Under ASC 450, an event is “reasonably possible” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely” and an event is “remote” if “the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight.” Thus, references to the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss for cases in which the firm is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss mean the upper end of the range of loss for cases for which the firm believes the risk of loss is more than slight.

With respect to matters described below for which management has been able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss where (i) actual or potential plaintiffs have claimed an amount of money damages, (ii) the firm is being, or threatened to be, sued by purchasers in a securities offering and is not being indemnified by a party that the firm believes will pay the full amount of any judgment, or (iii) the purchasers are demanding that the firm repurchase securities, management has estimated the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss based on (a) in the case of (i), the amount of money damages claimed, (b) in the case of (ii), the difference between the initial sales price of the securities that the firm sold in such offering and the estimated lowest subsequent price of such securities prior to the action being commenced and (c) in the case of (iii), the price that purchasers paid for the securities less the estimated value, if any, as of June 2021 of the relevant securities, in each of cases (i), (ii) and (iii), taking into account any other factors believed to be relevant to the particular matter or matters of that type. As of the date hereof, the firm has estimated the upper end of the range of reasonably possible aggregate loss for such matters and for any other matters described below where management has been able to estimate a range of reasonably possible aggregate loss to be approximately $1.8 billion in excess of the aggregate reserves for such matters.

Management is generally unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for matters other than those included in the estimate above, including where (i) actual or potential plaintiffs have not claimed an amount of money damages, except in those instances where management can otherwise determine an appropriate amount, (ii) matters are in early stages, (iii) matters relate to regulatory investigations or reviews, except in those instances where management can otherwise determine an appropriate amount, (iv) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class, (v) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, (vi) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (vii) there are novel legal issues presented. For example, the firm’s potential liabilities with respect to the investigations and reviews described below in “Regulatory Investigations and Reviews and Related Litigation” generally are not included in management’s estimate of reasonably possible loss. However, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of such other matters will have a material adverse effect on the firm’s financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to the firm’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. See Note 18 for further information about mortgage-related contingencies.

On November 1, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) unsealed a criminal information and guilty plea by Tim Leissner, a former participating managing director of the firm, and an indictment against Ng Chong Hwa, a former managing director of the firm. On August 28, 2018, Leissner was adjudicated guilty by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York of conspiring to launder money and to violate the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act’s (FCPA) anti-bribery and internal accounting controls provisions. Ng was charged with conspiring to launder money and to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery and internal accounting controls provisions. On May 6, 2019, Ng pleaded not guilty to the DOJ’s criminal charges.

On October 22, 2020, the firm announced that it reached settlements of governmental and regulatory investigations relating to 1MDB with the DOJ, the SEC, the FRB, the NYDFS, the FCA, the PRA, the Singapore Attorney General’s Chambers, the Singapore Commercial Affairs Department, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission. Group Inc. entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement with the DOJ, in which a charge against the firm, one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA, was filed and will later be dismissed if the firm abides by the terms of the agreement. In addition, GS Malaysia pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA, and was sentenced on June 9, 2021. In May 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor granted the firm a five-year exemption to maintain its status as a qualified professional asset manager (QPAM).

The firm has received multiple demands, beginning in November 2018, from alleged shareholders under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law for books and records relating to, among other things, the firm’s involvement with 1MDB and the firm’s compliance procedures. On December 13, 2019, an alleged shareholder filed a lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking books and records relating to, among other things, the firm’s involvement with 1MDB and the firm’s compliance procedures. The parties have agreed to stay proceedings pending resolution of the books and records demand.

On February 19, 2019, a purported shareholder derivative action relating to 1MDB was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Group Inc. and the directors at the time and a former chairman and chief executive officer of the firm. The second amended complaint filed on November 13, 2020

lleges breaches of fiduciary duties, including in connection with alleged insider trading by certain current and former directors, unjust enrichment and violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act, including in connection with Group Inc.’s common stock repurchases and solicitation of proxies, and seeks unspecified damages, disgorgement and injunctive relief. Defendants moved to dismiss this action on January 15, 2021.

Beginning in March 2019, the firm has also received demands from three shareholders to investigate and pursue claims against certain current and former directors and executive officers based on their oversight and public disclosures regarding 1MDB and related internal controls. In June 2019, the Board appointed a Special Committee to consider the demands and, in January 2021, the Board voted to reject them. In June 2021, the firm reached a settlement with the three shareholders. Following the Board’s decision to reject the initial three demands, the firm received two additional demands from alleged shareholders (one of which is the alleged shareholder that filed the December 2019 books and records action in Delaware Chancery Court) to investigate and pursue claims related to 1MDB (and, for one of the demands, other matters) against other parties, including certain current and former directors and executive officers of the firm.

On December 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Group Inc. and certain former officers of the firm alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange Act with respect to Group Inc.’s disclosures and public statements concerning 1MDB and seeking unspecified damages. The plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on October 28, 2019. On June 28, 2021, the court dismissed the claims against one of the individual defendants but denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the firm and the remaining individual defendants.

The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which named as defendants Group Inc. and certain current and former officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks monetary damages. The defendants have moved for summary judgment. On April 7, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s August 14, 2018 grant of class certification. On June 21, 2021, the United States Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Second Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 25, 2019 and May 29, 2020 against Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and GS Mortgage Securities Corp. by U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for two residential mortgage-backed securitization trusts that issued $1.7 billion of securities. The complaints generally allege that mortgage loans in the trusts failed to conform to applicable representations and warranties and seek specific performance or, alternatively, compensatory damages and other relief. On November 23, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in the first action and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in the second action. On January 14, 2021, amended complaints were filed in both actions.

GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 7, 2018, and GSI, GSIB, Goldman Sachs Group UK Limited and GS Bank USA are among the defendants in an action filed in the High Court of England and Wales on November 11, 2020, in each case by certain direct purchasers of foreign exchange instruments that opted out of a class settlement reached with, among others, GS&Co. and Group Inc. The third amended complaint in the U.S. district court action, filed on August 3, 2020, generally alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive, treble and other damages. The claim in the U.K. action is for breaches of U.K. and E.U. competition rules from 2003 to 2013 and alleges manipulation of foreign exchange rates and bid/offer spreads, the exchange of commercially sensitive information among defendants and collusive trading.

Beginning in February 2015, GSI commenced actions against Novo Banco S.A. (Novo Banco) in the English Commercial Court and the Bank of Portugal (BoP) in Portuguese Administrative Court in response to BoP’s decision in December 2014 not to transfer to Novo Banco an $835 million facility agreement (the Facility), structured by GSI, between Oak Finance Luxembourg S.A. (Oak Finance), a special purpose vehicle formed in connection with the Facility, and Banco Espirito Santo S.A. (BES) prior to the failure of BES. In July 2018, the English Supreme Court found that the English courts did not have jurisdiction over GSI’s action. In July 2018, the Liquidation Committee for BES issued a decision seeking to claw back $54 million paid to GSI and $50 million paid to Oak Finance in connection with the Facility, alleging that GSI acted in bad faith in extending the Facility, including because GSI allegedly knew that BES was at risk of imminent failure. GSI has also issued a claim against the Portuguese State seeking compensation for losses related to the failure of BES, including a contingent claim for the $104 million sought by the Liquidation Committee.

Firm affiliates are among the defendants in a number of proceedings in connection with securities offerings. In these proceedings, including those described below, the plaintiffs assert class action or individual claims under federal and state securities laws and in some cases other applicable laws, allege that the offering documents for the securities that they purchased contained material misstatements and omissions, and generally seek compensatory and rescissory damages in unspecified amounts. Certain of these proceedings involve additional allegations.

Altice USA, Inc.

GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions pending in New York Supreme Court, County of Queens, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York beginning in June 2018, relating to Altice USA, Inc.’s (Altice) $2.15 billion June 2017 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Altice and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 12,280,042 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $368 million. On June 26, 2020, the court dismissed the amended complaint in the state court action, and on September 4, 2020, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs in the district court action filed a second amended complaint on October 7, 2020. On February 16, 2021, the parties reached a settlement in principle. Under the terms of the settlement in principle, the firm will not be required to contribute to the settlement.

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on September 12, 2019 in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (Alnylam) $805 million November 2017 public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Alnylam and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 2,576,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $322 million. On October 30, 2020, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed on November 7, 2019. On February 22, 2021, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. On April 29, 2021, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the First Department denied defendants’ appeal of the New York Supreme Court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, except with respect to one of the plaintiffs’ claims against Alnylam’s officers and directors.

Uber Technologies, Inc.

GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative securities class actions filed beginning in September 2019 in California Superior Court, County of San Francisco and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, relating to Uber Technologies, Inc.’s (Uber) $8.1 billion May 2019 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Uber and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 35,864,408 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.6 billion. On November 16, 2020, the court in the state court action granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed on February 11, 2020, and on December 16, 2020, plaintiffs appealed. On August 7, 2020, defendants’ motion to dismiss the district court action was denied. On September 25, 2020, the plaintiffs in the district court action moved for class certification. On December 5, 2020, the plaintiffs in the state court action filed a complaint in the district court, which was consolidated with the existing district court action on January 25, 2021. On May 14, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the district court, and on June 28, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.

Venator Materials PLC.

GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions in Texas District Court, Dallas County, New York Supreme Court, New York County, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, filed beginning in February 2019, relating to Venator Materials PLC’s (Venator) $522 million August 2017 initial public offering and $534 million December 2017 secondary equity offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Venator, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 6,351,347 shares of common stock in the August 2017 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $127 million and 5,625,768 shares of common stock in the December 2017 secondary equity offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $127 million. On January 21, 2020, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the Texas District Court and dismissed the claims against the underwriter defendants, including GS&Co., in the Texas state court action for lack of personal jurisdiction. On March 22, 2021, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the New York state court action was granted and the plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal. On July 7, 2021, the court in the federal action granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

XP Inc.

GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions pending in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of York, filed beginning March 19, 2020, relating to XP Inc.’s (XP) $2.3 billion December 2019 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include XP, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 19,326,218 shares of common stock in the December 2019 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $522 million. On August 5, 2020, defendants’ motion to stay the state court action in favor of the federal court action was denied. On February 8, 2021, the state court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the state court action, and on March 7, 2021, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the federal court action. On April 7, 2021, plaintiffs in the district court action appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

GoHealth, Inc.

GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed beginning on September 21, 2020 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois relating to GoHealth, Inc.’s (GoHealth) $914 million July 2020 initial public offering. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include GoHealth, certain of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 11,540,550 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $242 million. On February 25, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On April 26, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

Root, Inc.

GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on March 25, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, relating to Root, Inc.’s (Root) $724 million October 2020 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Root and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 9,406,891 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $254 million. On May 12, 2021, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice.

Array Technologies, Inc.

GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on May 14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, relating to Array Technologies, Inc.’s (Array) $1.2 billion October 2020 initial public offering of common stock, $1.3 billion December 2020 offering of common stock and $993 million March 2021 offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Array and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote an aggregate of 31,912,213 shares of common stock in the three offerings representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $877 million.

ContextLogic, Inc.

GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in two putative securities class actions filed on May 17, 2021 and May 25, 2021, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, relating to ContextLogic, Inc.’s (ContextLogic) $1.1 billion December 2020 initial public offering of common stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include ContextLogic and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 16,169,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $388 million.

DiDi Global Inc.

Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C. is among the underwriters named as defendants in two putative securities class actions filed on July 6, 2021 in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Central District of California relating to DiDi Global Inc.’s (DiDi) $4.4 billion June 2021 initial public offering of American Depositary Shares (ADS). In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include DiDi and certain of its officers and directors. Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C. underwrote 104,554,000 ADS representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.5 billion. On July 9, 2021, plaintiffs in the California district court action filed an amended complaint.

Group Inc. and GS&Co. are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action and three individual actions relating to securities lending practices filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York beginning in August 2017. The complaints generally assert claims under federal and state antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development of electronic platforms for securities lending transactions. The individual complaints also assert claims for tortious interference with business relations and under state trade practices law and, in the second and third individual actions, unjust enrichment under state common law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble, punitive and other damages. Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative class action on January 26, 2018. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the class action complaint was denied on September 27, 2018. Defendants moved to dismiss the second individual action on December 21, 2018. In June 2019, the third individual action was consolidated with the second individual action. After that consolidation, the court ordered that the pending motion to dismiss in the second individual action apply to the newly consolidated matter. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the first individual action was granted on August 7, 2019. The plaintiffs in the putative class action moved for class certification on February 22, 2021.

Group Inc., GS&Co., GSI, GS Bank USA and Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, L.P. are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The same Goldman Sachs entities also are among the defendants named in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate swaps, commenced in April 2016 and June 2018, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their affiliates. These actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings. The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps. The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under state antitrust law. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss the class and the first individual action and the district court dismissed the state common law claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and otherwise limited the state common law claim in the putative class action and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from 2013 to 2016. On November 20, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second individual action, dismissing the state common law claims for unjust enrichment and tortious interference, but denying dismissal of the federal and state antitrust claims. On March 13, 2019, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion in the putative class action to amend their complaint to add allegations related to 2008-2012 conduct, but granted the motion to add limited allegations from 2013-2016, which the plaintiffs added in a fourth consolidated amended complaint filed on March 22, 2019. The plaintiffs in the putative class action moved for class certification on March 7, 2019.

GS&Co. is among the defendants named in a putative class action relating to variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs), filed beginning in February 2019 under separate complaints and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 31, 2019, generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate the market for VRDOs. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages. On November 2, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing the state common law claims against GS&Co., but denying dismissal of the federal antitrust law claims.

GS&Co. is also among the defendants named in a related putative class action filed on June 2, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges the same conspiracy in the market for VRDOs as that alleged in the consolidated amended complaint filed on May 31, 2019, and asserts federal antitrust law, state law and state common law claims against the defendants. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages. On July

26,

2021, plaintiffs in the May 31, 2019 action sought leave to file an amended complaint consolidating the two actions.

GSI is among the defendants named in putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently amended on May 15, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On March 29, 2020, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for reconsideration, resulting in the dismissal of all claims. On April 27, 2020, plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

GS&Co., GSI, J. Aron & Company and Metro International Trade Services (Metro), a previously consolidated subsidiary of Group Inc. that was sold in the fourth quarter of 2014, are among the defendants in a number of putative class and individual actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege violations of federal antitrust laws and state laws in connection with the storage of aluminum and aluminum trading. The complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief, as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages. In December 2016, the district court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and on August 27, 2019, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissals and remanded the case to district court for further proceedings. On July 23, 2020, the district court denied the class plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and on December 16, 2020 the Second Circuit denied leave to appeal the denial. On February 17, 2021, the district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the claims of most of the individual plaintiffs. On April 14, 2021, the plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Group Inc., GS&Co., GSI, J. Aron & Company and Metro are among the defendants in an action filed on February 27, 2020 in the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales. The particulars of claim seeks unspecified compensatory and exemplary damages based on alleged violations of U.K. and E.U. competition laws in connection with the storage and trading of aluminum. On May 21, 2021, the parties entered into a settlement agreement. The firm has paid the full amount of its contribution to the settlement. All proceedings against the firm were dismissed on June 4, 2021.

GS&Co. is among the primary dealers named as defendants in several putative class actions relating to the market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017. The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29, 2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms in order to impede competition in the bidding process. The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages in an unspecified amount and restitution. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted on March 31, 2021. On May 14, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On June 14, 2021, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Group Inc. and GS&Co. are among the dealers named as defendants in a putative class action relating to the secondary market for

odd-lot

corporate bonds, filed on April 21, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The amended consolidated complaint, filed on October 29, 2020, asserts claims under federal antitrust law in connection with alleged anti-competitive conduct by the defendants in the secondary market for

odd-lots

of corporate bonds, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble and punitive damages and restitution. Defendants moved to dismiss on December 15, 2020.

Group Inc., GS&Co. and GSI are among the defendants named in a putative antitrust class action relating to the settlement of credit default swaps, filed on June 30, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The complaint generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate the benchmark price used to value credit default swaps for settlement. The complaint also asserts a claim for unjust enrichment under state common law. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of treble and other damages.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three female former employees. The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges that Group Inc. and GS&Co. have systematically discriminated against female employees in respect of compensation, promotion and performance evaluations. The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages.

On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a damages class as to the plaintiffs’ disparate impact and treatment claims. On September 4, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied defendants’ petition for interlocutory review of the district court’s class certification decision and subsequently denied defendants’ petition for rehearing. On September 27, 2018, plaintiffs advised the district court that they would not seek to certify a class for injunctive and declaratory relief. On March 26, 2020, the Magistrate Judge in the district court granted in part a motion to compel arbitration as to class members who are parties to certain agreements with Group Inc. and/or GS&Co. in which they agreed to arbitrate employment-related disputes. On April 16, 2020, plaintiffs submitted objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order and defendants submitted conditional objections in the event that the district judge overturns any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order.

•

The firm’s investment management and financial advisory services;

•

Conflicts of interest;

•

Research practices, including research independence and interactions between research analysts and other firm personnel, including investment banking personnel, as well as third parties;

•

Transactions involving government-related financings and other matters, municipal securities, including wall-cross procedures and conflict of interest disclosure with respect to state and municipal clients, the trading and structuring of municipal derivative instruments in connection with municipal offerings, political contribution rules, municipal advisory services and the possible impact of credit default swap transactions on municipal issuers;

•

Consumer lending, as well as residential mortgage lending, servicing and securitization, and compliance with related consumer laws;

•

The offering, auction, sales, trading and clearance of corporate and government securities, currencies, commodities and other financial products and related sales and other communications and activities, as well as the firm’s supervision and controls relating to such activities, including compliance with applicable short sale rules, algorithmic, high-frequency and quantitative trading, the firm’s U.S. alternative trading system (dark pool), futures trading, options trading, when-issued trading, transaction reporting, technology systems and controls, securities lending practices, prime brokerage activities, trading and clearance of credit derivative instruments and interest rate swaps, commodities activities and metals storage, private placement practices, allocations of and trading in securities, and trading activities and communications in connection with the establishment of benchmark rates, such as currency rates;

•

Compliance with the FCPA;

•

The firm’s hiring and compensation practices;

•

The firm’s system of risk management and controls; and

•

Insider trading, the potential misuse and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding corporate and governmental developments and the effectiveness of the firm’s insider trading controls and information barriers.

The firm is cooperating with all such governmental and regulatory investigations and reviews.