The firm is involved in a number of judicial, regulatory and arbitration proceedings (including those described below) concerning matters arising in connection with the conduct of the firm’s businesses. Many of these proceedings are in early stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages.

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 December 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 $2.0 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.

Between 2012 and 2013, subsidiaries of the firm acted as arrangers or purchasers of approximately $6.5 billion of debt securities of 1MDB.

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, and trial commenced on February 7, 2022.

On August 18, 2020, the firm announced that it entered into a settlement agreement with the Government of Malaysia to resolve the criminal and regulatory proceedings in Malaysia involving the firm, which includes a guarantee that the Government of Malaysia receives at least $1.4 billion in assets and proceeds from assets seized by governmental authorities around the world related to 1MDB. See Note 18 for further information about this guarantee.

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 lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice on August 4, 2021.

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, alleges 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. On February 3, 2022, the parties reached a settlement in principle, subject to final documentation and court approval, to resolve this action.

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. In December 2021, the Board voted to reject the two additional demands.

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. On November 12, 2021, the plaintiffs moved for class certification.

Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.’s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm’s activities in the collateralized debt obligation market, and the firm’s conflict of interest management.

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, and on August 26, 2021, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of class certification and remanded the case for further proceedings. On December 8, 2021, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On December 22, 2021, defendants filed a petition with the Second Circuit seeking interlocutory review of the district court’s grant of class certification.

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 English action is for breaches of English 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.

GS&Co. is among the defendants named in a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 4, 2021. The amended complaint, filed on January 6, 2022, generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate auctions for foreign exchange transactions on an electronic trading platform, as well as claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified amounts of treble and other damages.

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 decisions in December 2014, September 2015 and December 2015 to reverse an earlier transfer to Novo Banco of 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 yet have jurisdiction over GSI’s action. In July 2018, the Liquidation Committee for BES issued a decision seeking to claw back from GSI $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. In October 2018, GSI commenced an action in Lisbon Commercial Court challenging the Liquidation Committee’s decision and has since also issued a claim against the Portuguese State seeking compensation for losses of approximately $222 million related to the failure of BES, together with a contingent claim for the $104 million sought by the Liquidation Committee.

Group Inc. and certain of its affiliates are from time to time parties to various civil litigation and arbitration proceedings and other disputes with clients and third parties relating to the firm’s financial advisory activities. These claims generally seek, among other things, compensatory damages and, in some cases, punitive damages, and in certain cases allege that the firm did not appropriately disclose or deal with conflicts of interest.

GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on August 13, 2021 in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to ViacomCBS Inc.’s (ViacomCBS) March 2021 public offerings of $1.7 billion of common stock and $1.0 billion of preferred stock. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include ViacomCBS and certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 646,154 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $55 million and 323,077 shares of preferred stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $32 million. The complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws and alleges that the offering documents contained material misstatements and omissions, including, among other things, that the offering documents failed to disclose that Archegos Capital Management (Archegos) had substantial exposure to ViacomCBS, including through total return swaps to which certain of the underwriters, including GS&Co., were allegedly counterparties, and that such underwriters failed to disclose their exposure to Archegos. The complaint seeks rescission and compensatory damages in unspecified amounts. On November 5, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, on December 22, 2021, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 4, 2022, the plaintiffs moved for class certification.

Group Inc. is also a defendant in putative securities class actions filed beginning in October 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints allege that Group Inc., along with another financial institution, sold shares in Vipshop Holdings Ltd. (Vipshop), GSX Techedu Inc. (Gaotu), Tencent Music Entertainment Group (Tencent), ViacomCBS, iQIYI Inc. (iQIYI) and Baidu Inc. (Baidu) based on material nonpublic information regarding the liquidation of Archegos’ position in Vipshop, Gaotu, Tencent, ViacomCBS, iQIYI and Baidu, respectively. The complaints generally assert violations of Sections 10(b), 20A and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seek unspecified damages.

On January 24, 2022, the firm received a demand from an alleged shareholder under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law for books and records relating to, among other things, the firm’s involvement with Archegos and the firm’s controls with respect to insider trading.

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, as well as rescission. Certain of these proceedings involve additional allegations.

Group Inc. and certain of its affiliates are parties to various civil litigation and arbitration proceedings and other disputes with clients relating to losses allegedly sustained as a result of the firm’s investment management services. These claims generally seek, among other things, restitution or other compensatory damages and, in some cases, punitive damages.

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’ 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. On September 30, 2021, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second and third individual actions, which were consolidated in June 2019, was granted. On October 25, 2021, the plaintiff in the second individual action appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

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.  in the May 31, 2019 action filed an amended complaint consolidating the June 2, 2021 action with the May 31, 2019 action. On September 14, 2021, defendants filed a joint partial motion to dismiss the  consolidated complaint.

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 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 20082012, but granted the motion to add limited allegations from 20132016, 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.

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.

In connection with the sale of Metro, the firm agreed to provide indemnities to the buyer, including for any potential liabilities for legal or regulatory proceedings arising out of the conduct of Metro’s business while the firm owned it.

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 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 of corporate bonds, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble and punitive damages and restitution. On October 25, 2021, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. On November 23, 2021, plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

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 November 15, 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 4, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

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 overturned any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order. On July 22, 2021, defendants filed a motion to decertify the class. On August 9, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to a portion of a disparate impact claim, and defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s disparate impact and treatment claims. On September 15, 2021, the district court affirmed the decision of the Magistrate Judge to compel arbitration.

The firm is cooperating with the SEC and producing documents in connection with an investigation of the firm’s compliance with records preservation requirements relating to business communications sent over electronic messaging channels that have not been approved by the firm. The SEC has stated that it is conducting similar investigations of record preservation practices at other financial institutions.

Group Inc. and certain of its affiliates are subject to a number of other investigations and reviews by, and in some cases have received subpoenas and requests for documents and information from, various governmental and regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations and litigation and shareholder requests relating to various matters relating to the firm’s businesses and operations, including:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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