The Firm also has obligations under certain guarantee arrangements, including contracts and indemnification agreements, that contingently require the Firm to make payments to the guaranteed party based on changes in an underlying measure (such as an interest or foreign exchange rate, security or commodity price, an index, or the occurrence or non-occurrence of a specified event) related to an asset, liability or equity security of a guaranteed party. Also included as guarantees are contracts that contingently require the Firm to make payments to the guaranteed party based on another entity’s failure to perform under an agreement, as well as indirect guarantees of the indebtedness of others.

In certain situations, collateral may be held by the Firm for those contracts that meet the definition of a guarantee. Generally, the Firm sets collateral requirements by counterparty so that the collateral covers various transactions and products and is not allocated specifically to individual contracts. Also, the Firm may recover amounts related to the underlying asset delivered to the Firm under the derivative contract.

For more information on the nature of the obligation and related business activity for market value guarantees, liquidity facilities, whole loan sales guarantees and general partner guarantees related to certain investment management funds, as well as the other products in the previous table, see Note 12 to the financial statements in the 2017 Form 10-K.

Other Guarantees and Indemnities

In the normal course of business, the Firm provides guarantees and indemnifications in a variety of transactions. These provisions generally are standard contractual terms. Certain of these guarantees and indemnifications related to indemnities, exchange/clearinghouse member guarantees and merger and acquisition guarantees are described in Note 12 to the financial statements in the 2017 Form 10-K.

In addition, in the ordinary course of business, the Firm guarantees the debt and/or certain trading obligations (including obligations associated with derivatives, foreign exchange contracts and the settlement of physical commodities) of certain subsidiaries. These guarantees generally are entity or product specific and are required by investors or trading counterparties. The activities of the Firm’s subsidiaries covered by these guarantees (including any related debt or trading obligations) are included in the financial statements.

Finance Subsidiary

The Parent Company fully and unconditionally guarantees the securities issued by Morgan Stanley Finance LLC, a 100%-owned finance subsidiary.

Contingencies

Legal. In addition to the matters described below, in the normal course of business, the Firm has been named, from time to time, as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, arising in connection with its activities as a global diversified financial services institution. Certain of the actual or threatened legal actions include claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. In some cases, the entities that would otherwise be the primary defendants in such cases are bankrupt or are in financial distress. These actions have included, but are not limited to, residential mortgage and credit crisis-related matters.

Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies has increased materially in the financial services industry. As a result, the Firm expects that it will continue to be the subject of elevated claims for damages and other relief and, while the Firm has identified below any individual proceedings where the Firm believes a material loss to be reasonably possible and reasonably estimable, there can be no assurance that material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are not yet determined to be probable or possible and reasonably estimable losses.

The Firm contests liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in each pending matter. Where available information indicates that it is probable a liability had been incurred at the date of the financial statements and the Firm can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss, the Firm accrues the estimated loss by a charge to income.

In many proceedings and investigations, however, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or even possible or to estimate the amount of any loss. In addition, even where a loss is possible or an exposure to loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued with respect to a previously recognized loss contingency, it is not always possible to reasonably estimate the size of the possible loss or range of loss.

For certain legal proceedings and investigations, the Firm cannot reasonably estimate such losses, particularly for proceedings and investigations where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government entities seek substantial or indeterminate damages, restitution, disgorgement or penalties. Numerous issues may need to be resolved, including through potentially lengthy discovery and determination of important factual matters, determination of issues related to class certification and the calculation of damages or other relief, and by addressing novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings or investigations in question, before a loss or additional loss or range of loss or additional range of loss can be reasonably estimated for a proceeding or investigation.

For certain other legal proceedings and investigations, the Firm can estimate reasonably possible losses, additional losses, ranges of loss or ranges of additional loss in excess of amounts accrued, but does not believe, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that such losses will have a material adverse effect on the Firm’s financial statements as a whole, other than the matters referred to in the following paragraphs.

On July 15, 2010, China Development Industrial Bank (“CDIB”) filed a complaint against the Firm, styled China Development Industrial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated et al., which is pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (“Supreme Court of NY”). The complaint relates to a $275 million CDS referencing the super senior portion of the STACK 2006-1 CDO. The complaint asserts claims for common law fraud, fraudulent inducement and fraudulent concealment and alleges that the Firm misrepresented the risks of the STACK 2006-1 CDO to CDIB, and that the Firm knew that the assets backing the CDO were of poor quality when it entered into the CDS with CDIB. The complaint seeks compensatory damages related to the approximately $228 million that CDIB alleges it has already lost under the CDS, rescission of CDIB’s obligation to pay an additional $12 million, punitive damages, equitable relief, fees and costs. On February 28, 2011, the court denied the Firm’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Based on currently available information, the Firm believes it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately $240 million plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs.

On May 3, 2013, plaintiffs in Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank AG et al. v. Morgan Stanley et al. filed a complaint against the Firm, certain affiliates, and other defendants in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Firm to plaintiff was approximately $634 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Firm for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and rescission and seeks, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. On June 10, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Firm’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 20, 2017 the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s June 10, 2014 order. On October 3, 2017, the Appellate Division denied the Firm’s motion for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. At March 25, 2018, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $211 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of approximately $89 million. Based on currently available information, the Firm believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $211 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against the Firm, or upon sale, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. The Firm may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses.

On July 8, 2013, U.S. Bank National Association, in its capacity as trustee, filed a complaint against the Firm styled U.S. Bank National Association, solely in its capacity as Trustee of the Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-2AX (MSM 2007-2AX) v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, Successor-by-Merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. and GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $650 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages and interest. On August 22, 2013, the Firm filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on November 24, 2014. Based on currently available information, the Firm believes that it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately $240 million, the total original unpaid balance of the mortgage loans for which the Firm received repurchase demands that it did not repurchase, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs, but plaintiff is seeking to expand the number of loans at issue and the possible range of loss could increase.

On December 30, 2013, Wilmington Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-12, filed a complaint against the Firm styled Wilmington Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC et al., pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $516 million, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees, interest and costs. On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on June 14, 2016. On July 11, 2017, the Appellate Division affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s order that granted in part the Firm’s motion to dismiss. On September 26, 2017, the Appellate Division denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. Based on currently available information, the Firm believes that it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately $152 million, the total original unpaid balance of the mortgage loans for which the Firm received repurchase demands that it did not repurchase, plus attorney’s fees, costs and interest, but plaintiff is seeking to expand the number of loans at issue and the possible range of loss could increase.

On September 19, 2014, Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (“FGIC”) filed a complaint against the Firm in the Supreme Court of NY, styled Financial Guaranty Insurance Company v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. et al. relating to a securitization issued by Basket of Aggregated Residential NIMS 2007-1 Ltd. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the net interest margin securities (“NIMS”) in the trust breached various representations and warranties. FGIC issued a financial guaranty policy with respect to certain notes that had an original balance of approximately $475 million. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the NIMS breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, unspecified damages, reimbursement of certain payments made pursuant to the transaction documents, attorneys’ fees and interest. On November 24, 2014, the Firm filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the court denied on January 19, 2017. On February 24, 2017, the Firm filed a notice of appeal of the denial of its motion to dismiss the complaint and perfected its appeal on November 22, 2017. Based on currently available information, the Firm believes that it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately $126 million, the unpaid balance of these notes, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs, as well as claim payments that FGIC has made and will make in the future.

On September 23, 2014, FGIC filed a complaint against the Firm in the Supreme Court of NY styled Financial Guaranty Insurance Company v. Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. et al. relating to the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-NC4. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust breached various representations and warranties and defendants made untrue statements and material omissions to induce FGIC to issue a financial guaranty policy on certain classes of certificates that had an original balance of approximately $876 million. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and interest. On January 23, 2017, the court denied the Firm’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 24, 2017, the Firm filed a notice of appeal of the court’s order and perfected its appeal on November 22, 2017. Based on currently available information, the Firm believes that it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately $277 million, the total original unpaid balance of the mortgage loans for which the Firm received repurchase demands from a certificate holder and FGIC that the Firm did not repurchase, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs, as well as claim payments that FGIC has made and will make in the future. In addition, plaintiff is seeking to expand the number of loans at issue and the possible range of loss could increase.

On January 23, 2015, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in its capacity as trustee, filed a complaint against the Firm styled Deutsche Bank National Trust Company solely in its capacity as Trustee of the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-NC4 v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC as Successor-by-Merger to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., and Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trust, which had an original principal balance of approximately $1.05 billion, breached various representations and warranties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, specific performance of the loan breach remedy procedures in the transaction documents, compensatory, consequential, rescissory, equitable and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and other related expenses, and interest. On December 11, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the Firm’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 11, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of that order, and the appeal was fully briefed on August 19, 2016. Based on currently available information, the Firm believes that it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately $277 million, the total original unpaid balance of the mortgage loans for which the Firm received repurchase demands from a certificate holder and a monoline insurer that the Firm did not repurchase, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs, but plaintiff is seeking to expand the number of loans at issue and the possible range of loss could increase.

In matters styled Case number 15/3637 and Case number 15/4353, the Dutch Tax Authority (“Dutch Authority”) is challenging, in the District Court in Amsterdam, the prior set-off by the Firm of approximately €124 million (approximately $152 million) plus accrued interest of withholding tax credits against the Firm’s corporation tax liabilities for the tax years 2007 to 2013. The Dutch Authority alleges that the Firm was not entitled to receive the withholding tax credits on the basis, inter alia, that a Firm subsidiary did not hold legal title to certain securities subject to withholding tax on the relevant dates. The Dutch Authority has also alleged that the Firm failed to provide certain information to the Dutch Authority and keep adequate books and records. A hearing took place in this matter on September 19, 2017. Based on currently available information, the Firm believes that it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately €124 million (approximately $152 million) plus accrued interest. On April 26, 2018, the District Court in Amsterdam issued a decision in matters styled Case number 15/3637 and Case number 15/4353 dismissing the Dutch Authority’s claims. The Dutch Authority has until June 7, 2018 to file any appeal.