11.  Commitments and Contingencies

Investment Commitments.    At June 30, 2017, the Company had $298 million of various capital commitments to fund sponsored investment funds, including consolidated VIEs. These funds include private equity funds, real assets funds and opportunistic funds. This amount excludes additional commitments made by consolidated funds of funds to underlying third-party funds as third-party noncontrolling interest holders have the legal obligation to fund the respective commitments of such funds of funds. In addition to the capital commitments of $298 million, the Company had approximately $3 million of contingent commitments for certain funds which have investment periods that have expired. Generally, the timing of the funding of these commitments is unknown and the commitments are callable on demand at any time prior to the expiration of the commitment. These unfunded commitments are not recorded on the condensed consolidated statements of financial condition. These commitments do not include potential future commitments approved by the Company that are not yet legally binding. The Company intends to make additional capital commitments from time to time to fund additional investment products for, and with, its clients.

Lease Commitment. In May 2017, the Company entered into an agreement with 50 HYMC Owner LLC, for the lease of approximately 847,000 square feet of office space located at 50 Hudson Yards, New York, New York. The term of the lease is twenty years from the date that rental payments begin, expected to occur in May 2023, with the option to renew for a specified term.

Future minimum commitments of annual base rental payments under this operating lease are as follows:

 

Contingencies

Contingent Payments Related to Business Acquisitions.    In connection with certain acquisitions, BlackRock is required to make contingent payments, subject to achieving specified performance targets, which may include revenue related to acquired contracts or new capital commitments for certain products.  The fair value of the remaining aggregate contingent payments at June 30, 2017 totaled $218 million, including $120 million related to the First Reserve Transaction, and is included in other liabilities on the condensed consolidated statements of financial condition.

Other Contingent Payments.    The Company acts as the portfolio manager in a series of derivative transactions and has a maximum potential exposure of $17 million between the Company and counterparty. See Note 7, Derivatives and Hedging, for further discussion.

 

Legal Proceedings.    From time to time, BlackRock receives subpoenas or other requests for information from various U.S. federal, state governmental and domestic and international regulatory authorities in connection with certain industry-wide or other investigations or proceedings. It is BlackRock’s policy to cooperate fully with such inquiries. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries have been named as defendants in various legal actions, including arbitrations and other litigation arising in connection with BlackRock’s activities. Additionally, BlackRock advised investment portfolios may be subject to lawsuits, any of which potentially could harm the investment returns of the applicable portfolio or result in the Company being liable to the portfolios for any resulting damages.

 

On May 27, 2014, certain purported investors in the BlackRock Global Allocation Fund, Inc. and the BlackRock Equity Dividend Fund (collectively, the “Funds”) filed a consolidated complaint (the “Consolidated Complaint”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against BlackRock Advisors, LLC, BlackRock Investment Management, LLC and BlackRock International Limited under the caption In re BlackRock Mutual Funds Advisory Fee Litigation. The Consolidated Complaint, which purports to be brought derivatively on behalf of the Funds, alleges that the defendants violated Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act by receiving allegedly excessive investment advisory fees from the Funds. On February 24, 2015, the same plaintiffs filed another complaint in the same court against BlackRock Investment Management, LLC and BlackRock Advisors, LLC. The allegations and legal claims in both complaints are substantially similar, with the new complaint purporting to challenge fees received by defendants after the plaintiffs filed their prior complaint. Both complaints seek, among other things, to recover on behalf of the Funds all allegedly excessive advisory fees received by defendants in the twelve month period preceding the start of each lawsuit, along with purported lost investment returns on those amounts, plus interest. On March 25, 2015, defendants’ motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was denied. The defendants believe the claims in both lawsuits are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the actions.

Between November 12, 2015 and November 16, 2015, BlackRock, Inc., BlackRock Realty Advisors, Inc. (“BRA”), BlackRock US Core Property Fund, Inc. (formerly known as BlackRock Granite Property Fund, Inc.) (“Granite Fund”), and certain other Granite Fund related entities (collectively, the “BlackRock Parties”) were named as defendants in thirteen lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda arising out of the June 16, 2015 collapse of a balcony at the Library Gardens apartment complex in Berkeley, California (the “Property”). The Property is indirectly owned by the Granite Fund, which is managed by BRA. The plaintiffs also named as defendants in the lawsuits Greystar, which manages the Property, and certain other non-BlackRock related entities, including the developer of the Property, building contractors and building materials suppliers. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the BlackRock Parties were negligent in their ownership, control and maintenance of the Property’s balcony, and seek monetary, including punitive, damages. Additionally, on March 16, 2016, three former tenants of the Library Gardens apartment unit that experienced the balcony collapse sued the BlackRock Parties. The former tenants, who witnessed (but were not physically injured in) the accident make allegations virtually identical to those in the other previously filed actions and claim that, as a result of the collapse, they suffered unspecified emotional damage. Several defendants also filed cross-complaints alleging a variety of claims, including claims against the BlackRock Parties for contribution, negligence, and declaratory relief. BlackRock believes the claims against the BlackRock Parties are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the actions.

On June 16, 2016, iShares Trust, BlackRock, Inc. and certain of its advisory affiliates, and the directors and certain officers of the iShares ETFs were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in California state court.  The lawsuit was filed by investors in certain iShares ETFs (the "ETFs"), and alleges the defendants violated the federal securities laws, purportedly by failing to adequately disclose in prospectuses issued by the ETFs the risks to the ETFs’ shareholders in the event of a "flash crash."  Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages. The Plaintiffs’ complaint was dismissed in December 2016 and on January 6, 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing that complaint. On April 27, 2017, the court granted the defendants' motion in part and denied it in part.  The defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.

On April 5, 2017, BlackRock, Inc., BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., the BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee and various sub-committees, and a BlackRock employee were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by a former employee on behalf of all BlackRock employee 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”) participants and beneficiaries in the Plan from April 5, 2011, to the present.  The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants breached their duties towards Plan participants in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by, among other things, offering investment options that were overly expensive, underperformed peer funds, focused disproportionately on active versus passive strategies, and were unduly concentrated with investment options managed by BlackRock.  While the complaint does not contain any specific amount in alleged damages, it claims that the purported underperformance and hidden fees cost Plan participants more than $60 million.  The defendants believe the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action.

Management, after consultation with legal counsel, currently does not anticipate that the aggregate liability arising out of regulatory matters or lawsuits will have a material effect on BlackRock’s results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. However, there is no assurance as to whether any such pending or threatened matters will have a material effect on BlackRock’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows in any future reporting period. Due to uncertainties surrounding the outcome of these matters, management cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from these matters.  

Indemnifications.    In the ordinary course of business or in connection with certain acquisition agreements, BlackRock enters into contracts pursuant to which it may agree to indemnify third parties in certain circumstances. The terms of these indemnities vary from contract to contract and the amount of indemnification liability, if any, cannot be determined or the likelihood of any liability is considered remote. Consequently, no liability has been recorded on the condensed consolidated statements of financial condition.

In connection with securities lending transactions, BlackRock has issued certain indemnifications to certain securities lending clients against potential loss resulting from a borrower’s failure to fulfill its obligations under the securities lending agreement should the value of the collateral pledged by the borrower at the time of default be insufficient to cover the borrower’s obligation under the securities lending agreement. At June 30, 2017, the Company indemnified certain of its clients for their securities lending loan balances of approximately $184.8 billion. The Company held, as agent, cash and securities totaling $198.1 billion as collateral for indemnified securities on loan at June 30, 2017. The fair value of these indemnifications was not material at June 30, 2017.