XML 42 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.25.3
Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies
Commitments
 Years to Maturity at September 30, 2025 
$ in millionsLess than 11-33-5Over 5Total
Lending:
Corporate$15,253 $47,884 $77,007 $10,225 $150,369 
Secured lending facilities7,152 6,604 10,133 6,086 29,975 
Commercial and Residential real estate673 181 215 465 1,534 
Securities-based lending and Other15,349 3,929 526 459 20,263 
Forward-starting secured financing receivables1
141,793 3,554 — — 145,347 
Central counterparty14,298 — — — 14,298 
Underwriting1,422 — — — 1,422 
Investment activities2,533 313 76 471 3,393 
Letters of credit and other financial guarantees26 — — 5 31 
Total$198,499 $62,465 $87,957 $17,711 $366,632 
Lending commitments participated to third parties$12,877 
1.These amounts primarily include secured financing receivables yet to settle as of September 30, 2025, with settlement generally occurring within three business days. These amounts also include commitments to enter into certain collateralized financing transactions.
Since commitments associated with these instruments may expire unused, the amounts shown do not necessarily reflect the actual future cash funding requirements.
For a further description of these commitments, refer to Note 14 to the financial statements in the 2024 Form 10-K.
Guarantees
 At September 30, 2025
Maximum Potential Payout/Notional of Obligations by Years to Maturity
Carrying Amount Asset (Liability)
$ in millionsLess than 11-33-5Over 5
Non-credit derivatives1
$1,449,384 $714,985 $211,871 $560,807 $(33,866)
Standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees issued2,3
1,558 734 1,547 2,543 14 
Liquidity facilities2,834 — — — 2 
Whole loan sales guarantees61 17 — 23,077 — 
Securitization representations and warranties4
— — — 94,468 — 
General partner guarantees208 109 72 20 (102)
Client clearing guarantees2,126 — — — — 
1.The carrying amounts of derivative contracts that meet the accounting definition of a guarantee are shown on a gross basis. For further information on derivatives contracts, see Note 6.
2.These amounts include certain issued standby letters of credit participated to third parties, totaling $0.7 billion of notional and collateral/recourse, due to the nature of the Firm’s obligations under these arrangements.
3.As of September 30, 2025, the carrying amount of standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees issued includes an allowance for credit losses of $59 million.
4.Related to commercial, residential mortgage and asset backed securitizations.
The Firm 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.
For more information on the nature of the obligations and related business activities for our guarantees, see Note 14 to the financial statements in the 2024 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, market value guarantees, exchange and clearinghouse member guarantees, futures and over-the-counter derivatives clearing guarantees and merger and acquisition guarantees are described in Note 14 to the financial statements in the 2024 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 wholly owned finance subsidiary. No other subsidiary of the Parent Company guarantees these securities.
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 third-party entities that are, or would otherwise be, the primary defendants in such cases are bankrupt, in financial distress, or may not honor applicable
indemnification obligations. These actions have included, but are not limited to, antitrust claims, claims under various false claims act statutes, and matters arising from our wealth management businesses, sales and trading businesses, and our activities in the capital markets.
The Firm is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental or other regulatory agencies regarding the Firm’s business, and involving, among other matters, sales, trading, financing, prime brokerage, market-making activities, investment banking advisory services, capital markets activities, financial products or offerings sponsored, underwritten or sold by the Firm, wealth and investment management services, and accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, disgorgement, restitution, forfeiture, injunctions, limitations on our ability to conduct certain business, or other relief.
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 or the range of loss, the Firm accrues an estimated loss by a charge to income, including with respect to certain of the individual proceedings or investigations described below.
The Firm’s legal expenses can, and may in the future, fluctuate from period to period, given the current environment regarding government or regulatory agency investigations and private litigation affecting global financial services firms, including the Firm.
In many legal proceedings and investigations, it is inherently difficult to determine whether any loss is probable or reasonably possible, or to estimate the amount of any loss. In addition, even where the Firm has determined that a loss is probable or reasonably possible or an exposure to loss or range of loss exists in excess of the liability already accrued with respect to a previously recognized loss contingency, the Firm may be unable to reasonably estimate the amount of the loss or range of loss. It is particularly difficult to determine if a loss is probable or reasonably possible, or to estimate the amount of loss, where the factual record is being developed or contested or where plaintiffs or government entities seek substantial or indeterminate damages, restitution, forfeiture, disgorgement or penalties. Numerous issues may need to be resolved in an investigation or proceeding before a determination can be made that a loss or additional loss (or range of loss or range of additional loss) is probable or reasonably possible, or to estimate the amount of loss, including through potentially lengthy discovery or determination of important factual matters, determination of issues related to class certification, the calculation of damages or other relief, and consideration of novel or unsettled legal
questions relevant to the proceedings or investigations in question.

The Firm has identified below any individual proceedings or investigations where the Firm believes a material loss to be reasonably possible. In certain legal proceedings in which the Firm has determined that a material loss is reasonably possible, the Firm is unable to reasonably estimate the loss or range of loss. There are other matters in which the Firm has determined a loss or range of loss to be reasonably possible, but the Firm does not believe, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that such losses could have a material adverse effect on the Firm’s financial statements as a whole, although the outcome of such proceedings or investigations may significantly impact the Firm’s business or results of operations for any particular reporting period, or cause significant reputational harm.
While the Firm has identified below certain proceedings or investigations that the Firm believes to be material, individually or collectively, there can be no assurance that material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or those where potential losses have not yet been determined to be probable or reasonably possible.
Antitrust Related Matters
The Firm and other financial institutions are responding to a number of governmental investigations and civil litigation matters related to allegations of anticompetitive conduct in various aspects of the financial services industry, including the matters described below.

Beginning in February of 2016, the Firm was named as a defendant in multiple purported antitrust class actions now consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) styled In Re: Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Firm, together with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. and New York state antitrust laws from 2008 through December of 2016 in connection with alleged efforts to prevent the development of electronic exchange-based platforms for interest rate swaps trading. Complaints were filed both on behalf of a purported class of investors who purchased interest rate swaps from defendants, as well as on behalf of three operators of swap execution facilities that allegedly were thwarted by the defendants in their efforts to develop such platforms. The consolidated complaints seek, inter alia, certification of the investor class of plaintiffs and treble damages. On July 28, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaints. On December 15, 2023, the court denied the class plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On December 29, 2023, the class plaintiffs petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for leave to appeal that decision. On February 28, 2024, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the class claims. On July 17, 2025, the court granted final approval of the settlement.

The Firm is a defendant in three antitrust class action complaints which have been consolidated into one proceeding in the United States District Court for the SDNY under the caption City of Philadelphia, et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the Firm, together with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws and relevant state laws in connection with alleged efforts to artificially inflate interest rates for Variable Rate Demand Obligations (“VRDO”). The consolidated complaint seeks, inter alia, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages. The complaint was filed on behalf of a class of municipal issuers of VRDO for which defendants served as remarketing agent. On November 2, 2020, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, dismissing state law claims, but denying dismissal of the U.S. antitrust claims. On September 21, 2023, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On February 5, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted leave to appeal that decision and, on August 1, 2025, affirmed the court’s decision.
European Matters
Tax
In matters styled Case number 15/3637 and Case number 15/4353, the Dutch Tax Authority (“Dutch Authority”) challenged in the Dutch courts the prior set-off by the Firm of approximately €124 million (approximately $146 million) plus accrued interest of withholding tax credits against the Firm’s corporation tax liabilities for the tax years 2007 to 2012. The Dutch Authority alleged 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. On April 26, 2018, the District Court in Amsterdam issued a decision dismissing the Dutch Authority’s claims with respect to certain of the tax years in dispute. On May 12, 2020, the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam granted the Dutch Authority’s appeal in matters re-styled Case number 18/00318 and Case number 18/00319. On January 19, 2024, the Dutch High Court granted the Firm’s appeal in matters re-styled Case number 20/01884 and referred the case to the Court of Appeal in The Hague. On November 11, 2024, the Firm reached an agreement to settle the Dutch Authority’s challenges for the tax years 2007 to 2012 and made payment of the prior set-off amounts and interest indicated above. The case has been withdrawn.
On June 22, 2021, Dutch criminal authorities sought various documents in connection with an investigation of the Firm related to the civil claims asserted by the Dutch Authority concerning the accuracy of the Firm subsidiary’s tax returns for 2007 to 2012. The Dutch criminal authorities have
requested additional information, and the Firm is continuing to respond to them in connection with their ongoing investigation. On September 30, 2025, the Dutch Public Prosecutor served the Firm subsidiaries (Morgan Stanley Derivatives Products (Netherlands) B.V. and Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc) with indictments, bringing charges of filing false tax returns for 2007 to 2012. The Firm disputes these charges and will continue to engage with the Prosecutor as the criminal process progresses.
U.K. Government Bond Matter

On February 21, 2025, the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority announced a settlement with the Firm, as well as other financial institutions, in connection with its investigation of suspected anti-competitive arrangements in the financial services sector, specifically regarding the Firm’s activities concerning certain liquid fixed income products between 2009 and 2012. Separately, on June 16, 2023, the Firm was named as a defendant in a purported antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the SDNY styled Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft, et al., alleging, inter alia, that the Firm, together with a number of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust laws in connection with their alleged effort to fix prices of gilts traded in the United States between 2009 and 2013. The complaint seeks, inter alia, certification of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages. On September 16, 2024, the court granted defendants’ joint motion to dismiss, and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice. In October of 2024, the Firm and certain other defendants reached an agreement in principle to settle the U.S. litigation. On March 17, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.
Other

On August 13, 2021, the plaintiff in Camelot Event Driven Fund, a Series of Frank Funds Trust v. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, et al. filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (“Supreme Court of NY”) a purported class action complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws against ViacomCBS (“Viacom”), certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters, including the Firm, of two March 2021 Viacom offerings: a $1.7 billion Viacom Class B Common Stock offering and a $1 billion offering of 5.75% Series A Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock (collectively, the “Offerings”). The complaint seeks certification of the class of plaintiffs and unspecified compensatory damages and alleges, inter alia, that the Viacom offering documents for both issuances contained material misrepresentations and omissions because they did not disclose that certain of the underwriters, including the Firm, had prime brokerage relationships and/or served as counterparties to certain derivative transactions with Archegos Capital Management LP (“Archegos”), a fund with significant exposure to Viacom securities across multiple prime brokers. The complaint also alleges that the offering documents did not adequately disclose the risks associated with Archegos’s concentrated Viacom positions at the various prime brokers, including that the unwind of those positions could have a deleterious impact on the stock price of Viacom. On November 5, 2021, the complaint was amended to add allegations that defendants failed to disclose that certain underwriters, including the Firm, had intended to unwind Archegos’s Viacom positions while simultaneously distributing the Offerings. On February 6, 2023, the court issued a decision denying motions to dismiss as to the Firm and the other underwriters, but granting the motion to dismiss as to Viacom and the Viacom individual defendants. On February 15, 2023, the underwriters, including the Firm, filed their notices of appeal of the denial of their motions to dismiss. On March 10, 2023, the plaintiff appealed the dismissal of Viacom and the individual Viacom defendants. On April 4, 2024, the Appellate Division upheld the lower court’s decision as to the Firm and other underwriter defendants that had prime brokerage relationships and/or served as counterparties to certain derivative transactions with Archegos, dismissed the remaining underwriters, and upheld the dismissal of Viacom and its officers and directors. On July 25, 2024, the Appellate Division denied the plaintiff’s and the Firm’s respective motions for leave to reargue or appeal the April 4, 2024 decision. On January 4, 2024, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification, which the defendants appealed. In February of 2025, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation. On April 3, 2025, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and, on August 5, 2025, granted final approval.

On May 17, 2013, the plaintiff in IKB International S.A. in Liquidation, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. filed a complaint against the Firm and certain affiliates in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint alleges that defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions in the sale to the plaintiff 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 the plaintiff was approximately $133 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Firm for common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, and seeks, inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages. On October 29, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Firm’s motion to dismiss. All claims regarding four certificates were dismissed. After these dismissals, the remaining amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Firm or sold to the plaintiff by the Firm was approximately $116 million. On August 11, 2016, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s order denying in part the Firm’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On July 15, 2022, the Firm filed a motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims. On March 1, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the Firm’s motion for summary judgment, narrowing the alleged misrepresentations at issue in the case. On March 26, 2024, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment order. On August 27, 2024, the plaintiff notified the court that in light of the court’s rulings to exclude certain evidence at trial, the plaintiff could not prove its claims at trial, and requested that the court dismiss the case, subject to its right to appeal the evidentiary rulings. On August 28, 2024, the court dismissed the case, and judgment was entered in the Firm’s favor. The plaintiff has appealed.
Beginning in February of 2024, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“MSSB”) and E*TRADE Securities LLC (“E*TRADE Securities”), among others, have been named as defendants in multiple putative class actions pending in the federal district courts for the District of New Jersey and SDNY. The class action claims have been brought on behalf of brokerage, advisory and retirement account holders, alleging various contractual, fiduciary, and statutory claims (including under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §1962(c)-(d)) that MSSB and/or E*TRADE Securities failed to pay a reasonable rate of interest on its cash sweep products. All matters pending in the SDNY (which focus solely on MSSB’s cash sweep program) were consolidated into one action styled Estate of Sherlip, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. An amended class action complaint was filed on August 15, 2025. On September 12, 2025, MSSB moved to dismiss the complaint. The matters pending in the District of New Jersey (which includes claims against both MSSB and E*TRADE Securities) remain subject to requests to consolidate and appoint lead counsel. Together, the complaints seek, inter alia, certification of classes of plaintiffs, unspecified compensatory damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and treble damages. The Firm is also responding to requests from state securities regulators regarding brokerage account cash balances swept to the affiliate bank deposit program.