the consolidated shareholder class action. The operative complaint seeks, in relevant part, unspecified monetary damages and rescission of the merger. On December 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which similarly alleges that the Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR affiliates breached their respective fiduciary duties by entering into the merger agreement at an unfair price in light of the value of the dismissed shareholder derivative claims. That amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages. On January 31, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 10, 2013, the Court of Chancery denied the motion to dismiss the complaint as it relates to the Primedia board members, KKR and certain KKR affiliates. On July 1, 2013, KKR and other defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. On December 20, 2013, the Court of Chancery granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part. On March 6, 2015, KKR entered into a definitive agreement to settle all claims without the admission of wrongdoing, which was approved by the Court of Chancery on May 26, 2015. The settlement also operates to release all claims in the two shareholder class actions filed in Georgia state courts that are discussed below. The amount paid pursuant to the settlement did not have a material effect on KKR's financial results.

Additionally, in May 2011, two shareholder class actions challenging the Primedia merger were filed in Georgia state courts, asserting similar allegations and seeking similar relief as initially sought by the Delaware shareholder class actions above. Both Georgia actions have been stayed in favor of the Delaware action.

From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, the United States District Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by KFN shareholders against KFN, individual members of KFN’s board of directors, KKR, and certain of KKR’s affiliates in connection with KFN’s entry into a merger agreement pursuant to which it would become a subsidiary of KKR. The merger transaction was completed on April 30, 2014. The actions filed in California state court were consolidated, and prior to the filing or designation of an operative complaint for the consolidated action, the consolidated action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on December 1, 2014. The complaint filed in the California federal court action, which was never served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on May 6, 2014. Two of the Delaware actions were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and the remaining Delaware actions were consolidated. On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated Delaware action which all defendants moved to dismiss on March 7, 2014. On October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants’ motions to dismiss with prejudice. On November 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, the oral argument for which is scheduled for September 16, 2015.

The consolidated complaint in the Delaware action alleges that the members of the KFN board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to KFN shareholders by approving the proposed transaction for inadequate consideration; approving the proposed transaction in order to obtain benefits not equally shared by other KFN shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices; and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to the KFN shareholders. The Delaware action also alleges that KKR, and certain of KKR’s affiliates, aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and that KKR is a controlling shareholder of KFN by means of a management agreement between KFN and KKR Financial Advisors LLC, a subsidiary of KKR, and KKR breached a fiduciary duty it allegedly owed to KFN shareholders by causing KFN to enter into the merger agreement. The relief sought in the Delaware action includes, among other things, declaratory relief concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief.

KKR currently is and expects to continue to become, from time to time, subject to examinations, inquiries and investigations by various U.S. and non U.S. governmental and regulatory agencies, including but not limited to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, Department of Justice, state attorney generals, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA, and the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority. Such examinations, inquiries and investigations may result in the commencement of civil, criminal or administrative proceedings against KKR or its personnel. On June 29, 2015, KKR settled the previously disclosed inquiry by the SEC relating to the allocation of certain categories of expenses between KKR's flagship private equity funds and co-investment and employee vehicles that invested alongside those private equity funds during the period 2006 to 2011. The amounts paid and to be paid pursuant to the settlement are not expected to have a material effect on KKR's financial results.

Moreover, in the ordinary course of business, KKR is and can be both the defendant and the plaintiff in numerous lawsuits with respect to acquisitions, bankruptcy, insolvency and other types of proceedings. Such lawsuits may involve claims that adversely affect the value of certain investments owned by KKR’s funds.

KKR establishes an accrued liability for legal proceedings only when those matters present loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable. In such cases, there may be an exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. No loss contingency is recorded for matters where such losses are either not probable or reasonably estimable (or both) at the time of determination. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties, including among others (i) the proceedings are in early stages; (ii) damages sought are unspecified, unsupportable, unexplained or uncertain; (iii) discovery has not been started or is incomplete; (iv) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions; (v) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; or (vi) there are novel legal issues or unsettled legal theories to be presented or a large number of parties. Consequently, management is unable to estimate a range of potential loss, if any, related to these matters. In addition, loss contingencies may be, in part or in whole, subject to insurance or other payments such as contributions and/or indemnity, which may reduce any ultimate loss. For these matters described above for which a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable, KKR has estimated the aggregate amount of losses attributable to KKR to be approximately $25.0 million. This estimate is subject to significant judgment and a variety of assumptions and uncertainties. Actual outcomes may vary significantly from this estimate.

It is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of all pending legal proceedings, and some of the matters discussed above seek or may seek potentially large and/or indeterminate amounts. As of such date, based on information known by management, management has not concluded that the final resolutions of the matters above will have a material effect upon the consolidated financial statements. However, given the potentially large and/or indeterminate amounts sought or may be sought in certain of these matters and the inherent unpredictability of investigations and litigations, it is possible that an adverse outcome in certain matters could, from time to time, have a material effect on KKR’s financial results in any particular period.