MORGAN STANLEY | 2013 | FY |

13.    Commitments, Guarantees and Contingencies.

Commitments.

The Company's commitments associated with outstanding letters of credit and other financial guarantees obtained to satisfy collateral requirements, investment activities, corporate lending and financing arrangements, and mortgage lending at December 31, 2013 are summarized below by period of expiration. Since commitments associated with these instruments may expire unused, the amounts shown do not necessarily reflect the actual future cash funding requirements:

.

(1)       This amount includes $49.4 billion of investment grade and $12 billion of non-investment grade unfunded commitments accounted for as held for investment and $3.5 billion of investment grade and $4.6 billion of non-investment grade unfunded commitments accounted for as held for sale at December 31, 2013. The remainder of these lending commitments is carried at fair value.

(2)       These commitments are recorded at fair value within Trading assets and Trading liabilities in the consolidated statements of financial condition (see Note 4).

(3)       The Company enters into forward starting reverse repurchase and securities borrowing agreements (agreements that have a trade date at or prior to December 31, 2013 and settle subsequent to period-end) that are primarily secured by collateral from U.S. government agency securities and other sovereign government obligations. These agreements primarily settle within three business days and of the total amount at December 31, 2013, $42.9 billion settled within three business days.

(4)       The Company also has a contingent obligation to provide financing to a clearinghouse through which it clears certain transactions. The financing is required only upon the default of a clearinghouse member. The financing takes the form of a reverse repurchase facility, with a maximum amount of approximately $1.1 billion.

Letters of Credit and Other Financial Guarantees Obtained to Satisfy Collateral Requirements.    The Company has outstanding letters of credit and other financial guarantees issued by third-party banks to certain of the Company's counterparties. The Company is contingently liable for these letters of credit and other financial guarantees, which are primarily used to provide collateral for securities and commodities borrowed and to satisfy various margin requirements in lieu of depositing cash or securities with these counterparties.

Investment Activities.    The Company enters into commitments associated with its real estate, private equity and principal investment activities, which include alternative products.

Lending Commitments.    Primary lending commitments are those that are originated by the Company whereas secondary lending commitments are purchased from third parties in the market. The commitments include lending commitments that are made to investment grade and non-investment grade companies in connection with corporate lending and other business activities.

Commitments for Secured Lending Transactions.    Secured lending commitments are extended by the Company to companies and are secured by real estate or other physical assets of the borrower. Loans made under these arrangements typically are at variable rates and generally provide for over-collateralization based upon the creditworthiness of the borrower.

Forward Starting Reverse Repurchase Agreements.    The Company has entered into forward starting securities purchased under agreements to resell (agreements that have a trade date at or prior to December 31, 2013 and settle subsequent to period-end) that are primarily secured by collateral from U.S. government agency securities and other sovereign government obligations.

Commercial and Residential Mortgage-Related Commitments.    The Company enters into forward purchase contracts involving residential mortgage loans, residential mortgage lending commitments to individuals and residential home equity lines of credit. In addition, the Company enters into commitments to originate commercial and residential mortgage loans.

Underwriting Commitments.    The Company provides underwriting commitments in connection with its capital raising sources to a diverse group of corporate and other institutional clients.

Other Lending Commitments.    Other commitments generally include commercial lending commitments to small businesses and commitments related to securities-based lending activities in connection with the Company's Wealth Management business segment.

The Company sponsors several non-consolidated investment funds for third-party investors where the Company typically acts as general partner of, and investment advisor to, these funds and typically commits to invest a minority of the capital of such funds, with subscribing third-party investors contributing the majority. The Company's employees, including its senior officers, as well as the Company's Directors, may participate on the same terms and conditions as other investors in certain of these funds that the Company forms primarily for client investment, except that the Company may waive or lower applicable fees and charges for its employees. The Company has contractual capital commitments, guarantees, lending facilities and counterparty arrangements with respect to these investment funds.

Premises and Equipment.    The Company has non-cancelable operating leases covering premises and equipment (excluding commodities operating leases, shown separately). At December 31, 2013, future minimum rental commitments under such leases (net of subleases, principally on office rentals) were as follows (dollars in millions):

The total of minimum rentals to be received in the future under non-cancelable operating subleases at December 31, 2013 was $107 million.

Occupancy lease agreements, in addition to base rentals, generally provide for rent and operating expense escalations resulting from increased assessments for real estate taxes and other charges. Total rent expense, net of sublease rental income, was $742 million, $765 million and $781 million in 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

In connection with its commodities business, the Company enters into operating leases for both crude oil and refined products storage and for vessel charters. At December 31, 2013, future minimum rental commitments under such leases were as follows (dollars in millions):

Guarantees.

The table below summarizes certain information regarding the Company's obligations under guarantee arrangements at December 31, 2013:

_____________

(1)       Carrying amounts of derivative contracts are shown on a gross basis prior to cash collateral or counterparty netting. For further information on derivative contracts, see Note 12.

(2)       Approximately $2.0 billion of standby letters of credit are also reflected in the “Commitments” table above in primary and secondary lending commitments. Standby letters of credit are recorded at fair value within Trading assets or Trading liabilities in the consolidated statements of financial condition.

(3)       Amounts include guarantees issued by consolidated real estate funds sponsored by the Company of approximately $13.8 million. These guarantees relate to obligations of the fund's investee entities, including guarantees related to capital expenditures and principal and interest debt payments..

The Company has obligations under certain guarantee arrangements, including contracts and indemnification agreements that contingently require a guarantor 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 guarantor 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. The Company's use of guarantees is described below by type of guarantee:

Derivative Contracts.    Certain derivative contracts meet the accounting definition of a guarantee, including certain written options, contingent forward contracts and credit default swaps (see Note 12 regarding credit derivatives in which the Company has sold credit protection to the counterparty). Although the Company's derivative arrangements do not specifically identify whether the derivative counterparty retains the underlying asset, liability or equity security, the Company has disclosed information regarding all derivative contracts that could meet the accounting definition of a guarantee. The maximum potential payout for certain derivative contracts, such as written interest rate caps and written foreign currency options, cannot be estimated, as increases in interest or foreign exchange rates in the future could possibly be unlimited. Therefore, in order to provide information regarding the maximum potential amount of future payments that the Company could be required to make under certain derivative contracts, the notional amount of the contracts has been disclosed. In certain situations, collateral may be held by the Company for those contracts that meet the definition of a guarantee. Generally, the Company sets collateral requirements by counterparty so that the collateral covers various transactions and products and is not allocated specifically to individual contracts. Also, the Company may recover amounts related to the underlying asset delivered to the Company under the derivative contract.

The Company records all derivative contracts at fair value. Aggregate market risk limits have been established, and market risk measures are routinely monitored against these limits. The Company also manages its exposure to these derivative contracts through a variety of risk mitigation strategies, including, but not limited to, entering into offsetting economic hedge positions. The Company believes that the notional amounts of the derivative contracts generally overstate its exposure.

Standby Letters of Credit and Other Financial Guarantees Issued.    In connection with its corporate lending business and other corporate activities, the Company provides standby letters of credit and other financial guarantees to counterparties. Such arrangements represent obligations to make payments to third parties if the counterparty fails to fulfill its obligation under a borrowing arrangement or other contractual obligation. A majority of the Company's standby letters of credit is provided on behalf of counterparties that are investment grade.

Market Value Guarantees.    Market value guarantees are issued to guarantee timely payment of a specified return to investors in certain affordable housing tax credit funds. These guarantees are designed to return an investor's contribution to a fund and the investor's share of tax losses and tax credits expected to be generated by a fund. From time to time, the Company may also guarantee return of principal invested, potentially including a specified rate of return, to fund investors.

Liquidity Facilities.    The Company has entered into liquidity facilities with SPEs and other counterparties, whereby the Company is required to make certain payments if losses or defaults occur. Primarily, the Company acts as liquidity provider to municipal bond securitization SPEs and for standalone municipal bonds in which the holders of beneficial interests issued by these SPEs or the holders of the individual bonds, respectively, have the right to tender their interests for purchase by the Company on specified dates at a specified price. The Company often may have recourse to the underlying assets held by the SPEs in the event payments are required under such liquidity facilities as well as make-whole or recourse provisions with the trust sponsors. Primarily all of the underlying assets in the SPEs are investment grade. Liquidity facilities provided to municipal tender option bond trusts are classified as derivatives.

Whole Loan Sale Guarantees.    The Company has provided, or otherwise agreed to be responsible for, representations and warranties regarding certain whole loan sales. Under certain circumstances, the Company may be required to repurchase such assets or make other payments related to such assets if such representations and warranties were breached. The Company's maximum potential payout related to such representations and warranties is equal to the current unpaid principal balance (“UPB”) of such loans. The Company has information on the current UPB only when it services the loans. The amount included in the above table for the maximum potential payout of $23.8 billion includes the current UPB where known ($4.8 billion) and the UPB at the time of sale ($18.9 billion) when the current UPB is not known. The UPB at the time of the sale of all loans covered by these representations and warranties was approximately $44.9 billion. The related liability primarily relates to sales of loans to the federal mortgage agencies.

Securitization Representations and Warranties.    As part of the Company's Institutional Securities business segment's securitization and related activities, the Company has provided, or otherwise agreed to be responsible for, representations and warranties regarding certain assets transferred in securitization transactions sponsored by the Company. The extent and nature of the representations and warranties, if any, vary among different securitizations. Under certain circumstances, the Company may be required to repurchase such assets or make other payments related to such assets if such representations and warranties were breached. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make would be equal to the current outstanding balances of, or losses associated with, the assets subject to breaches of such representations and warranties. The amount included in the above table for the maximum potential payout includes the current UPB where known and the UPB at the time of sale when the current UPB is not known.

Between 2004 and 2013, the Company sponsored approximately $148.0 billion of RMBS primarily containing U.S. residential loans that are outstanding at December 31, 2013. Of that amount, the Company made representations and warranties concerning approximately $47.0 billion of loans and agreed to be responsible for the representations and warranties made by third-party sellers, many of which are now insolvent, on approximately $21.0 billion of loans. At December 31, 2013, the Company had recorded $82 million in the consolidated financial statements for payments owed as a result of breach of representations and warranties made in connection with these residential mortgages. At December 31, 2013, the current UPB for all the residential assets subject to such representations and warranties was approximately $17.2 billion and the cumulative losses associated with U.S. RMBS were approximately $13.5 billion. The Company did not make, or otherwise agree to be responsible for the representations and warranties made by third party sellers on approximately $79.9 billion of residential loans that it securitized during that time period. The Company has not sponsored any U.S. RMBS transactions since 2007.

The Company also made representations and warranties in connection with its role as an originator of certain commercial mortgage loans that it securitized in CMBS. Between 2004 and 2013, the Company originated approximately $50.6 billion and $13.0 billion of U.S. and non-U.S. commercial mortgage loans, respectively, that were placed into CMBS sponsored by the Company that are outstanding at December 31, 2013. At December 31, 2013, the Company had not accrued any amounts in the consolidated financial statements for payments owed as a result of breach of representations and warranties made in connection with these commercial mortgages. At December 31, 2013, the current UPB for all U.S. commercial mortgage loans subject to such representations and warranties was $33.0 billion. For the non-U.S. commercial mortgage loans, the amount included in the above table for the maximum potential payout includes the current UPB when known of $3.0 billion and the UPB at the time of sale when the current UPB is not known of $0.4 billion.

General Partner Guarantees.    As a general partner in certain private equity and real estate partnerships, the Company receives certain distributions from the partnerships related to achieving certain return hurdles according to the provisions of the partnership agreements. The Company, from time to time, may be required to return all or a portion of such distributions to the limited partners in the event the limited partners do not achieve a certain return as specified in various partnership agreements, subject to certain limitations.

Other Guarantees and Indemnities.

In the normal course of business, the Company provides guarantees and indemnifications in a variety of commercial transactions. These provisions generally are standard contractual terms. Certain of these guarantees and indemnifications are described below.

•        Trust Preferred Securities.    The Company has established Morgan Stanley Capital Trusts for the limited purpose of issuing trust preferred securities to third parties and lending the proceeds to the Company in exchange for junior subordinated debentures. The Company has directly guaranteed the repayment of the trust preferred securities to the holders thereof to the extent that the Company has made payments to a Morgan Stanley Capital Trust on the junior subordinated debentures. In the event that the Company does not make payments to a Morgan Stanley Capital Trust, holders of such series of trust preferred securities would not be able to rely upon the guarantee for payment of those amounts. The Company has not recorded any liability in the consolidated financial statements for these guarantees and believes that the occurrence of any events (i.e., non-performance on the part of the paying agent) that would trigger payments under these contracts is remote. See Note 11.

•        Indemnities.    The Company provides standard indemnities to counterparties for certain contingent exposures and taxes, including U.S. and foreign withholding taxes, on interest and other payments made on derivatives, securities and stock lending transactions, certain annuity products and other financial arrangements. These indemnity payments could be required based on a change in the tax laws or a change in interpretation of applicable tax rulings or a change in factual circumstances. Certain contracts contain provisions that enable the Company to terminate the agreement upon the occurrence of such events. The maximum potential amount of future payments that the Company could be required to make under these indemnifications cannot be estimated.

•       Exchange/Clearinghouse Member Guarantees.    The Company is a member of various U.S. and non-U.S. exchanges and clearinghouses that trade and clear securities and/or derivative contracts. Associated with its membership, the Company may be required to pay a proportionate share of the financial obligations of another member who may default on its obligations to the exchange or the clearinghouse. While the rules governing different exchange or clearinghouse memberships vary, in general the Company's guarantee obligations would arise only if the exchange or clearinghouse had previously exhausted its resources. The maximum potential payout under these membership agreements cannot be estimated. The Company has not recorded any contingent liability in the consolidated financial statements for these agreements and believes that any potential requirement to make payments under these agreements is remote.

•       Merger and Acquisition Guarantees.    The Company may, from time to time, in its role as investment banking advisor be required to provide guarantees in connection with certain European merger and acquisition transactions. If required by the regulating authorities, the Company provides a guarantee that the acquirer in the merger and acquisition transaction has or will have sufficient funds to complete the transaction and would then be required to make the acquisition payments in the event the acquirer's funds are insufficient at the completion date of the transaction. These arrangements generally cover the time frame from the transaction offer date to its closing date and, therefore, are generally short term in nature. The maximum potential amount of future payments that the Company could be required to make cannot be estimated. The Company believes the likelihood of any payment by the Company under these arrangements is remote given the level of the Company's due diligence associated with its role as investment banking advisor.

In the ordinary course of business, the Company 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 subsidiaries covered by these guarantees (including any related debt or trading obligations) are included in the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Contingencies.

Legal.    In the normal course of business, the Company has been named, from time to time, as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, arising in connection with its activities as a global diversified financial services institution. Certain of the actual or threatened legal actions include claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. In some cases, the entities that would otherwise be the primary defendants in such cases are bankrupt or are in financial distress. These actions have included, but are not limited to, residential mortgage and credit crisis related matters. Over the last several years, the level of litigation and investigatory activity (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies has increased materially in the financial services industry. As a result, the Company expects that it may become the subject of increased claims for damages and other relief and, while the Company has identified below any individual proceedings where the Company believes a material loss to be reasonably possible and reasonably estimable, there can be no assurance that material losses will not be incurred from claims that have not yet been asserted or are not yet determined to be probable or possible and reasonably estimable losses.

The Company 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 consolidated financial statements and the Company can reasonably estimate the amount of that loss, the Company accrues the estimated loss by a charge to income. The Company expects future litigation accruals in general to continue to be elevated and the changes in accruals from period to period may fluctuate significantly, given the current environment regarding government investigations and private litigation affecting global financial services firms, including the Company.

The Company incurred litigation expenses of approximately $1,952 million in 2013, $513 million in 2012 and $151 million in 2011. The litigation expenses incurred in 2013 were primarily due to settlements and reserve additions related to various matters, including the Company's February 7, 2014 agreement to settle the Federal Housing Finance Agency as Conservator v. Morgan Stanley et al. litigation for $1,250 million, the Company's January 30, 2013 agreement in principle with the Staff of the Enforcement Division of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) to resolve an investigation related to certain subprime RMBS transactions for $275 million, the Company's February 11, 2014 agreement to settle Cambridge Place Investement Management Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. et al. litigation, and the Company's January 23, 2014 agreement in principle to settle the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. litigation, which were reflected within the Institutional Securities business segment.

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

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

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

On March 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco filed two complaints against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California. These actions are styled Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al., and Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco v. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. et al., respectively. Amended complaints filed on June 10, 2010 allege that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiff of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by the Company in these cases was approximately $704 million and $276 million, respectively. The complaints raise claims under both the federal securities laws and California law and seek, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On August 11, 2011, plaintiff's Securities Act claims were dismissed with prejudice. The defendants filed answers to the amended complaints on October 7, 2011. On February 9, 2012, defendants' demurrers with respect to all other claims were overruled. On December 20, 2013, plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claims were dismissed with prejudice. A bellwether trial is currently scheduled to begin in September 2014. The Company is not a defendant in connection with the securitizations at issue in that trial. At December 25, 2013, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in these cases was approximately $316 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of approximately $5 million. Based on currently available information, the Company believes it could incur a loss for this action up to the difference between the $316 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against the Company, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. The Company may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

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

On October 15, 2010, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Circuit Court of the State of Illinois styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago v. Bank of America Funding Corporation et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of a number of mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sold to plaintiff by the Company in this action was approximately $203 million. The complaint raises claims under Illinois law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On March 24, 2011, the court granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The Company filed its answer on December 21, 2012. On December 13, 2013, the court entered an order dismissing all claims related to one of the securitizations at issue. At December 25, 2013, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $94 million and certain certificates had incurred actual losses of approximately $1 million. Based on currently available information, the Company believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $94 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against the Company, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. The Company may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On July 18, 2011, the Western and Southern Life Insurance Company and certain affiliated companies filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Court of Common Pleas in Ohio, styled Western and Southern Life Insurance Company, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc., et al. An amended complaint was filed on April 2, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The amount of the certificates allegedly sold to plaintiffs by the Company was approximately $153 million. The amended complaint raises claims under the Ohio Securities Act, federal securities laws, and common law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. The Company filed its answer on August 17, 2012. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in May 2015. At December 25, 2013, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $116 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of approximately $1 million. Based on currently available information, the Company believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $116 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against the Company, plus post-judgment interest, fees and costs. The Company may be entitled to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On April 25, 2012, The Prudential Insurance Company of America and certain affiliates filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey styled The Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in connection with the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company is approximately $1 billion. The complaint raises claims under the New Jersey Uniform Securities Law, as well as common law claims of negligent misrepresentation, fraud and tortious interference with contract and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, punitive damages, rescission and rescissionary damages associated with plaintiffs' purchases of such certificates. On October 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, among other things, increases the total amount of the certificates at issue by approximately $80 million, adds causes of action for fraudulent inducement, equitable fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and violations of the New Jersey RICO statute, and includes a claim for treble damages. On March 15, 2013, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 26, 2013, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. At December 25, 2013, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $648 million, and the certificates had not yet incurred actual losses. Based on currently available information, the Company believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $648 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against the Company, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. The Company may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On April 20, 2011, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston filed a complaint against the Company and other defendants in the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts styled Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston v. Ally Financial, Inc. F/K/A GMAC LLC et al. An amended complaint was filed on June 19, 2012 and alleges that defendants made untrue statements and material omissions in the sale to plaintiff of certain mortgage pass-through certificates backed by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly issued by the Company or sold to plaintiff by the Company was approximately $385 million. The amended complaint raises claims under the Massachusetts Uniform Securities Act, the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and common law and seeks, among other things, to rescind the plaintiff's purchase of such certificates. On May 26, 2011, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On October 11, 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on September 30, 2013. The defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint on December 16, 2013. At December 25, 2013, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $79 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of $0.7 million. Based on currently available information, the Company believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $79 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against the Company, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. The Company may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

On August 8, 2012, U.S. Bank, in its capacity as Trustee, filed a complaint on behalf of Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-14SL, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-14SL, Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-4SL and Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-4SL against the Company. The complaint is styled Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-14SL, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC, as successor in interest to Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Inc. and is pending in the Supreme Court of NY. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and alleges, among other things, that the loans in the trusts, which had original principal balances of approximately $354 million and $305 million respectively, breached various representations and warranties. On October 9, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.   On August 16, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 17, 2013, the Company filed its answer to the complaint. On September 26, 2013, and October 7, 2013, the Company and the plaintiffs, respectively, filed notices of appeal with respect to the court's August 16, 2013 decision.  The plaintiff is seeking, among other relief, rescission of the mortgage loan purchase agreements underlying the transactions, specific performance and unspecified damages and interest. Based on currently available information, the Company believes that it could incur a loss in this action of up to approximately $527 million, plus pre- and post-interest, fees and costs.

On September 23, 2013, plaintiffs in National Credit Union Administration Board v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. filed a complaint against the Company and certain affiliates in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that defendants made untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts in the sale to plaintiffs of certain mortgage pass-through certificates issued by securitization trusts containing residential mortgage loans. The total amount of certificates allegedly sponsored, underwritten and/or sold by the Company to plaintiffs was approximately $417 million. The complaint alleges causes of action against the Company for violations of Section 11 and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, violations of the Texas Securities Act, and violations of the Illinois Securities Law of 1953 and seeks, among other things, rescissory and compensatory damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 13, 2013. On January 22, 2014 the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933 and denied defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising under Texas Securities Act and the Illinois Securities Law of 1953. At December 25, 2013, the current unpaid balance of the mortgage pass-through certificates at issue in this action was approximately $225 million, and the certificates had incurred actual losses of $23 million. Based on currently available information, the Company believes it could incur a loss in this action up to the difference between the $225 million unpaid balance of these certificates (plus any losses incurred) and their fair market value at the time of a judgment against the Company, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. The Company may be entitled to be indemnified for some of these losses and to an offset for interest received by the plaintiff prior to a judgment.

us-gaap:CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock