Commitments and contingent liabilities

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2025

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Off-balance sheet arrangements

In the normal course of business, various commitments and contingent liabilities are

outstanding that are not reflected in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

Our significant trading and off-balance sheet risks are securities, foreign currency and interest rate risk management products, commercial lending

commitments, letters of credit and securities lending indemnifications. We assume these risks to reduce interest rate and foreign currency risks, to provide customers with the ability to meet credit and liquidity needs and to hedge foreign currency and interest rate risks. These items involve, to varying degrees, credit, foreign currency and interest rate risks not recognized on the balance sheet. Our off-balance sheet risks are managed and monitored in manners similar to those used for on-balance sheet risks.

The following table presents a summary of our off-balance sheet credit risks.


Off-balance sheet credit risks	Sept. 30, 2025		Dec. 31, 2024
(in millions)
Lending commitments	$	53,974	$	52,581
Standby letters of credit (“SBLC”) (a)	1,582		1,641
Commercial letters of credit	42		24
Securities lending indemnifications (b)(c)	614,049		544,601

(a)Net of participations totaling $130 million at Sept. 30, 2025 and $192 million at Dec. 31, 2024.

(b)Excludes the indemnification for securities for which BNY acts as an agent on behalf of CIBC Mellon clients, which totaled $81 billion at Sept. 30, 2025 and $60 billion at Dec. 31, 2024.

(c)Includes cash collateral, invested in indemnified repurchase agreements, held by us as securities lending agent of $61 billion at Sept. 30, 2025 and $59 billion at Dec. 31, 2024.

The total potential loss on undrawn lending commitments, standby and commercial letters of credit and securities lending indemnifications is equal to the total notional amount if drawn upon, which does not consider the value of any collateral.

Since many of the lending commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon, the total amount does not necessarily represent future cash requirements. A summary of lending commitment maturities is as follows: $31.6 billion in less than one year, $22.2 billion in one to five years and $266 million over five years.

SBLCs principally support obligations of corporate clients and were collateralized with cash and securities of $218 million at Sept. 30, 2025 and $173 million at Dec. 31, 2024. At Sept. 30, 2025, $1.1 billion of the SBLCs will expire within one year, $453 million in one to five years and none in over five years.

We must recognize, at the inception of an SBLC and foreign and other guarantees, a liability for the fair value of the obligation undertaken in issuing the guarantee. The fair value of the liability, which was recorded with a corresponding asset in other assets, was estimated as the present value of contractual customer fees. The estimated liability for losses related to SBLCs and foreign and other guarantees, if any, is included in the allowance for lending-related commitments.

Payment/performance risk of SBLCs is monitored using both historical performance and internal ratings criteria. BNY’s historical experience is that SBLCs typically expire without being funded. SBLCs below investment grade are monitored closely for payment/performance risk. The table below shows SBLCs by investment grade:


Standby letters of credit	Sept. 30, 2025		Dec. 31, 2024

Investment grade	77	%	67	%
Non-investment grade	23	%	33	%

A commercial letter of credit is normally a short-term instrument used to finance a commercial contract for the shipment of goods from a seller to a buyer. Although the commercial letter of credit is contingent upon the satisfaction of specified conditions, it represents a credit exposure if the buyer defaults on

the underlying transaction. As a result, the total contractual amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. Commercial letters of credit totaled $42 million at Sept. 30, 2025 and $24 million at Dec. 31, 2024.

We expect many of the lending commitments and letters of credit to expire without the need to advance any cash. The revenue associated with guarantees frequently depends on the credit rating of the obligor and the structure of the transaction, including collateral, if any. The allowance for lending-related commitments was $63 million at Sept. 30, 2025 and $72 million at Dec. 31, 2024.

A securities lending transaction is a fully collateralized transaction in which the owner of a security agrees to lend the security (typically through an agent, in our case, The Bank of New York Mellon) to a borrower, usually a broker-dealer or bank, on an open, overnight or term basis, under the terms of a prearranged contract.

We typically lend securities with indemnification against borrower default. We generally require the borrower to provide collateral with a minimum value of 102% of the fair value of the securities borrowed, which is monitored on a daily basis, thus reducing credit risk. Market risk can also arise in securities lending transactions. These risks are controlled through policies limiting the level of risk that can be undertaken. Securities lending transactions are generally entered into only with highly rated counterparties. Securities lending indemnifications were secured by collateral of $650 billion at Sept. 30, 2025 and $574 billion at Dec. 31, 2024.

CIBC Mellon, a joint venture between BNY and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (“CIBC”), engages in securities lending activities. BNY and CIBC severally indemnify securities lenders against specific types of borrower default. Previously, BNY, CIBC and CIBC Mellon jointly and severally indemnified securities lenders against specific types of borrower default. At Sept. 30, 2025 and Dec. 31, 2024, $81 billion and $60 billion, respectively, of borrowings at CIBC Mellon, for which BNY acts as agent on behalf of CIBC Mellon clients, were secured by collateral of $86 billion and $64 billion, respectively. If, upon a default, a borrower’s collateral was not sufficient to cover its related obligations, certain losses related to the indemnification could be covered by the indemnitors.

Unsettled repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements

In the normal course of business, we enter into repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements that settle at a future date. In repurchase agreements, BNY receives cash from and provides securities as collateral to a counterparty at settlement. In reverse repurchase agreements, BNY advances cash to and receives securities as collateral from the counterparty at settlement. These transactions are recorded on the consolidated balance sheet on the settlement date. At Sept. 30, 2025, we had no unsettled repurchase agreements and $84.7 billion of unsettled reverse repurchase agreements. At Dec. 31, 2024, we had no unsettled repurchase agreements and $96.1 billion of unsettled reverse repurchase agreements.

Industry concentrations

We have significant industry concentrations related to credit exposure at Sept. 30, 2025. The tables below present our credit exposure in the financial institutions and commercial portfolios.


Financial institutions portfolio exposure (in billions)	Sept. 30, 2025
	Loans		Unfunded commitments		Total exposure
Securities industry	$	3.6	$	19.5	$	23.1
Asset managers	1.5		8.2		9.7
Banks	7.6		1.8		9.4
Insurance	0.1		4.2		4.3
Government	—		0.6		0.6
Other	0.2		1.1		1.3
Total	$	13.0	$	35.4	$	48.4


Commercial portfolio exposure (in billions)	Sept. 30, 2025
	Loans		Unfunded commitments		Total exposure
Services and other	$	0.6	$	3.9	$	4.5
Manufacturing	0.5		3.8		4.3
Energy and utilities	0.2		3.9		4.1
Media and telecom	—		0.8		0.8
Total	$	1.3	$	12.4	$	13.7

Major concentrations in securities lending are primarily to broker-dealers and are generally collateralized with cash and/or securities.

Sponsored member repo program

BNY is a sponsoring member in the FICC sponsored member program, where we submit eligible repurchase and reverse repurchase transactions in U.S. Treasury and agency securities (“Sponsored Member Transactions”) between BNY and our sponsored member clients for novation and clearing through FICC pursuant to the FICC Government Securities Division rulebook (the “FICC Rules”). We also guarantee to FICC the prompt and full payment and performance of our sponsored member clients’ respective obligations under the FICC Rules in connection with such clients’ Sponsored Member Transactions. We minimize our credit exposure under this guaranty by obtaining a security interest in our sponsored member clients’ collateral and rights under Sponsored Member Transactions. See “Offsetting assets and liabilities” in Note 16 for additional information on our repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements.

Indemnification arrangements

We have provided standard representations for underwriting agreements, acquisition and divestiture agreements, sales of loans and commitments, and other similar types of arrangements and customary indemnification for claims and legal proceedings related to providing financial services that are not otherwise included above. Insurance has been purchased to mitigate certain of these risks. Generally, there are no stated or notional amounts included in these indemnifications, and the contingencies triggering the obligation for indemnification are not expected to occur. Furthermore, often counterparties to these transactions provide us with comparable indemnifications. We are unable to develop an estimate of the maximum payout under these indemnifications for several reasons. In addition to the lack of a stated or notional amount in a majority of such indemnifications, we are unable to predict the nature of events that would trigger indemnification or the level of indemnification for a certain event. We believe, however, that the possibility that we will have to make any material payments for these indemnifications is remote. At Sept. 30, 2025 and Dec. 31, 2024, we have not recorded any material liabilities under these arrangements.

Clearing and settlement exchanges

We are a noncontrolling equity investor in, and/or member of, several industry clearing or settlement exchanges through which foreign exchange, securities, derivatives or other transactions settle. Certain of these industry clearing and settlement exchanges require their members to guarantee their obligations and liabilities and/or to provide liquidity support in the event other members do not honor their obligations. We believe the likelihood that a clearing or settlement exchange (of which we are a member) would become insolvent is remote. Additionally, certain settlement exchanges have implemented loss allocation policies that enable the exchange to allocate settlement losses to the members of the exchange. It is not possible to quantify such mark-to-market loss until the loss occurs. Any ancillary costs that occur as a result of any mark-to-market loss cannot be quantified. In addition, we also sponsor clients as members on clearing and settlement exchanges and guarantee their obligations. At Sept. 30, 2025 and Dec. 31, 2024, we did not record any material liabilities under these arrangements.

Legal proceedings

In the ordinary course of business, The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation and its subsidiaries are routinely named as defendants in or made parties to pending and potential legal actions. We also are subject to governmental and regulatory examinations, information-gathering requests, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal). Claims for significant monetary damages are often asserted in many of these legal actions, while claims for disgorgement, restitution, penalties and/or other remedial actions or sanctions may be sought in governmental and regulatory matters. It is inherently difficult to predict the eventual outcomes of such matters given their complexity and the particular facts and circumstances at issue in each of these matters. However, on the basis of our current knowledge and understanding, we do not believe that judgments, settlements or orders, if any, arising from these matters (either individually or in the aggregate, after giving effect to applicable reserves and insurance coverage) will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or liquidity of BNY, although they could have a material effect on our results of operations in a given period.

In view of the inherent unpredictability of outcomes in litigation and regulatory matters, particularly where (i) the damages sought are substantial or indeterminate, (ii) the proceedings are in the early stages, or (iii) the matters involve novel legal theories or a large number of parties, as a matter of course there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the timing or ultimate resolution of litigation and regulatory matters, including a possible eventual loss, fine, penalty or business impact, if any, associated with each such matter. In accordance with applicable accounting guidance, we establish accruals for litigation and regulatory matters when those matters proceed to a stage where they present loss contingencies that are both probable and reasonably estimable. In such cases, there may be a possible exposure to loss in excess of any amounts accrued. We regularly monitor such matters for developments that could affect the amount of the accrual, and will adjust the accrual amount as appropriate. If the loss contingency in question is not both probable and reasonably estimable, we do not establish an accrual and the matter continues to be monitored for any developments that would make the loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. We believe that our accruals for legal proceedings are appropriate and, in the aggregate, are not material to the consolidated financial position of BNY, although future accruals could have a material effect on the results of operations in a given period. In addition, if we have the potential to recover a portion of an estimated loss from a third party, we record a receivable up to the amount of the accrual that is probable of recovery.

For certain of those matters described here for which a loss contingency may, in the future, be reasonably possible (whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability), BNY is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. For those matters described here where BNY is able to estimate a reasonably possible loss, the aggregate range of such reasonably possible loss is up to $780 million in excess of the accrued liability (if any) related to those matters. For matters where a reasonably possible loss is denominated in a foreign currency, our estimate is adjusted quarterly based on prevailing exchange rates. We do not consider potential recoveries when estimating reasonably possible losses.

The following describes certain judicial, regulatory and arbitration proceedings involving BNY:

Mortgage-Securitization Trusts Proceedings

BNY has been named as a defendant in a number of legal actions brought by MBS investors alleging that the trustee has expansive duties under the governing agreements, including the duty to investigate and pursue breach of representation and warranty claims against other parties to the MBS transactions. Two actions commenced in December 2015 and February 2017 are pending in New York federal court. In New York state court, three actions are pending: two related cases commenced in September 2021 and October 2022; and one related case commenced in December 2021.

Matters Related to R. Allen Stanford

In late December 2005, Pershing LLC became a clearing firm for Stanford Group Co. (“SGC”), a registered broker-dealer that was part of a group of entities ultimately controlled by R. Allen Stanford (“Stanford”). Stanford International Bank, also controlled by Stanford, issued certificates of deposit (“CDs”). Some investors allegedly wired funds from their SGC accounts to purchase CDs. In 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged Stanford with operating a Ponzi scheme in connection with the sale of CDs, and SGC was placed into receivership. Alleged purchasers of CDs have filed two putative class action proceedings against Pershing LLC: one in November 2009 in Texas federal court, and one in May 2016 in New Jersey federal court. On Nov. 5, 2021, the court dismissed the class action filed in New Jersey. Both matters have concluded. Three lawsuits remain against Pershing LLC in Louisiana and New Jersey federal courts, which were filed in January 2010, October 2015 and May 2016. The purchasers allege that Pershing LLC, as SGC’s clearing firm, assisted Stanford in a fraudulent scheme and assert contractual, statutory and common law claims. In March 2019, a group of investors filed a putative class action against The Bank of New York Mellon in New Jersey federal court, making the same allegations as in the prior actions brought against Pershing LLC. On Nov. 12, 2021, the court dismissed the class action against The Bank of New York Mellon; on Dec. 15, 2022, an appeals court reversed the dismissal and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. On Aug. 5, 2025, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On June 28, 2024, an unincorporated association that claims to represent the interests of Stanford investors filed a lawsuit in New Jersey federal court against The Bank of New York Mellon,

making the same allegations as prior cases. All of the cases that have been brought in federal court have been consolidated in Texas federal court for discovery purposes. Various alleged Stanford CD purchasers asserted similar claims in Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) arbitration proceedings.

Brazilian Postalis Litigation

BNY Servicos Financeiros DTVM S.A. (“DTVM”), a subsidiary that provides asset services in Brazil, acts as administrator for certain investment funds in which a public pension fund for postal workers called Postalis-Instituto de Seguridade Social dos Correios e Telégrafos (“Postalis”) invested. On Aug. 22, 2014, Postalis sued DTVM in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil for losses related to a Postalis fund for which DTVM is administrator. Postalis alleges that DTVM failed to properly perform duties, including to conduct due diligence of and exert control over the manager. On March 12, 2015, Postalis filed a lawsuit in Rio de Janeiro against DTVM and BNY Administração de Ativos Ltda. (“Ativos”) alleging failure to properly perform duties relating to another fund of which DTVM is administrator and Ativos is manager. On April 7, 2025, the court found DTVM, Ativos and two other defendants jointly and severally liable for approximately $3 million. DTVM and Ativos appealed on Sept. 9, 2025. On Dec. 14, 2015, Associacão dos Profissionais dos Correios (“ADCAP”), a Brazilian postal workers association, filed a lawsuit in São Paulo against DTVM and other defendants alleging that DTVM improperly contributed to Postalis investment losses. On March 20, 2017, the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, and ADCAP appealed. On Aug. 4, 2021, the appellate court overturned the dismissal and sent the lawsuit to a state lower court. On March 2, 2023, DTVM appealed the August 4 decision to Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice. On Feb. 26, 2025, ADCAP filed a lawsuit in New York state court against The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, claiming that it is also liable for Postalis investment losses. On Feb. 27, 2025, we removed the lawsuit to New York federal court. On Dec. 17, 2015, Postalis filed three lawsuits in Rio de Janeiro against DTVM and Ativos alleging failure to properly perform duties with respect to investments in several other funds. On May 20, 2021, the court in one of those lawsuits entered a judgment of approximately $3 million against DTVM and Ativos. DTVM appealed and, on June 7, 2022, the appellate court partially granted and partially denied the appeal, reducing the judgment to

approximately $2 million. On July 13, 2023, DTVM and Ativos filed a further appeal to Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice, which was denied on Sept. 20, 2024. DTVM and Ativos further appealed, but their appeal was denied on Dec. 3, 2024. On Aug. 24, 2022, the court dismissed one of the other lawsuits. Postalis appealed that decision, but Postalis’s appeal was denied on Oct. 24, 2023. Postalis further appealed; that further appeal was denied on Oct. 22, 2024. On Feb. 4, 2016, Postalis filed a lawsuit in Brasilia against DTVM, Ativos and BNY Alocação de Patrimônio Ltda. (“Alocação de Patrimônio”), an investment management subsidiary, alleging failure to properly perform duties and liability for losses with respect to investments in various funds of which the defendants were administrator and/or manager. On Jan. 16, 2018, the Brazilian Federal Prosecution Service filed a civil lawsuit in São Paulo against DTVM alleging liability for Postalis losses based on alleged failures to properly perform certain duties as administrator to certain funds in which Postalis invested or as controller of Postalis’s own investment portfolio. On April 18, 2018, the court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. On Aug. 4, 2021, the appellate court overturned the dismissal and returned the lawsuit to the lower court. DTVM appealed, but that appeal was denied on Aug. 21, 2023. In addition, the Tribunal de Contas da União (“TCU”), an administrative tribunal, has initiated proceedings with the purpose of determining liability for losses to four investment funds administered by DTVM in which Postalis was an investor. On Sept. 9, 2020, TCU rendered a decision in one of the proceedings, finding DTVM and two former Postalis directors jointly and severally liable for approximately $50 million. TCU also imposed on DTVM a fine of approximately $2 million. DTVM’s administrative appeal of the decision was denied. On Feb. 25, 2022, DTVM filed a lawsuit in Brazil federal court in Brasilia seeking annulment of TCU’s decision and an injunction preventing TCU from enforcing the judgment. On Aug. 24, 2022, the Brazilian Federal Attorneys filed an action in Rio de Janeiro court seeking to enforce the fine portion of the judgment. On Nov. 8, 2022, the Brasilia federal court in the annulment action granted DTVM’s request for an injunction, suspending the Sept. 9, 2020, TCU decision until the annulment action is decided. On July 30, 2025, TCU rendered a decision in another of the proceedings, finding DTVM, Ativos and former Postalis directors jointly and severally liable for approximately $185 million. On Sept. 15, 2025, DTVM and Ativos filed an administrative appeal. On Oct. 4, 2019, Postalis

and another pension fund filed a request for arbitration in São Paulo against DTVM and Ativos alleging liability for losses to an investment fund for which DTVM was administrator and Ativos was manager. On March 26, 2021, DTVM and Ativos filed a lawsuit in São Paulo challenging the Arbitration Court’s jurisdiction over the case. On Feb. 24, 2023, the São Paulo court annulled the Arbitration Court’s decision that it had jurisdiction, and Postalis and the other pension fund appealed. On April 8, 2024, the appellate court reversed the São Paulo court’s decision and found that the Arbitration Court did have jurisdiction. DTVM and Ativos appealed; that appeal was denied on April 8, 2024. DTVM and Ativos have further appealed. The arbitration continued during the further appeal, and on Sept. 29, 2025, the panel found DTVM and Ativos partially liable. On Oct. 25, 2019, Postalis filed a lawsuit in Rio de Janeiro against DTVM and Alocação de Patrimônio, alleging liability for losses in another fund for which DTVM was administrator and Alocação de Patrimônio and Ativos were managers. On May 9, 2022, the court found DTVM and Alocação de Patrimônio jointly and severally liable for approximately $20 million. On Aug. 12, 2022, DTVM and Alocação de Patrimônio appealed the decision. On April 30, 2024, the appeals court reversed the finding against DTVM and Alocação de Patrimônio. Postalis appealed that reversal and, on Oct. 3, 2024, its appeal was denied. Postalis has filed a further appeal. On June 19, 2020, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in Rio de Janeiro against DTVM, Postalis, and various other defendants alleging liability against DTVM for certain Postalis losses in an investment fund of which DTVM was administrator. On Feb. 10, 2021, Postalis and another pension fund served DTVM in a lawsuit filed in Rio de Janeiro, alleging liability for losses in another investment fund for which DTVM was administrator and the other defendant was manager.

German Tax Matters

German authorities are investigating past “cum/ex” trading, which involved the purchase of equity securities on or shortly before the dividend date, but settled after that date, potentially resulting in an unwarranted refund of withholding tax. German authorities have taken the view that past cum/ex trading may have resulted in tax avoidance or evasion. European subsidiaries of BNY have been informed by German authorities about investigations into potential cum/ex trading by certain third-party investment funds, where one of the subsidiaries had

acquired entities that served as depositary and/or fund manager for those third-party investment funds. We have received information requests from the authorities relating to pre-acquisition activity and are cooperating fully with those requests. In August 2019, the District Court of Bonn ordered that one of these subsidiaries be joined as a secondary party in connection with the prosecution of unrelated individual defendants. Trial commenced in September 2019. In March 2020, the court stated that it would refrain from taking action against the subsidiary in order to expedite the conclusion of the trial. The court convicted the unrelated individual defendants, and determined that the cum/ex trading activities of the relevant third-party investment funds were unlawful. In November and December 2020 and February 2023, we received secondary liability notices from the German tax authorities totaling approximately $150 million (at then-prevailing exchange rates) related to pre-acquisition activity in various funds for which the entities we acquired were depositary and/or fund manager. We have appealed the notices. In connection with the acquisition of the subject entities, we obtained an indemnity for liabilities from the sellers that we intend to pursue as necessary.

Off-Channel Business-Related Communications

The Company responded to requests for information from the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission concerning compliance with recordkeeping obligations relating to business communications transmitted on unapproved electronic communication platforms. SEC and CFTC have been conducting similar inquiries into recordkeeping practices at other financial institutions. On Aug. 14, 2024, the SEC issued an order under which the Company agreed to pay a $40 million penalty and to certain undertakings to resolve the SEC matter. The fine has been paid, and the Company is complying with the other settlement terms. On Sept. 4, 2025, the CFTC issued an order under which the Company agreed to pay $500,000. The fine has been paid, and the Company is complying with the other settlement terms.

Pershing LLC Rule 15c3-3 Matter

The Company has been responding to investigative requests for information and records from the SEC concerning Pershing LLC’s compliance with its obligations under SEC Rule 15c3-3, among other regulatory rules and statutes. The Company continues to cooperate with the inquiry.

Lawsuits in the Russian Federation

The Company is defending various lawsuits in Russian courts seeking to recover assets held by BNY but blocked by international sanctions laws. The Company also is a co-defendant in a lawsuit by the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation seeking to recover $251 million that allegedly was improperly seized by Ukraine from BNY accounts in Ukraine for a subsidiary of PJSC Sberbank, a Russian bank. The Russian court issued a judgment against BNY and its co-defendants on Sept. 11, 2025, which BNY appealed on Oct. 13, 2025.